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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Okanagan, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OkanaganWikipedia:WikiProject OkanaganTemplate:WikiProject OkanaganOkanagan articles
A fact from Azolla primaeva appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 September 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
The article currently states "At the time of Dr Arnold's paper was published, four species of Azolla had been described from the fossil record" and then "with the placement of A. primaeva into the genus Azolla it was actually the first species to be described from the fossil record". I don't understand how these can both be true - surely if four species had already been described, this was the fifth species, not the first. Smartse (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He was noting that, as A. primaevum was first published as a species in 1890 by Penhallow (in Dawson), it was the oldest description, but it was not realized that it belonged in Azolla until Arnolds 1955 re-description, at which point four other species had been described.--Kevmin§ 19:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, thanks for explaining. Smartse (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
