 | This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The contents of the Isoetopsida page were merged into Lycopodiopsida on 19 October 2019. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Classification edit
The classification of Lycopodiales is a contentious topic, especially considering that older classifications included all the species here split into two families (Lycopodiaceae and Huperziaceae) in a single large genus, Lycopodium--in fact many field guides and other relatively recent references still treat Lycopodium in the broad sense. The trend seems to be more towards splitting Lycopodium into several genera lately, but this and related articles need to be much more explicit as to whose classification scheme they are following. MrDarwin 14:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- By agreement at WP:PLANTS, we are now using the Pteridophyte Phylogeny Group classification of 2016 (PPG I) for article titles and taxoboxes, while (of course) discussing other systems in the articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Hatnote edit
The hatnote and the lead need work. "This article is about a group of plants that excludes the extinct zosterophylls. For the more broadly defined group that includes the zosterophylls, see Lycophyte." Most groups of plants exclude the extinct zosterophylls, so that is an inadequate statement. The error is compounded by the statement that "Lycophyte" includes zosterophylls, followed by lycophyte included in the list of alternative names for Lycopodiopsida. Plantsurfer 11:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)