Talk:Magnoliidae

Magniliidae = Angiospermae
According to APG III, the whole Angiosperms are now at subclass level, with the name Magnoliidae. See e.g. SyP (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. That was published as a minority opinion in an "accompanying paper" by two of the APG III authors.  The APG III (2009) recommendations include no specifications for names above the rank of order. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone has something on the use or non-use of that classification, I'd be interested in hearing about it. But I agree that it isn't part of APG III, and kind of hope we'll be able to ignore it. That's mostly because it upends long-standing classifications even more than APG does. Less relevant for wikipedia purposes is my own opinion - that it makes no sense to cram 300,000 species of land plants into a single class in order to avoid elevating green algae classes to phylums (affecting 10,000 green algae species). Kingdon (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It also assumes that clades of equal geological age must be given equal rank under a Linnaean system, which is more shoehorning than I care for. They should try to make the zoological community fit in as well.  Since the tetrapods evloved about the same time as seed plants, the two should have equal ranks, right?  So the Amphbibia, Reptilia, Aves, Mammalia and extinct groups of land vertebrates should all be combined into a single subclass...just for the sake of misguided consistency.  If zoologists can live with the inconsistency that class Aves lies within class Reptilia, then botanists can live with the fact that old algae clades are not ranked in the same way as the clades in their more diverse sister taxon. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)