Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:44, 25 September 2004

Old talk is at Talk:Magnoliophyta

I agree that having "back links" is a bad idea. There is no end to that, and most back links should be in the text anyway, so a redundancy that adds very little - Marshman 08:22, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Aren't links to prominent containing groups the reason behind the taxoboxes?

Not clear what the question is? Does this relate to the idea of "back links" or a separate issue? BTW, rewrite of "gymnosperms" place here is an improvement - Marshman 19:07, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

What I mean is that it seems to me back links should be inherently redundant, because the more important ones will be listed in the "scientific classification" section of the taxobox anyways. As I understood it, this was one of the main reasons we had the taxoboxes (which are frequently a nuisance, I think at least, so better serve some useful purpose). Thanks for the appreciation, btw. :)

Then my answer is yes. So it seems like we are generally in agreement with User:Maveric149 who removed the back links added by User:Glenn. - Marshman 19:59, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

ARG!!! This is the only page that I found that had[REDACTED] and back links in it! how am I supposed to follow the schema that people have already made?

I gotta make it navagatable! LinuxQuestions.org's wiki...

Jaknouse added an alternate division into three classes (Magnoliopsida - Liliopsida - Rosopsida) into the taxobox. I have taken it down for the moment, since the taxobox is a bad place for discussing different systems, and this change seemed to be based on the understanding that it was the phylogenetic system and included only monophyletic groups. However, the proposed scheme does have the advantage of placing most flowering plants in monophyletic groups, and I'd like to suggest we consider adopting it as the[REDACTED] standard. What it would mean for most flower pages is changing "Magnoliopsida" to "Rosopsida" in the taxobox. -- Josh

I disagree with this approach. I understand that the system is still in flux, but the three-class system is still far closer to accurate than the two-class system, and I feel that we should be revising taxoboxes to try to gradually get closer to reflecting reality. Thus, if I'd taken one system out of the taxobox, it would have been the Liliopsida-Magnoliopsida dichotomy, which is a false one. jaknouse 01:07, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's definitely not false. It represents real structures of the plants in question, and it does reflect their evolutionary relationships. The problem with it is that it includes a paraphyletic group, which many taxonomists object to. But others do not, and in any case, the palaeodicots are also paraphyletic so the three-class system would be just as false. In fact, I've done a close look at alternate class schemes, and there are none that reflect current phylogenies and eliminate paraphyly that I could find.

However, if you re-read what I wrote, you will see that I'm in favor of using the three-class system, or possibly one that splits the palaeodicots even further. I would have proposed it a long time ago, but it was hard enough to get people to stop using Cronquist, and in light of the above it didn't seem worth the effort. Since you've proposed it independently, it may be time to re-evaluate that. But it affects a lot of pages, and isn't something that should be changed without some concensus. -- Josh

A problem is that the APG (I and ) II system(s) don't use formal ranks between Division and Order; perhaps if you don't want to go straight to the full list of orders (perhaps listing the orders in the text, so that links to pages for the orders would be helpful; putting the full list in the taxobox would be infelictious formatting - alternatively link to the lists of orders and families are APWeb), you'd need to replace Classes with something like Subordinate Clades, with Amborellales, Nymphyales, Austrobaileyales, Chloranthales, Ceratophyllales, Magnoliids, Eudicots and Monocots (don't trust my spelling). This isn't a polytomy, the last five froming an euangiosperm node. I'm also not sure about subsuming palaeoherbs into magnoliiids. If you do something like this you'd probably want to worry about the Magnoliopsida and Liliopsida pages, which I see currently have lists of orders.

I note in passing that the Tilia page refers to a Judd system, presumably referring to Judd et al, Plant Systematics: A Phylogenetic Approach. I think this is actually APG I. Do you want to clear references to systems other than APG II (other than in historical discussion) from WikiPedia. You can find some info on various systems at http://www.malvaceae.info/Classification/overview.html. with references. Stewart R. Hinsley

Why are we bolding class names, listed in the table and less stable than common names?)

1. Because they are very helpful for understanding the article;
2. They aren't all listed in the table;
3. Because one at least definitely is stable, as it includes the type genus of the whole set
PLEASE PUT THEM BACK! - MPF 00:31, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

They aren't all listed in the table because they aren't all part of the standard we are using. Some other systems add classes like the Piperopsida and Asteropsida which we haven't mentioned at all, and nobody has complained about their absence. The only stable one is the Liliopsida - the Magnoliopsida, which include the type genus, are in fact one of the least stable, because they vary from the entire dicots to a small group of four orders. There's nothing special about these classes.

I don't see how bolding the class names is helpful for understanding the article. To me, it's only distracting. This is especially true here, because the common names of the groups in question are by far more common, constant, universal, and useful. In short, the bolding is idiosyncratic, and appears to be based on false assumptions about how important mentioning these particular classes is. But if you think it's so mysteriously critical, I'm not going to waste my time trying to stop you from bolding them. - Josh

The text changes you made were an improvement over my copy edits and made the "need" for bolding less obvious. Still, I think it is generally a good idea to bold the major subdivisions (s.l.) of a taxon (and this is done elsewhere) as these are essentially technical terms (see Technical Terms) at this level. Whether they appear in the taxobox or not is immaterial; whether they are "stable" or not is immaterial. The bolding sets them out as both important and technical in this article; separate from older subdivision names which are technical but now unimportant in this article. Also the taxon should be repeated as part of the bolding - Marshman 16:49, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Problems with list of most speciose families

With regard to the list of most speciose families, according the Bayer & Kubitzki, Malvaceae, in Kubitzki et al, "The Families and Genera of Vascular Plants V" (2003), Malvaceae (sensu APG) has more than 4300 species, which would put it ahead of the 7th entry on the list; the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website (linked at the article) says 4225. I'm not editing the article, as species counts from different sources may not be comparable. Note also that if Apiaceae (Umbelliferae) and Araliaceae are merged (as has been proposed) the combined number of species in nearly 5000. Stewart R. Hinsley, http://www.malvaceae.info, http://www.meden.demon.co.uk PS: Lamiaceae, per Angiosperm Phylogeny Website, has 7173 species. The old Scrophulariaceae was speciose enough to qualify for the list, but it's been chopped into smaller pieces.

I see no problem with editing the Malvaceae in at this time. I think the point of that part of the Misplaced Pages article is not to have exact, comparable numbers (those can go in the family articles with proper citations and other notes), but to give the reader a sense of how plant diversity is distributed among the families. - Marshman 00:01, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For what its worth, no family (other than perhaps the likes of Ginkgoaceae or Amborellaceae!) can ever have an exact number of species cited, as there will always be valid differences of opinion between different botanists as to whether various taxa are distinct at species rank or not; it is best to cite ranges from highest to lowest among reputable authors. A give-or-take of 10-15% difference between authors is quite normal (e.g. the 600-650 total I've cited at Pinophyta). - MPF 08:32, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are right. Although I would accept such figures as we cite as always only approximate, we certainly could either state that fact or give a range as you suggest. The nice thing about a range is that edits will tend to be made to only one of the numbers at any given time. And yeh, you temperate-zoners would change that to Mallow family. The only mallow I've seen is a "False Mallow" ~ 8^)- Marshman 03:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I guess that just reflects the temperate origins of the 19th century botanists who named all the families - the family name is usually cited from the name of the type genus, in this case Malva, as this is the one genus that by definition can't be transferred to another family (or if it is, the old family name disappears, like Taxodiaceae). On the same grounds, I guess coffee family for Rubiaceae should be changed to madder (Rubia) family, against any possibility that any botanist ever decides that Coffea doesn't belong in the Rubiaceae. - MPF 11:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Common names are common names. I'm opposed to setting rules regarding common names (otherwise the cease to be "common" names). If other than the type Genus is used commonly for a common name, that is what we should go with (or include more that one). Otherwise we would have the poa family instead of grass and the cyperus family instead of sedge. What you are calling the "usual" practice is the rule for establishing the scientific family name. - Marshman 16:38, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But equally, calling the Xaceae the 'y family' if y is no longer in the Xaceae is risky - whereas calling it the 'x family' remains safe. That's what I was thinking - MPF 17:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As said, there is no standard for vernacular names of families. If you were to go for x family you have to lose "daisy family" - daisy, unqualified, is Bellis, not Aster, Aster being Michaelmas daisy or just aster. In some cases you can use terms like legume family (Fabaceae), composite family (Asteraceae), umbellifer family (Apiaceae) or labiate family (Lamiaceae); but there are problems in that the family bounds could be changed, e.g. ISTR classifications in which composites were broken into more than one family. OTOH, dead-nettle family for Lamiaceae is less than ideal as well. Other possible usages include aroid, bromeliad, gesneriad and palm families, where we have vernacular names which correspond to the families as a whole. Stewart R. Hinsley

If they're any use, figures from The New RHS Dictionary of Gardening (but note they are Cronquist taxonomy):

1. Asteraceae: 21,000 species
2. Orchidaceae: 17,500
3. Fabaceae: 16,400
4. Poaceae: 9,000
5. Rubiaceae: 10,400
6. Euphorbiaceae: 7,950
7. Malvaceae: 1,550
8. Cyperaceae: 3,600

Also . . .

Lamiaceae: 5,600

Liliaceae: 4,640 (includes several other families now usually split off)

Scrophulariaceae: 4,450

Myrtaceae: 3,850

Ericaceae: 3,350

Apiaceae: 3,100

Rosaceae: 3,100

You give no date for this source, so I cannot see how we could use it reliably. - Marshman

Sorry, 1992, so it is 12 years old now and starting to show it :-) MPF 17:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)