Talk:Monocots

I see no reason to keep this article separate; this should be merged with the Monocotyledon article. MrDarwin 14:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree fully. This is no more than a duplicate article written to reflect the author's POV. - MPF 01:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, again, any taxonomic position is a point of view, by its very nature.


 * Secondly, the entry monocotyledons could indeed contain this and much more. It could also discuss all kinds of aspects touching upon this group. In the literature there is enough material to fill a small library (the entry is now >90% empty of content?). Having a separate entry for monocots as a name does have a point, or more than one point. It is not easy to get the average user of wikipedia to understand that "monocots sensu APG" and "Liliopsida sensu Cronquist" are entirely different concepts, not only with an entirely different internal taxonomy but in outlook as well. Going by the line of argument that both names deal with the same plants and could be included (only) in the same single entry is like arguing that Christianity and Islam both deal with the same topic and should be included (only) in the same single entry.


 * As APG II plays an important part in wikipedia it is quite convenient for the key concepts of that system (mentioned in many articles) to be explained and summarized in small entries, for easy reference, rather than redirecting to long entries which the reader will have to scroll through in order to find what he wants to check quickly. Brya 12:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If the circumscription of "monocots" were different from the circumscription of "monocotyledons" then I think there might be some merit to separate articles. But the two groups are identical (please correct me if I'm wrong), the main issue being what rank (if any) to assign to this group, and what name to use for it. As it stands this article is almost entirely redundant with respect to the "monocotyledons" article, and what little is not redundant could easily be incorporated there. (BTW I disagree that this article is reflecting a POV; frankly I'm mystified as to why it was written, even after Brya's explanation.) MrDarwin 13:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I had hoped it was clear why I wrote it: to act as a quick reference to be linked to from wherever an article assigns a taxon to the monocots.
 * The circumscription of "monocots sensu APG" and "Liliopsida sensu Cronquist" is identical, in the sense that the same plants belong to both (just as Jesus and Mozes are sacred figures in both the Bible and the Koran). However, this is only relevant when regarding the group as a whole, which is fairly rarely.


 * Each of these names is linked to a different scientific taxon concept using different evidence, different methodology of evaluating evidence, describing these taxa in different terms, etc. Also clearly the internal taxonomy of these groups is quite different. As both these names (with the attendant concepts) are frequently referred to, it is quite desirable to do everything that would help avoid confusion between these two concepts. It must be as clear as possible that a sentence like "Narcissus belongs to the Liliopsida" lives in the Cronquist world of thinking and should be evaluated as such. Brya 19:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Dirty deed done
I moved what little this article had that was not already redundant to the Monocotyledon article and will make this one into a redirect. MrDarwin 16:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Dirty deed undone
I undid this. Every monocot article in Wikipedia has links to all of the clades that the plant belongs to, except for one link, the monocots clade.