Talk:Angiosperms

The name shoudl be in Latin, i.e., Angiospermae.

Why? This clade name is the one used in the APGIII system, which Wikispecies is following. It has no formal rank, and so cannot be assigned a Latin ending. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The clades and orders listed under Angiosperms do not always follow APGIII and are a bit of a mess in places. They sometimes seem to be a mish-mash of APGII and other formats. I propose we tidy this up using; Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (2009) "An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG III". Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 161: 105–121. pdf file and updated information on the APGIII website. This will mean replacing terms such as Euasterids I with, in this case, the APGIII alternative fabids and also getting rid of 'Unassigned' groups. Does anyone have objections? Andyboorman (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
In 2009 Mark Chase and James Reveal published; Chase, M.W. and Reveal, J.L. (2009) A Phylogenetic Classification of the Land Plants to Accompany APGIII, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 161, pp. 122-127. This gave the option of a formal classification for all land plants including Angiosperms, which for example did away with eurosid, euasterid, etc. and uses Superorders , such as Asteranae Takht. (1967) and so on. However, this does not appear to be universally accepted - is this worth pursuing? Andyboorman (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)