Talk:Magnoliopsida

Children

Why is the word "children" used within these templates? Wouldn't "members" be better? yes. Also, the text area should probably read "notes" instead of "text" -- the whole article is already text. One last thing; actual article content really should be placed before lists, so I suggest placing the description first in normal wiki-style and have the "notes" section be technical notes or better yet a bulleted list of notable characteristics.

The term children was adapted from ITIS, but any term that achieves the purpose would be just as good. Similarly I feel no particular commitment to the word "text". In one sense the "placemnt" is a sort of definition in taxonomy, and thus seems just fine where it is. It seems to have more visual appeal than having the information strung-out in a usual sentence format. What you say about the contents of "notes" is also helpful, and it really would be nice to show descriptive characteristics of a taxon. In the short run, however, this is ending up in attempts to reconcile traditional taxonomy with cladistics. -- Eclecticology, Monday, June 10, 2002

For longer entries that also have common names there could also be a split of content between the scientific name and the most common, common name. The more technical lists, taxonomy, detailed evolution and descriptions could then be placed with the scientific names and the more general lay descriptions, relationship to humans, game info, etc. in the common name page. See aves and bird for an example. It would also be interesting to note any differences in usage between the scientific names and the common names within the common name page. See Jellyfish for an example. This way we wouldn't be violating any implied "English only" wikipedia naming convention (because we would be disambiguating the two so that the taxonomy works right) while at the same time ensuring wider access to these articles to non-scientists. --maveric149

I generally agree. It avoids the problems that come from having everything either under the Latin or common name. Eclecticology

Merging

In view of the confusion that runs rampant in wikipedia it would be silly to remove this small beacon of light.

Besides why merging with dicotyledon? Looks like a random choice. Brya 11:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Do not merge. "Magnoliopsida" is THE current, more scientific botanical name for a taxonomical class, decided by the International Association for Plant Taxonomy. "Dicotyledon" is the common name, based on the much older Cronquist system. These are distinct words used under different contexts, hence it would be a BAD idea to merge.--Endroit 20:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge. Or redirect Magnoliopsida in all taxoboxes to Dicotyledones. Current situation causes difficulties in navigation on current (more or less consistent) tree of taxa. Other possible solution is to treat more classes (e. g. Rosopsida(≈Eudicotyledones) and Magnoliopsida (sensu stricto), as in german Wikipedia).--213.247.213.207 21:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

A point worth noting is that the taxoboxes claim to follow APG II. Dicotyledones is a group that emphatically is rejected by APG II, so that using this is incompatible with the stated purpose. APG II instead recognises eudicots. Brya 17:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, no merging, but then we should more precisely follow APG, i. e. (1) Make Dicotyledones non-taxoboxed article like current Magnoliopsida with links to Eudicots, Magnoliids, etc.; (2) Change list of classes in Magnoliophyta (Flowering plant) article taxobox to one consistent with APG; (2a) Collect all information about dicots splitting to the Classification section in Magnoliophyta, possibly with a cladogram. (3) If possible, add some text to the articles Eudicots, Magnoliids, Palaeodicots, etc. so that they will consist something more than list of orders.--213.247.213.207 22:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Do not merge "Magnoliopsida" is not necessarily equivalant to dicotyledons. There are (at least) 5 possible circumscriptions of Magnoliopsida

1) Equivalent to Magnoliophyta, i.e. dividing the division (phylum) into one class.

2) Rquivalent to dicots, either accepting paraphyletic taxa, or if it turns out that dicots are holophyletic (see Goremykin et al papers).

3) Equivalent to palaeodicots, accepting paraphyletic taxa.

4) Equivalent to magnoliids, in which case there would be 6 to 8 classes in toto.

5) Equivalent to palaeodicot euangiosperms, again accepting paraphyletic taxa.

S.R. Hinsley, Lavateraguy 17:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we should merge because the Magnoliopsida page has substantially less information than the Dicotyledones page. I propose merging them so that there will be one good, easy resource. Into which article is another matter, but I suggest Dicotyledones because it has more information, and refers to the common name. Animalia is under animal. Tracheophyta is under vascular plant. we should try to merge the pages in some way, or at least have taxoboxes on both pages. I have noticed that there is great inconsistency in this matter, and it would be best in my opinion if we resolved it by combining the articles. VashiDonsk 04:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not merge but I agree with some of the other suggestions such as: (1) make taxoboxes point to eudicot or magnoliid, not Magnoliopside, and (2) make those articles more informative.

Do not merge; as pointed out by Lavateraguy, "Magnoliopsida" can mean any of several different things, depending upon whose classification you are talking about. It most certainly is not the same as "dicots" except in one of those circumscriptions. (The taxoboxes are another headache entirely, and this article and discussion show one reason why they are problematic.) MrDarwin 16:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I guess we shouldn't merge. Maybe we could acheive more consistency by having all the taxoboxes point the same place, and having the page that they all do point to point to the right subgroup. Wikipedia needs a standard for taxynomy. VashiDonsk 01:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Could we have a disambiguation template then? It took a while to get back on the taxoboxed pages when I ended up here. Bendž|Ť 12:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

General Info

This page has lots of technical detail but is lacking a general description useful to a non-technical user. -- cmh 01:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge redux

OK, I'm going to revisit this old debate. Specifically, I'm going to propose that Magnoliopsida be turned into a redirect to Dicotyledon. I think that the latter already has enough information about what "Magnoliopsida" means and such, for example APG and Cronquist circumscriptions, although it could be expanded if people think that is needed (I certainly most often run into Cronquist or APG or variants of the latter, so I'd lean towards a mere mention of other systems rather than trying to go into detail). My reasoning is to try to straighten out the taxoboxes. My previous suggestion that taxoboxes point to eudicot, magnoliid, or one of the smaller groups went nowhere. Fixes involving Rosopsida, Magnoliidae, etc seem to make things worse, in terms of the problems of discrepencies between different systems. The piping of Magnoliopsida to Dicotyledon (like this: Magnoliopsida) is used in perhaps half the taxoboxes, which has been my preferred solution (in the sense of not seeing a better way), but many taxoboxes just say Magnoliopsida without piping and the pipe seems kind of like a workaround anyway. I don't think that making Magnoliopsida a redirect to Dicotyledon means that the two terms are always synonymous, any more than having Pepys Diary redirect to Samuel Pepys means that those two terms are. It just means that: (1) the Dictotyledon article is where we discuss the term and/or concept magnoliopsida, and (2) in taxoboxes we'll link to Magnoliopsida for all the non-monocot angiosperms (which is already partially current practice). OK, fire away. (Just try to say what you think we should do, not just what is wrong with X, Y, or Z). Kingdon 15:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised that this got no reaction, but rather than beg people for input, I guess I'll be WP:BOLD and make the change. If people want to discuss further, go for it. Kingdon 19:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been discussed before, and the cosensus was "Do not merge". I don't think any of our opinions have changed. At least mine didn't.--Endroit 20:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was one of the people who had said "do not merge" back then, so my opinion changed (for whatever that's worth). Anyway, what are your suggestions about how the taxoboxes should be written? Magnoliopsida (with a pipe)? Magnoliopsida (plain)? eudicot/magnoliid? Something else? Right now I think we're probably about 50/50 between the first two. Kingdon 21:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The basic APG layout from Dicotyledon should go here too. I always arrive here via the taxobox and have to click around to get deeper in the system (e.g. to see whether something is eurosids I or II). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarify the Systems

After the section on the Cronquist system comes a section on Dahlgren and Thorne systems, but only the first sentence of this section refers to Dahlgren and Thorne systems. The next sentence goes back to the Cronquist system. And the third sentence expands this to "Cronquist-based systems" plural. I am sure that many people already know what all this means, but the section should be re-written for people who do not already know it. Colin McLarty (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)