This
level-4 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 80 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Let me be a bit <add favourite word>. After all of this discussion, what do we have? An article that is not very worth reading, if you are interested in actual plants. What does the article talk about? The different points of view of many differnt botanists. Wikipedia is not the place for discussing opinions, but to present facts. Descriptions are more important than circumsciptions, choosing one or the other is a matter of choice. I'm willing to revamp the article after Asteraceae will be finished. I shall follow the circumscription presented at the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website because I choose to present a modern POV (one of the many?), despite it may sound strange to many and despite it may change dramatically the day after tomorrow, so to say. You may create an article on the history of the definition of Malvaceae, if you think it worth the effort. Or you may stop me if you want. Please, don't revert, just politely say: no, thanks, this is what we all wanted to reach. Aelwyn 14:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday, coincidentally, I copied my list of genera into a CSV file to use to drive bits of my web site, so as a side effect I have a count of the number of genera conveniently to hand. I recognise 249 genera ( List of Genera) (excluding fossil genera), which backtracking gives 243 genera recognised in the 2005 revision by Kubitzki and Bayer. The Angiosperm Phylogeny Website also gives 243 genera, but the list given there doesn't, short of counting names, look as if it matches. (Of course there is no complete agreement on the number of genera - the recent Flora of China rejects Fioria, Talipariti and Pityranthe, but accepts Excentrodendron.)
My (incomplete) list of species is up to 2717 entries. The Angiosperm Phylogeny Website says 4225. Lavateraguy 11:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
After adding species from Guiana, Mexico, northeast Brasil and Cuba my tally of species has now topped 3300. Lavateraguy ( talk) 13:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
As a rather late addendum to the circumscription issues, I just got a copy of the new "Flowering Plant Families of the World" by Heywood et al. They maintain Malvaceae in a strict sense, but only by splitting the "core Malvales" rather finely into a series of smaller and narrowly defined families (Bombacaceae, Byttneriaceae, Brownlowiaceae, Durionaceae, Helicteraceae, Malvaceae, Pentapetaceae, Sparrmanniaceae, Sterculiaceae, and Tiliaceae); while the "traditional" core Malvalean families are recognized, they are defined by Heywood et al. much more narrowly than in traditional classifications. MrDarwin 16:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
There's a proposal to conserve Dombeyaceae (against Pentapetaceae) Lavateraguy 19:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Pentaglottis_sempervirens
link Pentaglottis goes to
on the basis of
Synonyms Pentaglottis Wall.
in that page.
Following on to:
http://www.malvaceae.info/Synonymy/Supra.php?order=Rank&citation=off (b)
Pentaglottis Wall. is a synonym of Melhania Forsk. (sic)
On the wiki Melhania page is Melhania velutina Forssk.
Kew
http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl/record/kew-2508130
says
Synonyms ... Pentapetes velutina Vahl Unresolved L WCSP (in review)
which makes it look like a false connection between Pentapetes and Pentaglottis
Jstor
http://plants.jstor.org/compilation/melhania.velutina
complements this.
My conclusion is that the Melhania (a) page synonym should refer to Pentapetes not Pentaglottis and that therefore the Malvaceae (b) source should too.
Martin Peter Clarke ( talk) 08:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Malvaceae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
This
level-4 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 80 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Let me be a bit <add favourite word>. After all of this discussion, what do we have? An article that is not very worth reading, if you are interested in actual plants. What does the article talk about? The different points of view of many differnt botanists. Wikipedia is not the place for discussing opinions, but to present facts. Descriptions are more important than circumsciptions, choosing one or the other is a matter of choice. I'm willing to revamp the article after Asteraceae will be finished. I shall follow the circumscription presented at the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website because I choose to present a modern POV (one of the many?), despite it may sound strange to many and despite it may change dramatically the day after tomorrow, so to say. You may create an article on the history of the definition of Malvaceae, if you think it worth the effort. Or you may stop me if you want. Please, don't revert, just politely say: no, thanks, this is what we all wanted to reach. Aelwyn 14:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday, coincidentally, I copied my list of genera into a CSV file to use to drive bits of my web site, so as a side effect I have a count of the number of genera conveniently to hand. I recognise 249 genera ( List of Genera) (excluding fossil genera), which backtracking gives 243 genera recognised in the 2005 revision by Kubitzki and Bayer. The Angiosperm Phylogeny Website also gives 243 genera, but the list given there doesn't, short of counting names, look as if it matches. (Of course there is no complete agreement on the number of genera - the recent Flora of China rejects Fioria, Talipariti and Pityranthe, but accepts Excentrodendron.)
My (incomplete) list of species is up to 2717 entries. The Angiosperm Phylogeny Website says 4225. Lavateraguy 11:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
After adding species from Guiana, Mexico, northeast Brasil and Cuba my tally of species has now topped 3300. Lavateraguy ( talk) 13:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
As a rather late addendum to the circumscription issues, I just got a copy of the new "Flowering Plant Families of the World" by Heywood et al. They maintain Malvaceae in a strict sense, but only by splitting the "core Malvales" rather finely into a series of smaller and narrowly defined families (Bombacaceae, Byttneriaceae, Brownlowiaceae, Durionaceae, Helicteraceae, Malvaceae, Pentapetaceae, Sparrmanniaceae, Sterculiaceae, and Tiliaceae); while the "traditional" core Malvalean families are recognized, they are defined by Heywood et al. much more narrowly than in traditional classifications. MrDarwin 16:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
There's a proposal to conserve Dombeyaceae (against Pentapetaceae) Lavateraguy 19:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Pentaglottis_sempervirens
link Pentaglottis goes to
on the basis of
Synonyms Pentaglottis Wall.
in that page.
Following on to:
http://www.malvaceae.info/Synonymy/Supra.php?order=Rank&citation=off (b)
Pentaglottis Wall. is a synonym of Melhania Forsk. (sic)
On the wiki Melhania page is Melhania velutina Forssk.
Kew
http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl/record/kew-2508130
says
Synonyms ... Pentapetes velutina Vahl Unresolved L WCSP (in review)
which makes it look like a false connection between Pentapetes and Pentaglottis
Jstor
http://plants.jstor.org/compilation/melhania.velutina
complements this.
My conclusion is that the Melhania (a) page synonym should refer to Pentapetes not Pentaglottis and that therefore the Malvaceae (b) source should too.
Martin Peter Clarke ( talk) 08:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Malvaceae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)