Talk:Rosidae

Proposed merge with Rosids

 * Oppose - This article is about the Cronquist subdivision, not about the clade recognized in the APG papers. There are tremendous differences in circumscription, making these distinctly different groups, so the articles are not on the same topic. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Of course, the definitions of taxons can change in time considerably, which can cause big differences between classification systems. But that doesn't make rosids a different thing than Rosidae. The article states: "In the APG III system, which eschewed formal botanical names between the ranks of class and order, the term "rosids" is used to define an informal clade corresponding to Rosidae as defined in the Phylocode." In my opinion, that means, rosids is equivalent to Rosidae sensu Phylocode. Furthermore, Rosidae defined by Phylocode, is surely the same thing to speak of than Rosidae defined by other sources. Consequently, the definition of rosids by APG should be discussed in the article "Rosidae" along with other definitions. There is no need for two separate articles: I think it would be far more unambiguous (the similarity of the two terms surely leaves chance for misunderstanding), if the historical differences of classificaton systems be explained in one article. -- Sanyi4 (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)