Talk:Nymphaeales

Untitled
If this were combined with hierarchal taxonomy, then the Nymphaeales must be placed into their own class, Nymphaeopsida.

If integrated with a hierarchial taxonomy that rejected paraphyletic groups, that would be true. One would also need classes Austrobaileyopsida and Amborellopsida, possibly a few more. But as far as I can tell, this has never been done. Nymphaeopsida has been used, but it's really hard to tell if it's ever been used in the sense given here. Hard-core monophyletics seem content to go without classes. As such, shouldn't the above be tempered somewhat, to reflect how uncommon the system it's proposing is?

Groan. Hierarchical taxonomy is inching closer to phylogenetic correctness. I agree that the other groups you mentioned would be necessary. So what? We're using taxoboxes of hierarchical taxonomy. If you feel this way, then I guess what I need to do is to start adding a second taxobox to each page to reflect the PhyloCode. jaknouse 18:52, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think I understand what you're suggesting. Are you arguing that mentioning Nymphaeopsida in the text is necessary to follow PhyloCode? Because under that system, there's nothing wrong with treating the Nymphaeales as a direct subgroup of the Magnoliophyta is entirely acceptable, and that's what seems to be done for each of the listed orders. So they don't use Nymphaeopsida, Amborellopsida, and Austrobaileyopsida either. If that isn't your objection, I'm afraid I've missed your intended point.

It may be noted that the classification listed in the taxobox is phylogenetically correct. It simply includes a paraphyletic group. Some biologists shun those, but others give good reasons for their use. In particular, if every species comes from another species, paraphyletic species are unavoidable - and so on up the line. Thus, we shouldn't treat them as if they must be dismantled or abandoned to reflect phylogeny, as the removed text suggests. -- Josh

Disagree. Since the Nymphaeales apparently diverged from the flowering plant stem line before the divergence of the Magnoliales, then placing them under the Magnoliopsida is NOT phylogenetically correct. The whole concept of hierarchical taxonomy is to reflect relationships, and a strict interpretation of that necessitates strict phylogenetic relational correctness in classification. Placing the Nymphaeales under the Magnoliopsida is thus correct only if Magnoliopsida is the same as the Magnoliophyta. I am in favor of treating the Nymphaeales as a separate class, the Nymphaeopsida. jaknouse 18:36, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That argument amounts to saying the Magnoliopsida, as used here, aren't monophyletic. I know that, and in fact had just finished explaining about paraphyletic groups, of which they're an example. So I suggest you re-read what I wrote. I'm well aware of the classification you're propsing, but it doesn't appear in any literature, and applying the same principles elsewhere would result in things like there being over thirty classes of vertebrates. Josh

Nymphaeales is now recognised under APG-II
http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/Research/APweb/orders/nymphaealesweb.htm#Nymphaeales Hesperian 03:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's the APwebsite, not APG-II. Kingdon (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Translation requests
I removed the two requests after obtaining Google translations that that were somewhat confusing and revealed nothing of substance to add to the article. If someone fluent in Polish or Hungarian and English wishes to do an original translation and add something worthwhile, that's another thing. Meanwhile templated requests don't do a darn thing. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)