Talk:Asteridae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Asteridae is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

I'm not sure how Wikipedia can have "adopted the APG-II system" when various articles are written by various authors, and subsequently edited by yet other authors, any of whom may not agree with the APG-II system.

I'm particularly bothered by this because the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, which most taxonomic botanists still adhere to (warts and all), does provide for formally named ranks above the rank of order and while botanical classification is certainly in a state of flux, there are ranks above order that are being recognized by systematic botanists. MrDarwin 00:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Very good question. But first of all, nomenclature and taxonomy are separate: that is Sympetalae, Tubiflorae, Asteridae are validly published names and may be freely used. However, each such name has meaning only within a particular taxonomic frame of reference.

For wikipedia to have a degree of peace and quiet it makes sense to adopt only a single frame of reference as standard. For the so-called "taxoboxes" it even is a requirement to have a single standard. But certainly any article on any group under any name should be welcome (as far as I am concerned: to be judged only on its merits), as long as it is made clear how it relates to the currently accepted system. Brya 10:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Brya, you have not answered my question: has somebody decided which taxonomic system Wikipedia will accept, and if so, who? I am new here so please humor what are probably very basic qeustions. It seems to me that adopting "a single frame of reference as standard" or a "currently accepted system" is introducing a POV, something I thought Wikipedia was supposed to avoid. In this particular case, caution must be used with adopting any taxonomic system as plant classification is in a state of flux, there is a wide variety of opinions on group circumscriptions (as well as their names), and any one system is likely to become obsolete shortly. (BTW my brief experience with Wikipedia is that there is no such thing as "peace and quiet" and never will be!) MrDarwin 15:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, somebody did decide that. It was more than one person and it happened before I came along: there are pages in the archives that document this. Yes, any taxonomic system is a PoV, by its very nature. Yes, plant classification is in flux, and always has been. At some point APG II will become obsolete, but wikipedia is likely to be the first to switch to the new system. Personally I am at least moderately in favor of having this as the standard. Certainly this is the taxonomic system with the best qualifications and very many other reference works have adopted it as standard. Also, indeed it does provide at least a measure of peace and quiet. There are plenty of other issues that are more in need of attention. One of the issues that bother me is that the "taxoboxes" only adopt APG to the level of order, and not above that level. Brya 22:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)