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

Plants Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article about fern genus Polystichum may certainly be improved a lot, nevertheless i liked to say thanks to it's creator and coeditors! Not being experienced in editing i do prefer to add suggestions for corrections and improvements here at talk page before changing the article myself. 1, at chapter "Former species" the binomen Polystichum auriculatum (L) C.Presl is given as (apparently accepted) synonym of Dryopteris auriculata (L) Kuntze. In fact both taxonomic combinations are most likely to be treated as synonyms to accepted Nephrolepis cordifolia (L) C.Presl, the so called "Tuber ladder fern", following Flora of China vol.2-3, 2013, which is cited as source at web-references "The Plant List" and "Tropicos". http://efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=2&taxon_id=233500798 Consequently P. auriculatum is to be cited as outdated synonym to N. cordifolia and the source has to be changed.

2, at chapter "Former species" binomen Polystichum lepidocaulon (Hook.) J.Sm. is given as (apparently accepted) Cyrtomidictyum lepidocaulon (Hook.) Ching. Once again both websites, "The Plant list" plus "Tropicos" are incorrect, having common source of information "Flora of China vol. 2-3, 2013", but are contradicting by ignoring the fact that Cyrtomidictyum is integrated within Polystichum at source. http://efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=2&taxon_id=242340580 Consequently Polystichum lepidocaulon was not to be displayed as former species of Polystichum, but better remarked that there are different opinions and treatments as the taxonomic combination into separate genus Cyrtomidictyum. The concerning link should be changed. --Stamnariophilus 09:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stamnaria0568 ( talk • contribs)