Talk:Paleodicots
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why is Ceratophyllales not included with the list of palaeodicot taxa? Lavateraguy 21:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
This article still needs massive cleanup. The concept of "paleodicots" (the usual spelling, BTW), at least by that name, does not exist in the APG system although the article entangles the two. I'm still trying to track down the original introduction of the term, as well as its component groups. MrDarwin 21:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- Good checking. I, too, am going through the Brya articles and finding lots of interesting things that appear to be complete inventions or are not out of the research they claim to be. Soltis and Soltis use the term paleoherb, I believe. KP Botany 03:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
This page should simply be deleted if anyone gets around to it. I will propose it next time I'm in here. KP Botany 03:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I oppose deletion--the term and concept have been used, just not by APG--although as I already said, it needs major cleanup. MrDarwin 13:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've attempted a major rewrite, which I hope will solve some of the problems. MrDarwin 14:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Still trying to find the origin of this term, which is rather obscure. Earliest so far is Leitch et al. 1998. MrDarwin 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
APG II has Chloranthaceae, rather than Chloranthales. But there's a tendency in recent work to give ordinal rank to the clades represented by the unassigned "palaeodicot" families in APG II, i.e. Amborellales, Nymphales and Chloranthales. Lavateraguy 20:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Quite right, thank you for catching that and my other errors (confusing order with division--d'oh!). (I think I need a nap.) MrDarwin 20:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)