Talk:Lycopodium

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Plants High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I found Lycopodium listed as an ingredient in a pill for jet lag and would be interested in the addition of any background on its homeopathic or medicinal purposes. This is a link to the product description which includes the medicinal purposes: http://www.nojetlag.com/jetlag7.html 38.99.151.36 19:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Connie Crosby[reply]

No time to deal with it myself, but this article would benefit from at least a mention of older treatments that included pretty much all species of Lycopodiaceae in the genus Lycopodium. Many of these species can still be found under Lycopodium in field guides and other relatively recent references. And as usual, the article needs to be very explicit as to whose classification scheme it is following, as this has been a very contentious subject through the years and there is still not a clear consensus. MrDarwin 14:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

950 species of Licopodium seem too! Unless you are including other species (from genera Huperzia??), but it should be clarified. --Mario1952 (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomic consensus seems to be moving fairly strongly towards the recognition of a yet-more-tightly circumscribed Lycopodium, with the sections as currently described on this page recognized at generic level. This is consistent with treatments in recent US regional floras (Haines, Flora Novae Angliae, 2011 and Weakley's drafts of Flora of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic States) and I now see that Øllgaard in Rodriguésia has endorsed the division as well. He recognizes 16 genera, which I take to be Austrolycopodium, Dendrolycopodium, Diphasiastrum, Diphasium, Huperzia, Lateristachys, Lycopodiastrum, Lycopodiella, Lycopodium, Palhinhaea, Phlegmariurus, Phylloglossum, Pseudodiphasium, Pseudolycopodiella, Pseudolycopodium, and Spinulum. Does anyone object to our adopting this more narrow circumscription? Choess (talk) 05:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe this was premature. The Flora of China draft doesn't recognize a lot of these segregates (Dendrolycopodium and Spinulum I can understand, but not recognizing Diphasiastrum?) and while I think it's still a good idea to create pages for the 16 genera, there's no point in clearing them out of Lycopodium until combinations are published for the new genera. Choess (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]