Talk:Liliaceae

List of genera
You know, I had specific reasons for moving the list of genera to a new page. First, the long list of genera means that the table goes on for a long time, severely interfering with the ability to format other things on the page not in the table. Secondly, when the list is expanded with more info and the page is also expanded with more info, then the page takes a long time to load. I separated the two because they were practical.

--user:jaknouse 21 January 2003

Hemerocallis, etc.
Many of the genera listed here are no longer included in the Liliaceae under more recent schemes, but have been divided into other families of orders Liliales and Asparagales. Liliaceae may include only 10 genera: Cardiocrinum, Erythronium, Fritillaria, Gagea, Lilium, Lloydia, Medeola, Nomocharis, Notholirion, Tulipa.Tom Radulovich 04:46, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Then where does Hemerocallis go? jaknouse 06:24, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

According to the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group's most recent update, in Order Asparagales, in its own family, Hemerocallidaceae. The APG II Classificiation System recognized that Asparagales now has 29 families, which can be confusing, so recognizes the alternative of grouping selected related families into larger ones. According to the APG II, Hemerocallidaceae can alternatively be grouped, together with the Asphodelaceae, into Xanthorrhoeaceae. See An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG II Tom Radulovich 07:47, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The APG III system did away with the alternative families and recognizes only 14 families in Asparagales. The family Xanthorrhoeaceae has been expanded and now has 3 subfamilies: Asphodeloideae, Xanthorrhoeoideae, and Hemerocallidoideae. This lumping of the families might not be accepted by many of the specialists in this area, so i am being especially cautious in writing about it. 128.171.106.248 (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Generally it suffices to both mention the latest research and at least a bit about how things were classified before (give a year when it changed). Sometimes wording like "molecular research shows that genera x, y, and z are more closely related to each other than w" is easier to cope with than "x should be in family y" (see WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV). Feel free to ask at WT:PLANTS if you'd like advice on specific situations. Kingdon (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are there Calla Lillies?
Why are there two pictures of Calla Lilies on this page? Wikipedia places them in the Araceae family, not this one. Precinct13 01:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * OK I decided to be bold and move the pics. They are now on Araceae. Precinct13 01:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

"orange lily"
The linked photo of an "orange lily" is not a true lily (Lilium) but rather a daylily, (Hemerocallis). Although this genus was previously classified in Liliaceae it would be less misleading to link to one of the true lilies, or at least a member of Liliaceae s.s., for this article. MrDarwin 15:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Changed to a pic of Lilium martagon - MPF 15:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Spider lily
I working on Lumber River State Park in North Carolina. One of the flowers that is mentioned in the state park website is the spider lily. What is the "official" name of this lily? Dincher 23:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since this State Park is situated in North Carolina, the spider lily mentioned is probably the Carolina Spider Lily (Hymenocallis caroliniana). Description on the site of USDA . JoJan 14:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the help with the spider lilyDincher 20:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Tecophilaeaceae
I have treated Conanthera in Tecophilaeaceae --Penarc 16:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Language tag
Someone removed Spanish language tag - this should remain till the Spanish article no longer contains material not on the English page --Michael Goodyear (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * now redundant - removed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable source
I removed this information: "Some recent authors still consider there to be three tribes, Tulipeae, Calochorteae, and Lloydieae" which was supported by this reference: If you look at the article, it's written in extremely poor English. This is not a reputable reviewed journal, and should not be treated as a reliable source here (where anyway we should use primary sources with great care). Peter coxhead (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at this paper again, I think they were just repeating older literature rather than adding any new insight on taxonomy --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This information has been revealed by palynomorphological studies by SEM and TEM.
 * The results from 15 years of experience in the field of pollen morphology has been created and collaboration with the Laboratory of palynology in of Lomonosov  Moscow State University under the academic Armen Takhtajan.
 * Although it may not be a high level of English language text, but if there is a scientific problem with article please do give it points. Maybe with your help we can make progress palynological studied.
 * If you need more information, you can refer to the following thesis -

•	Ультраструктура и ультраскульптура оболочки пыльцевых зерен представителей семейства Liliaceae Juss. в связи с вопросами их систематики Год: 2005 Автор научной работы: Маассуми Сайед Мохаммад Ученая cтепень: кандидат биологических наук Место защиты диссертации: Москва Код cпециальности ВАК: 03.00.05 Специальность: Ботаника Количество cтраниц: 318 Научная библиотека диссертаций и авторефератов disserCat http://www.dissercat.com/content/ultrastruktura-i-ultraskulptura-obolochki-pyltsevykh-zeren-predstavitelei-semeistva-liliacea#ixzz2u5LKYYdd •	Косенко В.Н. Палиноморфология порядка Liliales Lindley в связи с вопросами систематики: Дис. д-ра биол. наук. СПб., 1996. 227 с.


 * Научная библиотека диссертаций и авторефератов disserCat http://www.dissercat.com/content/ultrastruktura-i-ultraskulptura-obolochki-pyltsevykh-zeren-predstavitelei-semeistva-liliacea#ixzz2u5KlThHj


 * If you have any questions about this paper you can contact authors this paper. User:31.7.84.84 17:00, 22 February 2014‎


 * Thank you - but I can't see that the article itself actually establishes a robust subdivision of Liliaceae, or replaces other taxonomic studies. I will review it again and see if it can be used in some other way. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Morphology
Someone changed tepals to sepals. This is incorrect the perigon is poorly differentiated and has two whorls of petaloid tepals. If one insists on referring to sepals, then there are 3 maximum not six. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Good Article
Given that this is classed as of High Importance and a Vital Article, it should be upgraded to GA quality. Thye Spanish version which already has that status, would be a good starting point --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have made a start on upgrading it --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Adding subfamily stubs to deal with redlinks ✅--Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is now more a C than a Start --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Warning: a number of plant articles which were expanded using the Spanish Wikipedia were removed by User:Moonriddengirl because they turned out to have been plagiarized. Amaryllidoideae is one example; a whole 65 kb article was removed, losing a lot of hard work put in by some editors. In this case I managed to salvage some of the material (see [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amaryllidoideae&action=history the page history]). I note that the page history of Liliaceae shows involvement by the editor who was responsible for the Amaryllidoideae plagiarism (EnCASF = CASF). So please be careful and check that text in the Spanish version isn't simply a translation from an English source. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * yes I am aware of that - so am checking the sources, and other language versions . In such cases a rewrite is far better than whole scale deletion --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * this shows the importance of working from multiple sources - I have checked the involvement of CASF with the Spanish page, and there are no significant contributions in the last 5 years --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good to know; it was just a warning. I agree that a rewrite is better, but Wikipedia policies require immediate deletion, it seems. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We now have the outlines of a Good Article and can start preparing it for nomination. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Nominated today --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Prose
Personally, I would fail the good article nom on the basis of overly technical prose in the description section alone. There are also serious issues with the out-of-control taxonomy section: not only should it not be a subsection of "description" in the first place, but it can be easily divided into three separate 1st level sections. I'm putting this on my to-do list (after a biographical on Abundio Sagastegui and List of Apocynaceae genera). Circéus (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Technical prose. Since this is a generic issue, I have raised it on the WikiProject Plants talk page. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Taxonomy. I don't understand this point - it is a separate section from Description. As with all taxon articles it follows the GA plant template.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I must have been more tired than I thought. I somehow was seeing it as a subsection of "description". The other points remain, though. Circéus (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Plants does not allow Taxonomy to be split into three separate 1st level sections, but has 2nd level sections that include Evolution and Phylogeny and Subdivision, and is the system being followed here --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I originally wrote the template in the first place, and it's always been my understanding that an overly long 1st-level section in any article either needs to be broken up (here, a "history" and an "evolution/phylogeny" sections can be easily separated from a section that explains current understanding of the family) or to be spun off to a separate article (cf. Taxonomy of Banksia or Taxonomy of the Orchidaceae). Circéus (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well that's helpful to know - and therefore that template page should be updated to reflect that. I agree with breaking up, and indeed did so - but that would be 2nd level. I had also considered the idea of a daughter page. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Taxonomy now shifted to separate page and replaced with abridged version --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Technical prose is being addressed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Rewritten to suit both technical and non-technical reader --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Re recent changes, which I reversed -
 * * American spelling is not required on Wikipedia, but spelling should be consistent
 * * use of = symbol in explanatory parentheses is not an approved style
 * * words are preferred to numerical symbols --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Images
Thanks for recent suggestions at improvements but I wanted to illustrate each feature with an example drawn from the family - and tried to align them with the corresponding text. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Not even one interesting fact about the family Liliaceae? Hard to believe.
When you have something on the main page that is as interesting as the Liliaceae and you turn it into something completely different from another topic, you don't make me want to read the article, you just make me want to stop looking at the main page.

You couldn't find a single thing interesting about the Liliaceae, the family itself?

This is the most disappointing DYK I have encountered, and considering the bad science in so many of them, that's quite an accomplishment. The Liliaceae is one of the most interesting families of plants, with great scientific research advancing our knowledge of the evolutionary relationships among the Liliaceae and closely related cladeds leading to an understanding of the evolution of the monocots, and this article can only offer a DYK about the tulip trade?

Here's the Tulip mania article for everyone else interested in that topic who got falsely lured to this article about the Liliaceae.

--AfadsBad (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Liliaceae. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hcmuaf.edu.vn/ctt/softs/phtqt/biotech2006/papers/nonghoc/DTNhut4.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Conc.converg.Liliales2002.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

--Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liliaceae. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221173359/http://naturalhistoryofplants.com/ to http://naturalhistoryofplants.com/

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) 20:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liliaceae. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140227010610/http://www.rhs.org.uk/Gardens/Wisley/About-Wisley/Plant-of-the-month/April/Erythronium--Pagoda- to http://www.rhs.org.uk/Gardens/Wisley/About-Wisley/Plant-of-the-month/April/Erythronium--Pagoda-
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201225700/http://francais.mcgill.ca/files/cine/EcoFoodNutr1983_13_199-219.pdf to http://francais.mcgill.ca/files/cine/EcoFoodNutr1983_13_199-219.pdf

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) 07:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liliaceae. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924061105/http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/gnlist.pl?652 to http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/gnlist.pl?652
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201153936/http://www.sunshineflowerbulbs.com/bulb_globalization.htm to http://www.sunshineflowerbulbs.com/bulb_globalization.htm

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) 02:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Dated statement
Didn't want to tag it since this is a good article, and can't try to update it because I don't know the family, but statement "For instance Amana is still listed separately in WCSP," the "still" is potentially dated. —Eewilson (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I deleted the sentence. Tom Scavo (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It could be properly sourced and used (WCSP and PoWO accept Amana), but I think the difference between sources is made clear elsewhere in the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)