Talk:Stigmaria

I suggest removing the image from Bear Valley locality because it actually shows the trunk of a lycopsid, not the stigmarian roots that attached to it. I believe that the specimen shown in the figure is actually described Nickelsen (1987) ., where he talks about it being a vertical (but now deformed) trunk, not a root. Rygel, M.C. (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Combine with Sigillaria and Lepidodendron?
Rather than expand this page, since the Stigmaria is actually just the roots of the Sigillaria and Lepidodendron and shouldn't really have been classified as its own fossil in the first place, wouldn't it be better to just copy and paste this information into both of those pages and delete this one? The content on this page, other than the pictures, is obviously seriously lacking and it would take some work to evolve this page into anything more than a stub. Ckruschke (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I find that it is fine as its own stub since it is a form taxon that could be the roots of several lepidodendrales (including ones other than Sigillaria and Lepidodendron). In a similar way, wikipedia has a page for other form taxons, notably Carboniferous leaves like pecopteris. A contributing factor is that it is a fossil that is found fairly regularly by people. Stocksdale (talk) 28 June 2014

Stigmaria are not roots
I am going to edit this article as Stigmaria are not generally considered to be roots. The "rootlets" attached to the stigmarian systems have been considered to be homologous to leaves, however, some recent work has argued that the rootlets are morphologically roots.Michaplot (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Article Overhaul
So, this article has been bothering me. Because I have access to the resources to do so, I'll be going through and adding sections on Anatomy, Controversies, Homologies, and any more I might think of. I'm also going to add more sources. Feel free to edit as needed. I'll be writing everything up the best I can here, but obviously it's a pretty complex topic. AutomaticPlant (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Godspeed! Abyssal (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Needs checking
The wording of the article is quite poor, some sentences are not well understood or are repetitive. If we compare it with the information given in the article Lepidodendrales, in this article there are many inaccuracies and confusion in the sections on appendages (rootlets) and development. All this should be reviewed. Miguelferig (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)