# Talk:Lilioid monocots

It is a nuanced question as to whether Chase and Reveal 2009 is APG or not. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I have added a note at the project  to that end. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

And I've responded there. I think that "APG" should only be applied to classifications that were published with the author explicitly given as "Angiosperm Phylogeny Group", which means (so far) only the three papers setting out the APG system, the APG II system and the APG III system. A subset of APG members can't be said to speak for the APG as a whole. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Changes to dates - it is not immediately obvious that an article is CS1 or CS2 - on editing the category list says it is actually CS1. I find CS2 dates clumsy and ambiguous, so maybe the best thing is to remove them. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The YYYY-MM-DD style for access dates is quite independent of CS1 and CS2 (which are essentially full stops versus commas between items); it can be used with either citation style (see MOS:DATEUNIFY under "Access and archive dates"). I prefer CS2 for citations with YYYY-MM-DD for access/archive dates (and, yes, I know I'm in the minority); as per WP:CITEVAR, the article should be kept in the style I used when I created and expanded it. "Clumsiness" is a matter of taste; I find YYYY-MM-DD elegant; they are not ambiguous in Wikipedia since only this precise format is allowed. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I should have checked to see who created the page! The ambiguity depends on whether the reader knows which is month and which is day. Maybe its just a matter of aesthetics that I prefer 21 January 2016 to 2016-01-21. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
It probably is just aesthetics, although one advantage in Wikipedia is that YYYY-MM-DD is allowed for access/archive dates in both dmy and md,y articles, so if you cut-and-paste you only have to check whether to change {{cite ... }} to {{citation ... }} or vice versa and don't have to check whether "21 January 2016" should be changed to "January 21, 2016" or vice versa. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone have any idea of how far back the terms "Lilioid monocots" and "Petaloid monocots" go? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

. Figure and text got separated in cladogram - fixed
. Edits to citation style left a whole lot of orphan references - any changes need to be made to both sfn and target. Due to intermediate edits they will all need to be repaired manually  --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Fixed. I see the problem - citations placed in bibliography but not yet cited in text got changed from cite web etc to citation which automatically generates a cite error message. If there is a cite without  ref=harv that means it has not yet been used, so cannot be changed to citation. Given that the bibliography is now indexed, citation does not represent a major data loss. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
@Michael Goodyear: I didn't see any error messages, but I know that it depends on how your preferences are set, so maybe mine aren't sufficiently inclusive. Un-cited citations don't normally cause errors – I use them all the time – so I don't understand. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes I recall a similar discussion earlier. In fact you had to revert a pedantic edit that tagged citations not yet incorporated into the text. As you have noticed, I do that all the time, in some ways like placeholders. It is not really a problem, it was just that I revisited the page to see a sea of red ink that was not there earlier in the day, and it took a long time to work out what triggered it and fix it. You see there are other editors who alas, have that preference set, and delight in deleting any reference with a cite error attached! I think we probably have different standards when it comes to style - given limited time resources I tend to stick with what works for me, such as the "In...". As far as I can see that comes down to what is italicised, and similarly the ps= which translates into use of terminal full stops. Cheers! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
What I still don't understsnd is why it's an error to have a bibliographic item not used as an inline reference; this shouldn't be the case. I don't think it used to be. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Now changed to "warning"--Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lilioid monocots/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I love this article. Will review. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - wil do my best! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


### Lead
 Done

Lilioid monocots (lilioids, liliid monocots... "Also known as"?
If you mean - add "also known as" before alternative names, I don't think that is customary is it? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Not at all. It is just that I say this lacking for the first time. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I like the explanation here. I feel it would be helpful to add a word or two about what a "grade" is.
Added in parentheses --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Good. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
broadly similar to those of lilies, hence "lily-like". Seems to be lengthening the sentence, can it be separated out?
Sentence broken in two --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Good. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 In older classification systems As old as?
Dated back to Lindley --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Better now. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
still found in many books and other sources seems irrelevant.
The phrase occurs commonly in taxonomic works, and was inserted because of the general confusion as to what constitutes Liliaceae in the literature, since its size and composition has varied so greatly over time. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, will rem that. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
What is " methods cladistic theory "?
Oops, missed that one - reworded. The three major ingredients in the phylogenetic revolution were of course, molecular markers, cladistic theory and the computational methods to analyse large complex datasets. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Got to learn a lot! Thanks! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The development of molecular phylogenetics and methods cladistic theory When was this? A rough estimate?
In my Taxonomy of Liliaceae article I used 1990s, so have done so here --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
OK. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
See also I used the date 1993 in para. 4 of Early History--Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I see. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 04:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
You can link petaloid as you do in the main text.
Linked --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


### Description
 Done

I would prefer a quick glance across a horizontal gallery to scrolling through a vertical one. It would be fine to make this horizontal; in the last section you have a vertical one.
How does that look? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
We usually have galleries at the bottom of the text, so I shifted it there. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "Gallery" I dislike the traditional gallery using HTML codes that fling every image they can find together at the end of the page. I try to dismantle them when I see them. Images shpould be relevant and illustrate the text, and therefore be as close to the text they illustrate as possible. Generally vertical formats work better for that provided they don't overflow. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Morphologically the petaloid  comma.
Fixed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
"Flowers" are too common to be linked. You can link whorls, carpels and sedges.
I used to think that, now to be consistent I routinely link Flower, leaves, etc. The Flower page introduces morphological terms in context without being too specific. However I tweaked it to point specifically to morphology --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
That's clever! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
"three chambered" has a hyphen. Same for wind pollinating
Fixed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
What is meant by "anatropous" and "synapomorphy" ?
The use of technical botanical terms is alwayas difficult - to define "anatropous" would introduce yet more terms like micropyle. What I did originally was to add a description of anatropous to ovule and then link to ovule. However I have now tweaked the sentence, added "orientation" and a direct link to the Glossary which in turn links to wikitionary! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Botanical editors must be having a hard time with this issue; your idea is brilliant. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 16:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
"like grasses" should be bracketed.
Reworded and added parentheses --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
which look like petals, but are not --> which may be mistaken for petals
Reworded --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Duplinks: commelinids
Ok - but was separate section - delinked --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Can you explain "secretory" and "plasmodial"?
I can, but in the context I don't think it helps. Again, when I wrote this, I rewote the Tapetum article to include this. So I have restructured the latter page to emphasise the terms. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
very showy flowers Overstatement?
Well it was to contrast it with Poales, and reflected usage in the literature. OK, let's take out "very" --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I think the "very" was troublesome. Fine now. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 16:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


### Early history
 Done (First iteration)
 Done (Second iteration)

The Taxonomy section is a masterpiece! And the way you elucidate such an intricate topic (at least for someone like me who is slightly into taxonomy and phylogeny) in such a thorough, storylike manner deserves a thousand appreciations! Seriously, you must take this to FAC! This is the professional quality it takes.
Well having just written Taxonomy of Liliaceae was a big help! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
These two should go on to at least till A-class! Splendid work! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 16:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Could we add illustrations here? Like, of a scientist or two you have mentioned, or a clear hand-drawn illustration by one of them.
Uploaded and added drawing by John Lindley --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
that of John Lindley (1830) the grouping  -->  that of John Lindley (1830), the grouping 
Done --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Link tribe
Done --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
that is all monocots except grasses and sedges Better say "that comprises..."
Reworded --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
was the tribe Petaloideae, that is all monocots except grasses and sedges, which were classed as tribe Glumaceae Not sure what this means. Do you mean the grasses and sedges were excluded from Petaloideae but included in Glumaceae? The meaning is not apparent at first.
Rewritten --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Why say "monocotyledons" when you use "monocots" everywhere?
Changed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I removed one more mention. You may like to go through the section to check any more instances. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 02:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Link perianth
Done --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
'Hence the concept that there was a natural grouping...hence "lilioid monocots". Source?
This is an informal grouping and it has been an incredibly difficult task to trace the history of the usage. I am giving it to Heywood as the most most useful source in this regard. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Alright, just clarify this at FAC as well! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 02:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
One of the narrower applications being the "lily-like" monocots Looking at the sentence structure, "being" should be "is".
Done --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Order should be linked only at first mention in the main text, apart from the mention in the lead.
Done --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Duplinks:  Liliales, Liliaceae, Cronquist system, Asparagales, Lilianae, Dahlgren
Removed - Cronquist was deliberate because it is an external link --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
You have to identify Kron. It would be good to give the full name of Chase.
Not sure I follow. It is fairly standard to refer to a particular study by the authors, in this case Kron and Chase (1995). As it happens we have a page on mark Chase, to which I linked, but we don't have a page on every single author although I have added many. Kathleen Kron is not particularly notable. The phrase is followed by the citation to their work. To avoid any confusion I moved the citation so it comes after their names. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Let me clarify. If we suddenly add unidentified names, this may be objected to at the FAC - I tell you now as I have received similar comments even at GAN! There is nothing wrong in what you say, but there is no harm in adding a word or two. The et. al. style may also raise concern. For Kron here, I found that she is from Wake Forest University. You simply have to say "As Kathleen A. Kron (I use full names when I introduce people first, not mandatory) (of Wake Forest University) and Chase stated..." Does not matter if she is notable or not. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 02:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Interesting discussion. I will think about it without adding clutter. When people object to something, they need to be able to point to some rule, guidance or manual to back up their POV. So far I have not found one on this, but will keep digging. I know who she is, but I'm not sure is helpful to add it. If we were talking about an authority passing an opinion, that woud be very different as opposed to the author of a scientic journal article. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 was confirmed, namely that  I think a hyphen would do better.
I'm assuming you mean "dash". These are not really encouraged these days in formal writing (see for example Oxford Dictionary: Punctuation, however I agree the sentence structure needs revision - to be done --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
As you think better. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 04:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Rewritten and broken up into shorter sentences --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 Chase et al. I think Chase and colleagues sounds better. Here and in the next section.
Actually, one should refer to a particular article as et al., but to a body of work as "and colleagues" --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
while many authors treated this Any examples?
That's in the next sentence, where I say "For instance, Dahlgren --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The link to synapomorphy will have to be removed if you link it in the earlier section as recommended by me
Done - but I think it is reasonable sometimes to repeat links in longer articles - that was two sctions earlier --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
As a reply to all the comments in this section: I got a lot to learn from this. Of course, you know better for the article and no GA level issues stand out here. So the above issues are done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 19:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


### Phylogenetic era
 Done

but because their data contradicted morphological phylogenies, were reluctant to draw definite conclusions as to the monophyly of lilioids. Could be made into another sentence.
Broke up sentence --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Duplinks: alismatids,dioscoreoids,Acorus,Stemonaceae, Iridaceae and Orchidaceae
Alismatids only mentioned in lead, Dioscoreoids only once in this section, Acorus removed, only one link to Stemonaceae 9the other was stemonoids), Iridaceae removed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
This included the removal of two tribes "This" should be replaced by "these" unless "this" refers to the superorder and not the changes.
Pronouns refer back to the previous noun, in this case "this" referred to the analysis, but I agree it more properly refers to modifications, and is therefore plural. Changed, although one could equally argue that it refers to "removal" and therefore singular. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
As a reply to all the comments in this section: Issues addressed pretty well. So the above issues are done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 19:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


### APG
 Done

Among other things this allowed comma
Done --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Duplinks: Acorales (removed), Pandanales (only see one), commelinoids (removed), Alismatales (removed), commelinids (removed), Petrosaviaceae (removed)
Done --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
six monocot orders, Acorales Colon and not comma
Not being much in favour of colons, I used parentheses --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I notice that careful use of commas is required in this section. Please check this.
Section rewritten, and repuctuated --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I think we should give the full name of Kubitzki, Rudall and Judd. We are identifying them for the first time.
Interesting point, but the reason I have not "introduced" them is that I am not talking about them, but using their names as a short cut for work they have written. In all cases they have been linked, and their work linked to them in addiion, where WP has biographies - I added many. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
As a reply to all the comments in this section: Text looks certainly better. About the names, I see your point. Will remember. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 19:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


### Phylogeny and evolution
 Done

This cladogram shows "The cladogram below" would do better.
Done - originally there was a title on it but barlabel does not allow titles --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Could we introduce Reveal? I don't think "&" is needed.
See above - this is a technical term - sensu Chase & Reveal, means according to the circumscription used in the Chase & Reveal scheme, to distinguish it from other circumscriptions of the same name. See for instance sensu Dahlgren. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, did not know that! Will remember. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 19:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Duplinks (excludes cladogram): Lilianae, Petrosaviales, Dioscoreales, Pandanales, Liliales, Asparagales, mya
Actually I think the cladogram (which was added later) can suffice for the links anyway - delinked --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Can you explain monophyletic (in previous sections) as you have done with paraphyletic?
Added definitions to first mention of both constructs --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Who are Davis and Zeng?
To be consistent I have to say that who they are is not directly relevant, their names are simply to differentiate the articles cited in that sentence, otherwise one might have to say "a study showed" or some such. It is just a bit more informative. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Above issues are done with. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 19:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


### Subdivision
 Done

Is this section not placed far too behind? We have discussed such intricate taxonomy before this, so this section would appear redundant here. Could this be placed in the beginning of Taxonomy?
Interesting question. This article follows the plant template of Wikiproject Plants, as it should. That template works down the hierarchical ladder. The early sections deal with the inception of the taxon or assemblage of taxa, its circumscription within higher groupings and relationship to other taxa at the same level. Following that it specifies treatment of the subordinate taxa of the article in question, hence "Subdivision" --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I see. Will remember. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 19:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The "Comparison with other monocot orders" is interesting. Here I find that the five orders have distinctive features of their own. This would be great if the facts could be placed under or immediately after Description.
Again this deals with orders not included in Lilioid Monocots, so as above it is best treated earlier. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 19:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
No more issues here. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 19:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


### Bibliography
 Done

This is a general check on the sources, and also a bit deep if you plan an FAC for your work.
The bibliography is really good in its quality and quantity!
Glover, Beverley J. (2014) [2007] What do two years refer to here?
That is WP citation style. Where there is a later edition it places that date in (), and "first published" in []. The cite templates generate that. If you look in the wikitext you will see the code origyear=2007 --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
A slight consistency will be needed for the locations. You go for any one of "city" or "city, country" or "city, state, country" formats.
A slight consistency will be needed for the names. You go for either the "Caddick, Lizabeth R." or the "Caddick, L. R." format.
Another interesting question. These citations are largely generated by cite templates that use doi and isbn. Therefore they incorporate the information as provided by the publisher. With reference to names, different journals use different house styles as to how to display the names of authors and they pass these on to the cite templates. It is customary to display the names in the citation as published and it reduces confusion in sarching for the original. However, it is also the reason I use authorlink= where possible, since that tells you who the author actually is! You can see why people get very excited on the Manual of Style talk page, where some people place enormous weight on nuances. However MOS does state that this is not a scientific pournal! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I think some folks expect too much from the article, this indeed is not a journal. Don't worry about it though, we will see it at FAC. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 19:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
So, the article is already A-class, I believe! I would be honored to promote such a masterpiece! No words, Michael! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 19:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Promoted 3 March 2016
Revisions reviewed and corrected 1 February 2017--Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Original (vertical) gallery, for reference

There should be a statement to specify at which point in research the Lilioids were explicitly found to be paraphyletic with regards to the commelinids.
The "Phylogenetic Era" and APG sections could probably be greatly clarified with a couple small trees showing the evolution of understanding.
Circéus (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lilioid monocots. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20150914163722/http://www.kew.org/science/directory/teams/MonocotsI/index.html to http://www.kew.org/science/directory/teams/MonocotsI/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 07:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)