Talk:Secondary xylem

I don't have really strong feelings about this addition, although I would prefer my version. Do note that the use of names such as Gnetophyta and Cycadophyta is a notable PoV, which in a number of cases could be avoided by going to the lowest rank (like Ginkgo biloba, which is universally accepted, unlike the PoV Ginkgophyta). Brya 18:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You will find that I usually try to use botanical terminology and nomenclature very precisely. Use of the terms "Ginkgophyta", "Gnetophyta", and "Cycadophyta" for their respective groups is consistent with the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. Phylocode notwithstanding, I think it's safe to say that most systematic botanists still follow the ICBN when it comes to formal botanical nomenclature.  I did not use a lower rank because both Gnetophyta and Cycadophyta have several extant genera and I like my lists to be consistent, and I am not aware of any other valid names for these taxa at the rank of division. MrDarwin 20:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I see what you mean, in which case point taken: under some classifications these groups may rank no higher than order (Ginkgoales, Cycadales, Gnetales) and another group may represent the division (phylum), e.g., Tracheophyta. MrDarwin 20:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Lots of different classifications have existed, and some will still be held. All in all, only a few genera are involved. Brya 21:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * PS. It is not a matter of being consistent, but on what one is consistent in. Abstracting to the level of division may go over well in some quarters. However, it is much more informative to be as specific as possible, at least in dealing with cases (and especially with exceptions). When I am speaking about Ginkgo biloba I know exactly what I am dealing with, but Ginkgophyta are something else entirely. Surely this will include fossil Ginkgo species, but also any families, orders and subclasses of fossil plants that any palaeobotanist ever included there or may include there in the future. I would be quite uncomfortable about making a precise statement on the characters of a division. Brya 12:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)