|WikiProject Plants||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
Old talk is at Talk:Magnoliopsida
I see that both the cladist and Cronquist lists show arder names ending in -ales. That's fine. There is a single exception: "Boraginales" where the family name "Boraginaceae" is used instead. Was this intentional, or simply an oversight? ☮ Eclecticology 16:48, 2003 Oct 15 (UTC)
It was intentional. The Boraginaceae should definitely be included in the classification, but for some reason they tend to be treated as a family of uncertain placement rather than given their own order. A few other families are similar, but they're all very small and poorly known. If you have a good idea for what to do with this, I would be grateful.
is an obsolete category, since some of the plants that have two cotyledons are more remotely related to the (large) majority of dicotyledons than are the monocotyledons. See for example UCB. Note that Magnolia, which is pictured in the taxobox, is not among Eudicotyledonae. --Etxrge 06:35, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The dicots are not obsolete. They're paraphyletic, and so some biologists don't use them, but others still do. This is all discussed in the article.
I feel that it is an error to list Rosales as being located in with the magnoliales. The text book I am currently using splits Eudicots and the magnolliid complex into two seperate groups, but places Rosales within Eudicots. Probably the 2 should not be combined as there is currently much confusion about where exactly the magnoliids belong. My text refers to them as "nonmonocot, noneudicot, angsperms"(Judd, A Phylogenetc Approach) Rosales should not be under magnoliids, they belong under Eudicots, as they are core eudicots. They are listed as belonging to the mangoliapsida class which I think is an error. (Jesse Nelson, WIU)
- Not merely paraphyletic, but polyphyletic, so the term if it is used by professionals either is used in the old-fashioned sense, or to mean eudicots. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I like the useful comparison between monocots and dicots at the end of the article, as monocot/dicot is if out of favor still a very commonly referred-to distinction and their characteristics are required. However, since it's no longer 'good' knowledge, I suggest adding a rationale for the last section, such as 'though now considered by most cladisticians a misleading classification system, the classical contrast between monocots and dicots remains useful for both practical and historical reasons and their characteristics as presented in the common schoolbook are as follows:" or something.
Hm. I was not aware that monocot/dicot was out of favor; I'm taking an upper-level plant physiology course at my university and they still use the "obsolete" distinction. I came here through the Eudicot article, and although the articles say that the dicotyledon classification was paraphyletic, and therefore unfavorable, there aren't really any examples of "dicots" whose closest relatives produce embryos with a single cotyledon. Examples, as well as additional references, would be most helpful. Also, to the user who posted above: please remember to sign your name with four tildes (~) after posting. Murphy2010 (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Seems to me like the "textbook comparison" should be between monocots and eudicots, and there isn't much need to go into detail on the others (which are, after all, smaller in number). I'm not really sure what you are asking for in terms of examples, but magnoliids (say, magnolia or Asarum or Asimina) have trimerous flowers yet do not have parallel leaf veins. Is that what you mean? As for references, how about  (doi:10.1073/pnas.0708072104)? But again, I'm not sure what kinds of references you want. Kingdon (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Do not merge: At least according to the Magnoliopsida article, the term Magnoliopsida does not necessarily mean dicotyledons - it can be angiosperms, or even part of the magnoliids. There's more discussion at Talk:Magnoliopsida Kingdon 16:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Do not merge; as pointed out in the Magnoliopsida article and discussion, "Magnoliopsida" can mean any of several very different things, depending on whose classification system is being discussed. MrDarwin 16:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
No to MRG Nasz 02:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
OOPS! I MERGED IT! I'll delete the stuff. Wissahickon 04:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC).stupid.idiot.mad.brainless.crazy.useless.busybody.naggy.hahahahaha!!!!!blahblahblah:D
Whether this article is the important one, or eudicot/magnoliid/etc, or both, kind of depends on how we organize the material. But eudicots and magnoliids are both large and familiar groups of plants, and we could have more material (and better-organized material) about things like common traits, their molecular biology, adaptations, etc, etc. Kingdon 00:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Can someone more talented at HTML than I please edit the page so that there isn't a huge amount of white space inbetween "...further divided." and "The following lists..."? It really cuts down on theusefulness of the article. Portalthinking (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing more than the usual between-paragraph whitespace using Firefox 184.108.40.206. But I did get rid of the <div style="clear: both"></div> which had been there. Does this help? Removing it seems to work for me. I think that div had been intended to make sure that the table of APG and Cronquist subgroups aren't next to the photo or the taxobox, but there is now enough text so that won't happen anyway. But if I'm wrong about that, someone please advise. Kingdon (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Request More General Information
As a lay person, I would value additional generalised information written for the public. I came here from the link on the monocot page, where there is the scientific information as well as quite interesting stuff on geographical spread, economic value and lots of common names of plants I recognise. I was hoping to find similar information here so I could compare dicot and monocot in general terms rather than taxonomic.