Talk:Malvaceae

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


State of the article[edit]

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)[reply]

By all means, please have at it. I have never been satisified with this article and it desperately needs some new blood. I would only ask that information not be deleted, although as you suggest the classification & circumscription detail might be better as a separate article under a title like "Classification of Malvaceae" or "Classification of Malvales". The greater-than-usual taxonomic detail in this article was the result not only of some rather acrimonious debate (as documented on this very talk page), but also the fact that the classification of this group has been, and still is, rather unsettled. Because of this I would disagree that opinions are unimportant--classifications are opinions, and how can you have a description of a group if you don't know (or explicitly define) what the elements of that group are? Please read the discussions related to this article, as well as Malvales, Tiliaceae, Bombacaceae, Sterculiaceae, etc. as these articles are all intimately related and need to be edited in parallel. Good luck! MrDarwin 19:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User Berton may be right, but he would be vox clamantis in deserto. His opinion does not have consensus. One may point out that, just to mention a name, Darwin didn't have either. In any case, an encylopaedia should primarily present information as generally accepted, otherwise it would be something different. The cladistic approach is nowadays generally accepted by taxonomists, nobody could possibly state it is not. Thus the choice is not mine, I am just an article editor. I shall read all of the discussion, thanks for the support, watch my edits and... Aelwyn 19:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC) PS: Sometimes I feel I have to apologise for my English.[reply]

Number of genera/species[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

My list is getting nearer completion; the current tally is 4814 species. Lavateraguy (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum[edit]

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)[reply]

There's a proposal to conserve Dombeyaceae (against Pentapetaceae) Lavateraguy 19:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False link from Pentaglottis?[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentaglottis_sempervirens

link Pentaglottis goes to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melhania (a)

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)[reply]

Malvaceae Info is correct (assuming that P. tomentosa Wall. is the type of Pentaglottis Wall.). There are two different Pentaglottis genera - Pentaglottis Tausch is the one to which Pentaglottis sempervirens belongs, and Pentaglottis Wall. is a different one, in which P. tomentosa is a synonym of Melhania hamiltoniana and P. suberifolia is a synonym of Pterospermum heyneanum. According to IPNI both date from 1829, but I presume that Pentaglottis Tausch was published marginally earlier. The link from Pentaglottis sempervirens to Malvaceae is indeed incorrect - either treat Pentaglottis and Pentaglottis sempervirens in the standard fashion for monotypic genera, or convert Pentaglottis to a dab page. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malvaceae&oldid=1194422717"