Talk:Antarctic flora

Comment

Category:Antarctica seems a bit misleading, because this is mostly what people think of as "Southern Hemisphere", with only one bit about the flora of the Antarctic continent itself. Maybe have a separate Flora of Antarctica to clarify? Stan 00:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Untitled

Yes, very misleading! Gflores ^Talk 03:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. MartinZ02 (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Should these not be merged? They seem to be about essentially the same thing and having two articles is a bit redundant: Antarctic Floristic Kingdom You see what I mean? Interlaker (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge duplicate articles - Frankie1969 (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge I just stumbled across this, but I support the merge. Parts of the two articles appear (virtually) identical, and would benefit from being combined. - Metheglyn (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Support merge. Benny White (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Do not merge, for one is talking about just Antarctic flora and the other is talking about multiple continents and countries. Ethan4e (talk) 4:45 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Do not merge Antarctic Floristic Kingdom is a classification in phytogeography and Antarctic flora is a classification in botany. MartinZ02 (talk)‎ 14:09, 7 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Do not merge There appear to be several related concepts: the Antarctic Floristic Kingdom; the Flora of the Antarctic as defined by the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions, which includes the extant flora of Antarctica; and the Antarctic flora as defined in this article, which includes some components of the flora of India, for example, definitely not included in the other concepts. However, the article needs sorting out. The first part, almost entirely unreferenced, is about the extant flora of regions of the world formerly part of Gondwanaland. The section headed "Flora of Antarctica" is mostly about the extinct flora of Antarctica. I can't see that these belong in the same article. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Malesia vs Macaronesia

It says South America, Madagascar, Africa, India, Macaronesia, Australia, New Zealand, and Antarctica were all part of the supercontinent Gondwana

Macaronesia is a set of volcanic islands in the North Alantic, typically 10m years old whereas Gondwana broke up 180m years ago. I suspect the word should be Malesia but am not sure enough to edit. Tonyf1 (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I too am not sure what was intended (Malesia is a bio-geographical region, rather than a geological or geographical unit, so if it was intended, it's not quite the right term, I think). So for the present I've just removed "Macaronesia", since this is clearly wrong. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Improvements in Progress

Hello! I have planned to take this article and make some improvements. A few things I have noticed that it can be improved on include: clarity of thought, additional sectioning of facts, and improvements to how someone whose specialty is not botany reads and can comprehend the article. There are a few points of possible non-neutral POV with theories which I will look into in order to comply with Wikipedia standards. Thanks. EEcunning (talk) 05:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I have found that some sentences have complicated subject and character agreement, this is something I was to focus on in improving this knowledgeable article. I am working to improve the readability of this article for the average Wikipedian. Thanks. EEcunning (talk) 06:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I have noticed the last pages has lots of broken links. To articles that have been renamed or have not been made at all. I have not been able to find them but if anyone comes across the links, would they add those? Thanks! EEcunning (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The broken links are mostly to extinct genera. There are very few editors working on extinct plants, so it may be a long time before they stop being red (but they shouldn't be removed). (By the way, the ending -xylon usually means that these are form genera based solely on fossilized wood rather than whole plants.) Peter coxhead (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)