Jump to content

Talk:Cronquist system

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No clue whatsoever if this article is correct. Paraphrased from some google searches and the existing article on angiosperms. -- Wapcaplet 02:08 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The theory of numbering the list and sublists is that it's done exactly the same way as in Cronquist, facilitates checking that it accurately represents his system. Stan 06:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[caviat: I am not a botanist and definitely not a taxonomist] There seems to be a handful of missing families/orders here:

Acoraceae (Calamus family), parent=Arales

Myristicaceae (Nutmeg family), parent=Magnoliales

Sonneratiaceae (Sonneratia) parent=Magnoliales

Fagales (containing Betulaceae=Birch family and Fagaceae=Beech family) parent=Hamamelidae

Hippocrateaceae (Hippocratea) parent=Celastrales

Elaeagnaceae (Oleaster) parent=Rhamnales

Asclepiadaceae (Milkweed) parent=Gentianales

Fouquieriaceae (Ocotillo) parent=Solanales

I just spent a few hours trying to programmatically reconcile this article with the USDA PLANTS database's classification scheme (see http://plants.usda.gov/classification.html and click on "Family" then "Display Results) which is supposed to be based on Cronquist for the angiosperms. USDA uses alphabetical order, however. I don't have a copy of Cronquist but did borrow it from the library a week or two ago & have a copy of the contents page at home & can verify the above omissions when I get a chance.

This list has a whole bunch of families not in the USDA list, not sure why (suspect either they aren't found in the U.S.A. or the USDA taxonomists are "lumpers").

The list also is missing all the common names for families. I have no experience editing Wikipedia pages, however... I could email someone with my info. (it is in XML format e.g. <order name="Fagales"><family name="Betulaceae" cname="Birch" /><family name="Fagaceae" cname="Beech" /></order> )

Arghman 00:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list is based on Cronquist's book and should only be checked against that. In my experience the USDA list is full of holes, so it's not that useful as a check. Of course, I shouldn't say anything, since it seems clear I completely missed Fagales and its families. :-) Stan 17:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recommend adding "common" names of families, because there really is no such thing and I don't think it would add anything useful here. At best there are common names for some of the better-known members of the families. Common names of the more common members of particular families would be appropriate in the articles on those families, but "common names" (I would call them "illustrative names") for families tend to be made-up and inconsistent from one reference to the next. MrDarwin 17:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of an exaggeration - there are quite a few families that have traditional common names, and they are widely used in printed work. For instance, the Jepson manual puts the common name right after the Latin, and I've heard Jepson is pretty authoritative... :-) Anyway, I can take or leave them for this list, since its purpose is to be a more exact representation than the vague "other systems sometimes" mentions found in many of our articles. Stan 18:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just browsing through:
  • I think that this is / should be based on a single book only. I have the feeling that the two books by Cronquist may not be exactly the same, not when it comes down to detail?
  • The general point should be made that there are many authors, who use this system but in an adapted version. In many ways the Cronquist system is a family of systems rather than one system.
  • Common names for families don't really belong here. It is not easy to say how many families have a common name and how widely that is used. For examples do the Australians use the same names as the British, etc. ?
Brya 15:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My 1981 Cronquist book is at work, the 1988 book at home, so I can't directly compare the two, but I believe the later book contains a condensed version of Cronquists's classification system (i.e., without detailed discussion of families) that does not differ substantially in its classification. The 1988 book has more discussion on the angiosperms as a whole. As Brya states, the Cronquist system has had varying degrees of acceptance; much of it was controversial (such as Cronquist's overly broad circumscription of Liliaceae) and very few (if any) subsequent authors accepted it in its entirety. MrDarwin 16:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence says: "The system counts 321 families and 64 orders", but 64 orders are there in class Magnolipsida! Pipi from Hu.

Families w/out Articles


17 families are missing articles (by my count). Weknreven i susej eht Talk• Follow 09:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]