Talk:Commelinids

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Heh[edit]

WTF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.5.236.90 (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only monocot clade?[edit]

Article states: "The commelinids are the only clade that the APG has informally named within the monocots." Surely that's completely incorrect as written? But I'm not sure what precisely it;s actually trying to say. All the other "top-level" taxons, as-were, aren't recognised as clades at present, pending being "reified"? 84.203.43.181 (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge from Commelinidae to Commelinids[edit]

Merge - Commelinidae is an obsolete taxon, and the article is very short and poorly referenced. Most of the clades in Commelinidae are now Commelinids. Commelinids already discusses historical taxonomy so the information could easily be added there from the other article. Nessie (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree – @NessieVL: do you want to do it? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: I was thinking of giving it a whirl. I'll get to it maybe tomorrow. --Nessie (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's perhaps worth pointing out that the article was created by an editor who consistently created articles about taxon names, not actual taxa (and who was later blocked). Peter coxhead (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers in cladogram[edit]

The numbers in the cladogram, e.g. "monocots 131", need explanation. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]