kinman at HOTMAIL.COM
Mon Oct 8 11:11:27 CDT 2001
I'm not a botanist, but my experience has been that Class Pinopsida has
more frequent usage than Coniferopsida.
As for the phylum (division) name for gymnosperms, I personally prefer
Phylum Pinophyta (which is widely used) over the older Gymnospermae (still
often used), and would prefer either of these over Coniferophyta.
--- Cheers, Ken
>From: Elaine Chittenden <chitt at GROUNDS.MSU.EDU>
>Reply-To: Elaine Chittenden <chitt at GROUNDS.MSU.EDU>
>To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
>Subject: gymnosperm classification
>Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 11:38:03 -0400
>Dear folks interested in gymnosperm classification:
>I hope someone can straighten me out on my confused state regarding
>gymnosperm classification (specifically the division and class name used).
>I want to show the brief version of the taxonomic hierarchy
>(kingdom,division, class, order, family, genus, species) for Sequoiadendron
>giganteum on an interpretive panel. I am stuck on what to use for division
>Is Gymnospermae (in common usage for presumably division) equivalent to
>coniferophyta? Is Pinopsida equivalent to coniferopsida for class? Which
>should be used?
>My references are Mabberley's Plant Book 1997, Krussman Manual of conifers
>1991, Flora North America and Kubitzki 1990 Families and genera of vascular
>plants vol. 1 Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms. Lots of conflicting names at
>Thank you for any response regarding references I have not used yet.
>Elaine Chittenden Email:chitt at gnds.msu.edu
>Collections Manager, W. J. Beal Botanical Garden,
>412 Olds Hall, Michigan State University,
>East Lansing, MI 48824-1047
>(517)432-9182 fax: (517)353-4631
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
More information about the Taxacom