Talk:Dicotyledon

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

Suffixes

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.

Obsolete naming

Dicotyledon 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)

"Schoolbook Classification"

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 [1] (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)

Merging Magniolopsida

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)

Quality/Importance

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)

Formatting

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 2.0.0.9. 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.

This isn't a criticism of what is here, I'm not qualified to do that, but is instead a request for more. maturin (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A table has been added concerning that. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 17:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

What does "dicotyl" mean?

It redirects here but the word does not appear in the article. Equinox (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It's just a short form of "dicotyledon", much less used in my experience. Added to the lead with a reference. Good catch! Peter coxhead (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)