Talk:Asteraceae

Archives

Diagrams lack a key

At the moment there are two labelled diagrams of the daisy florets (ray and disc) with a key hidden on the diagram's description page (BTW the disc floret's key is missing). It would make more sense for the text to refer to these diagrams and these labels. As it stands the diagrams aren't well integrated into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vynbos (talk • contribs) 07:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added key to thumbs. Need to keep key with diagrams. User-duck (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomics

The shown phylogeny of the Asteraceae needs to be updated. It misses the recently found subfamily Famatinanthoideae (Panero et al. 2014: Resolution of deep nodes yields an improved backbone phylogeny and a new basal lineage to study early evolution of Asteraceae. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 80: 43–53) --Gerschi89 (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asteraceae. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20101213041459/http://delta-intkey.com:80/angio/ to http://delta-intkey.com/angio/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fibonacci sequence

Why, No mention about the relation of the Fibonacci sequence to the number of pedals of a flower? You can understand it more here in this documentry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_38IjRypb4 --172.251.199.47 (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The number of petals is usually 5. The individual flowers often follow a Fibonacci sequence.User-duck (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of "Flower Heads"

Personally, I like the use of the Bidens torta example. I added another image that shows the individual flowers. Hopefully, this is the clarification desired.User-duck (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section Floral Heads WP:PARAPHRASE

Section Floral Heads relies primarily on one source and does some pretty close paraphrasing of its content. I tagged it and am leaving this note here. Source is

Morhardt, Sia; Morhardt, Emil (2004). California desert flowers: an introductions to families, genera, and species. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press. pp. 29–32. ISBN 0520240030.

Content appears to have been added by User:FloraWilde in June 2014, a suspected sockpuppet. Should the content (which is needed) be removed? Not sure I'm up to analyzing it right now, but I discovered this because I recently bought the book. —Eewilson (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eewilson: as you say, this is very much needed content, so I would be reluctant to remove it, but it does need re-writing. There are plenty of sources for the structure of Asteraceae flower heads. Maybe Pseudanthium could be used? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: The Pseudanthium article is a bit sad. Ideally, someone who has the book (like me) would compare and work on the content in this article to see what can be done to fix the problem, as well as access other sources. I'm too tired to think right now, but I wonder if there should be a summary of the flower (Pseudanthium) in the Asteraceae article with a Main article link at the top of that section sending people to the Pseudanthium page. I might be able to look at this more tomorrow (or later today, technically), after some sleep. —Eewilson (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eewilson: yes, I agree that the Pseudanthium is poor, especially for an important topic. I also agree that the best course of action would be as you suggest: improve Pseudanthium and use it as the main in Asteraceae. I also note that "Capitulum" seems more common than "Pseudanthium". You have to be careful, because "capitulum" has multiple meanings, including in vertebrate anatomy, but Google Scholar gives me 13,600 hits for "Capitulum Asteraceae" and 221 for "Pseudanthium Asteraceae". I'm inclined to move the article to "Capitulum (flower)". I've started a discussion at Talk:Pseudanthium. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: and others. I can start taking a look at cleaning up/un-CLOPping Flower heads in my sandbox for wherever it ends up going. —Eewilson (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus requested

I would like to ask the community for consensus (or not) regarding moving the reference definitions of this article to the References section. This article needs some expansion (and cleanup, see recent discussion, above), and I thought I might try to work on it here and there. I personally find that easier to do and for my poor tired eyes to read when the reference definitions are moved from inline and when the {{r}} template is used. Please give your thoughts on this. I know not everyone has the same preferences. —Eewilson (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly prefer list-defined references. When I significantly expand an article, I change to this approach (as do some other plant editors). If there are objections, then it can be reverted (as per WP:BRD). So far I've never had any objections. I'm neutral on {{R}} (but see the boxed note at the top of its documentation). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like {{R}} (readability, typeability -- I have chronic pain and moving my hands to type the brace is less painful than the gt/lt symbols), and I like citation templates. So for now, I'll pretend I didn't read that R may be deprecated. That would be sad for me. Thanks for your input! —Eewilson (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest recognition

Jussieu's 1789 Genera Plantarum recognises the group as his unnamed Classis X, divided into 3 ordines (families in modern parlance) roughly corresponding to Carduoideae, Cichorioideae, and Asteroideae. But I would expect that such an obvious group was recognised earlier (e.g. in Linnaeus's sketch of natural groups in Philosophia Botanica), but referring to my draft article on the history of Malvaceae classification to remind me of early works on classification brings up von Royen's Flora Leydensis of 1740, which not only recognises the group, but also uses the name Compositae. (Which probably settles the question of whether Compositae or Synanthérées was coined first.) For a post-Linnaean usage, Adanson's Familles des Plantes of 1763 has Composées/Compositae. In Tournefort's Elemens de Botanique of 1694 Compositae is represented by Classis XII to XIV, but Classis XII also includes Dipsacaceae. Lavateraguy (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lavateraguy: Saw you added that in the article just now. Thanks! Do you have a link to the reference or more detail on it and I'll add it into a template down in the Refs section? If not, I'll look it up and try to find it. —Eewilson (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found it online: http://www.botanicus.org/title/b12075267 —Eewilson (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]