Latest comment: 15 years ago by Liné1 in topic Alismatales

Please note that this is a quite unusual classification, based on a German book (latest edition 2002?). Even more noteworthy, it is a different classification than that used at the next higher rank. Brya 13:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you have an online reference, as to how you think it should be. Used taxonomy is probably from USDA or something. The reference given on Liliopsida page, is not using the same as we do. --Kempm 13:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, the reference given on the Liliopsida page is fairly close to APG II (2003) (it is a Germanized version of APG II), which is the widely used system. The APG II article itself is online here.
Unless I am very much mistaken, the taxonomy used here is that of the German language book by Sitte (2002), or is a variation based on it. However the page at the next higher rank is following Cronquist (1981), by-and-large. Brya 14:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll put this on my personal ToDo list. Thx. Of course if you feel comfortable with the templating etc on this site feel free to make the change. But it's not as easy as you might think at first glance ;) --Kempm 15:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am sure templates are always finicky things to deal with. However, that is not what I am worried about, but rather the politics of such a change. There might well be a war. Brya 15:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there's a reference placed that should give evidence to the content, but the reference does not... then the information is useless. If you have information AND a reference then your information is at least better :) --Kempm 15:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neither the information nor the references are secret, but there is some resistance to doing the logical thing. The French wikipedia adopted a sensible rendition a long while ago. The English wikipedia is still fighting this. Brya 17:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
THIS PAGE IS A SHAME. I am furious agains wikispecies. The classification is NOT provided, which is absurd AND the classification is totally UNUSAL. The references provided have NOTHING to do with the article.
Wikispecies will put shame on all wikipedia if it continues to use strange unprecised classification.
NOT cordialy Liné1 06:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello everybody! Sorry about my english, but there is a problem with order Alismatales. It is in subclass Alismatidae and Liliidae too. hu:User_vita:Pipi69e

I would suggest deleting subclass Alismatidae as it is consisting solely of Alismatales. Here is yet another problem of Linnean taxonomy versus cladistic systematics... The Commelinidae seems to be monophyletic (synapomorphy eg. fluorescent derivatives of ferulic acid in stems) while the rest of the monocots are paraphyletic...
The problem, is that the classification followed is not provided!
Are we talking of classical or phylogenetical classification?
Before talking of something, we must know what we are talking of!
Liné1 13:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Return to "Liliopsida" page.