Talk:Eudicots
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Eudicots 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. |
[edit] Cladonomy
This is a "nice" example of Cladonomy. Berton 13:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Importance/Quality
Whether this article is the important one, or Dicotyledon, or both, kind of depends on how we organize the material. But eudicots are one of the largest and most familiar groups of plants, and we could have more material (and better-organized material) about things like common traits of eudicots, their molecular biology, adaptations, etc, etc. Kingdon 23:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Taxoboxes for clades?
I'm removing the taxobox because "Eudicots" is not a class nor a taxon at any level. I'm not sure if "taxoboxes" have been added to any of the other unranked clades of the APG II system but feel free to discuss it at either Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. MrDarwin 16:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- The are lots and lots of clades in the taxoboxes. They are part of the tree. In this case they can be situated as plants and eukaryotes. Then, there is the need of a taxobox. "Clades" are considered "unranked taxons". They are not out of the tree! 80.30.238.120 11:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- There are plenty of taxoboxes for unranked clades. I'm especially thinking of the higher groupings of animals and protista, although browsing around also saw at least one case where someone removed a taxobox (without explanation, so it is hard to know what the reasoning was). Insects might be another case where recent systematic work uses clades rather than ranked taxa (I'm far from an expert on that one, though). I guess I don't see the argument against taxoboxes, especially if there seems to be some modicum of agreement about what the clades are. Kingdon 18:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's a bit weird personally, and would generally like to see taxoboxes used only for ranked clades--you know, other stuff exists not being an argument. KP Botany 19:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole point of the taxoboxes in the first place was to keep track of taxa. The problem with the taxobox as it now appears in this article is that it is confusing taxa with clades. Yes, clades can be taxa, but that means they have to be given (1) a taxonomic rank and (2) a name. And now the perfectly good orders are being called clades--which they only are in the context of their definition and circumscription by the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group. MrDarwin 21:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- My bad, I meant taxa! I don't want it used for mixed clades and taxa, simply the name at the appropriate taxonomic rank according to an authority. I think it's weird to use them for mixed systems, constitutes original research, and confuses the heck out of users, particularly without authorities for the nomenclature in the taxobox, there is no way we should be mixing clades that are not firmly in the hierarchy. KP Botany 21:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole point of the taxoboxes in the first place was to keep track of taxa. The problem with the taxobox as it now appears in this article is that it is confusing taxa with clades. Yes, clades can be taxa, but that means they have to be given (1) a taxonomic rank and (2) a name. And now the perfectly good orders are being called clades--which they only are in the context of their definition and circumscription by the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group. MrDarwin 21:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's a bit weird personally, and would generally like to see taxoboxes used only for ranked clades--you know, other stuff exists not being an argument. KP Botany 19:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- There are plenty of taxoboxes for unranked clades. I'm especially thinking of the higher groupings of animals and protista, although browsing around also saw at least one case where someone removed a taxobox (without explanation, so it is hard to know what the reasoning was). Insects might be another case where recent systematic work uses clades rather than ranked taxa (I'm far from an expert on that one, though). I guess I don't see the argument against taxoboxes, especially if there seems to be some modicum of agreement about what the clades are. Kingdon 18:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
KP, I didn't mean it as a criticism of you or your comments and didn't realize it read that way--my comments were directly solely at the taxobox in the article and the way it was presenting its information--which had been added & edited by another editor entirely. MrDarwin 23:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Mr. Darwin, I wasn't worried about being criticized so much as being clear, particularly after saying so many times that I want taxonomies in taxoboxes to be attached to specific references, I don't want to be seen as saying they should be more mixed than they already are--something I consider very problematic about taxoboxes in general. Adding APGII clades to the various plant taxonomies already contained in the taxoboxes is, imo, a step in the wrong direction. I was more horrified by what I said, than worried about being criticized. KP Botany 03:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
