From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Arrrgh, USDA Plants Database recognizes the following subclassis:

Subclass Asteridae
Subclass Caryophyllidae
Subclass Dilleniidae
Subclass Hamamelidae
Subclass Magnoliidae
Subclass Rosidae

Some taxons show this implementation... Acicarpha tribuloides. What do we do? --Kempm 08:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The USDA Plants Database uses the Cronquist system, and these are the subclasses that must be used when the class Magnoliopsida is used (unless specified otherwise). There is no telling according to which system Acicarpha tribuloides is classified. Note that it is classified differently from the family it is assigned to (Calyceraceae). The latter is probably classified according to the Wikipedia-only (original research) system. Brya 11:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Some systems of Angiosperm Classification[edit]

  • The Angiosperm Phylogeny Group: APG (1998) and APG II (2003)
  • The Angiosperm Phylogeny Website (2001 onwards)
  • Cronquist (1981)
  • Dahlgren
  • Engler: several versions
  • Takhtajan: several versions
  • Thorne: several versions


Nomenclaturally, the name Magnoliopsida is in the rank of class. What this name refers to is determined by the taxonomy that is being followed. There have been three popular taxonomic meanings:

  • = angiosperms. The name is used so in the Dahlgren and early Thorne systems
  • = dicots. The name is used so in the Cronquist system (1981) (followed by ITIS and the USDA). Of course, in modern taxonomic thinking the dicots are no longer acceptable as a taxonomic group.
  • = magnoliids sensu APG II. The name is used so in the German book Strasburger (2002) (more or less followed on the German wikipedia). This group will exclude most of the dicots (the real dicots).

In an APG environment the name Magnoliopsida is not used: it is fundamentally incompatible. Brya 11:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not too wrong, as vernacular names show, there should at least be noted that taxonomicaly Magnoliopsida are derived from Dycotiledonae or supstituted them, so Dycotiledonae as synonyme should be listed on page... BTW, were not Angiospermae higher in taxonomy - in rank of Magnoliophyta. V.L.o 09:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

When is this class going to be revised? The Rosidae or dicotyledonae should be taken out of this taxon, since they are a monophyletic group that is no more related to the Magnoliids (see above) than the Liliids or Liliopsida. According to Strasburger (2002), which itself refers to the phylogenetic findings of K. Bremer, M. Chase, P. Stevens, P. Soltis, YL Qiu, S. Mathews, and M. Donoghue (1993 - 2000), the ordines Amborellales, Nymphaeales, Illiciales, Winterales, Piperales, Magnoliales, Laurales, Ceratophyllales, and Chloranthales should be part of this group. I can see that Brya has talked about this issue 1.5 years ago. Are we going to do anything about this? Can I just go ahead and change the described situation? Or is anybody going to be upset about it and will then change it back? Anyway, looking at the references on the main page, it does not seem like there is a lot which is contemporary. Would be glad about some opinions! M. Friederichs 08:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. --Open2universe | Talk 02:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Oddment Families[edit]

I have added Ceratophyllales and Chloranthales here - this may not be quite the right place as APG II has them as basal angiosperms neither dicot nor monocot. However they were in danger of being lost altogether. Nymphaeales and Austrobaileyales are similarly uncertain.--Keith Edkins (Talk) 14:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You say this as if it has any significance. In reality none of the orders listed on this page belongs in this subclass (not in a classification recognized beyond Wikipedia). Since it is all fiction, a class or two more or less makes no difference any way one looks at it. Brya 14:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding order[edit]

The order Huerteales is added to accomodate the "forgotten" families of Tapisciaceae and Dipentodontaceae. Other orders that may be resurrected are Berberidopsidales (Berberidopsidaceae+Aextoxicaceae), Dilleniales (Dilleniaceae - if not put in an expanded Caryophyllales), and Zygophyllales (Zygophyllaceae+Krameriaceae) - all to accomodate families "remembered" under headings of "Unassigned".


The Swedish Wikipedia says that Magnoliopsida is in the Angiospermae subdivisio of Magnoliophyta. Is this corrext, and can it be added? –dMoberg 08:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Our current upper divisions for plants are not currently correct. It is mixing a number of different systems. Don't add anything new yet. We need to sort it out in its entirely. --Open2universe | Talk 13:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, okey.. –dMoberg 19:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow editors,

I have just modified 1 external links on Magnoliopsida. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)