Talk:List of carnivorous plants

Untitled

Why even include "Paleoaldrovanda" as anything other than a footnote if it has turned out to just be insect eggs? Not to mention many of the "genera" that exist solely due to pollen grain fossils? Must be the only one who thinks those are totally speculative and ridiculous to include on an encyclopedia. Case in point being Paleoaldrovanda, I'm sure it isn't even close to the only instance of a gross misnaming and classification. And naming genera and species based on slight pollen grain differences, seriously taxonomists?

That said, these are carnivores so I'm sure any other opinions would be along the lines of "everything is a separate species, always!!!"... (Not intended to "troll", just that few other loose groupings of plants get even close to the level of scrutiny that these do, to the point that its probably pretty difficult to justify at this point in time.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:200:B69E:F17B:9F02:73CC:C140 (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Formatting

The list needs formatting as per the standards for scientific names:

1. The authorities should be in smaller font
2. As these are names under the ICNafp, the date should be omitted.

Peter coxhead (talk) 09:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)