Talk:Q24512790
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Vladis13 in topic topic
Autodescription — Q24512790
description: encyclopedic article
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “Q24512790” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
topic edit
Q24512790 looks like an article about "Jungermannieæ" ( = liverwort (Q189808) ). It is possibly an article about Jungermanniopsida (Q149843) and Haplomitriopsida (Q1051622) combined, but it is clearly not an article about the order Jungermanniales (Q141240), since the article covers several taxa that do not belong to that group. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- w:ru:Юнгерманниевые says about this article in ЭСБЕ (en. "BEED"), it's historical of study of taxon. This article was wroten in 1904 year, when it's was so. Such issues can be occur. Like was for s:ru:ЕЭБЕ/Василиск, where was found that in one century fully was changed taxones for several families of serpents. --Vladis13 (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- I do not know the word "BEED", so I do not understand what you are saying. What is "BEED", and why does it matter? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- This article from Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (Q602358), which is Russian abbr. "ЭСБЕ", English "BEED". --Vladis13 (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining. Why do you say it is about the Jungermanniales? What tells you this is an article about the Jungermanniales and not the Jungermanniopsida? The name given to the group in the article is Jungermannieæ, which does not indicate taxonomic rank. The taxa mentioned in the article coincide (mostly) with the Jungermanniopsida, and not with the Jungermanniales. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Because, cleary that the text of s:ru:ЭСБЕ/Юнгерманниевые (Q24512790) is about w:ru:Юнгерманниевые (Q141240). You can use Google Translate to compare them. As I said, this text relevant for its writen date. If present systematic is different, you can freely add the linking to more exactly topic item. --Vladis13 (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Please note, I'm not biologist, I only export interlinks from ruwikisource by bot. Better, I call an editor of ruwikipage and biologist @VladXe. Влад, посмотрите пожалуйста, статья рувики действительно отличается от англовики w:en:Jungermanniales. Разница уже в первой строке: "порядок печеночных мхов, включающий как слоевцовые мхи (например, Metzgeria, Pellia, Aneura)", похоже скопированой из этой устаревшей статьи ЭСБЕ. --Vladis13 (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- No, that isn't clear at all. The ru.WP article uses three different meanings of the taxon, and doesn't seem to know which classification it is using. It presents three different versions all in a single article. The Latin Jungermannieæ best fits with Jungermanniopsida, which is w:ru:Юнгерманиевые печёночники. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining. Why do you say it is about the Jungermanniales? What tells you this is an article about the Jungermanniales and not the Jungermanniopsida? The name given to the group in the article is Jungermannieæ, which does not indicate taxonomic rank. The taxa mentioned in the article coincide (mostly) with the Jungermanniopsida, and not with the Jungermanniales. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- This article from Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (Q602358), which is Russian abbr. "ЭСБЕ", English "BEED". --Vladis13 (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- I do not know the word "BEED", so I do not understand what you are saying. What is "BEED", and why does it matter? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)