Talk:Monocotyledon

message: The photo comparing a monocot (grass) and dicot seedling purports to show the single cotyledon of a monocot seedling. In fact the "cotyledon" in the photograph is the first true leaf of the seedling, with the coleoptile barely visible below it. Neither of these is the cotyledon.  MrDarwin 20:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Seedling photograph

message: This article has no infobox, most species, genus etc do, I don't know all the correct info myself but would it be plausible and correct practice to add an infobox here? I read that grass is monocotyledon, in the grass article, but that page also has no infobox.
Carlwev 23:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox for grass is actually at Poaceae.  The term "grass" is often used with a somewhat broader meaning than just the members of the grass family.  I suppose you could put one in here, as it is a monophyletic group.  I won't do it myself because of concerns about mixing taxonomic systems within the box.  Check out Poaceae, though.  KP Botany 23:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken a shot at an infobox (we'll see how long it lasts).  This case is easier than most, in the sense that the different taxonomic systems agree on the group, they just differ on what to call it. Kingdon 16:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  KP Botany 20:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox?

message: I've met some statements in Russian web that Monos descended from Dicots. Is that true? If yes (not sure, I'm an amateur), maybe it should be mentioned. Best regards, --CopperKettle 09:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true. The article says many things which (at least taken together) imply this (most directly, the cladogram showing their position in the Mesangiospermae). We address it more directly at Angiosperm. Because of this set of relationships the word "dicot" is one that many people would avoid, since it groups together all the angiosperms which aren't monocots (but which don't really have much to unify them). Kingdon (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Descended from dicots?

message: "Monocotyledons or monocots (Greek language: Μονοκοτυλήδονο)"  Do we need the greek of Monocotyledon? I can't see that it adds any thing and is not monocot from the Latin? Hardyplants (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, and we don't need the Latin etymology either.  That's better handled at Wikipedia.  Note also that the addition was modern Greek, not Classical/Ancient Greek. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

text: No, I don't think that it's slang. "Dicot" and "monocot" are widely used by biologists. An advantage is that it doesn't draw so much attention to the original derivation based on the number of cotyledons; this isn't a defining feature of the modern use of "eudicot" and "monocot".  (I don't think I've ever seen "eudicotyledon".) Peter coxhead (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Monocotyledons''' or '''monocots''' ([[Greek language]]: Μονοκοτυλήδονο) 

message: I think the cross-sectional view of an onion bulb is a less obvious example of parallel veins than a top-down image of a leaf with parallel veins.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.194.155 (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture Examples 

message: The "Evolution" section seems to be sourced much differently than the rest of Wikipedia. I have no evidence that it is plagiarized, but I don't see why else it would be sourced like that. To anyone that does, thanks for looking into it. Lets keep Wikipedia free and legitimate for all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.228.106 (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason it is sourced differently is that it was translated from the Spanish Wikipedia article.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original or plagiarized material? 

message: Is any of the following material from the recently deleted "Monocots" article useful to integrate into this article?
:All the material except the paragraph that begins "Diagnostic characters ..." was either already in the Monocotyledon article or is out of date (e.g. the APG II system has been superseded by the APG III system), which is why there was no need for a separate article. The paragraph can usefully be added, but the article has a rather muddled order at present (in my view anyway) and this needs to be sorted first. I've been thinking about it and will do something if no-one else does. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: One problem is that great chunks of material at the end have been auto-translated from the Spanish Wikipedia, as far as I can tell (although this is not acknowledged anywhere) and are in very poor English as a result. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted "Monocots" article 

message: Setting aside arguments about autotranslation (never a good idea), the fact remains that the Spanish article is rated GA and this isn't. Therefore taking a look at how the Spanish article is organised and its contents and sources is a worthwhile exercise if we are to raise the standard of the English article. I will tag it.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: On reviewing both pages, it does seem that quite a bit of this page was lifted from the Spanish article, but not very well. As a preliminary step to upgrading the page I have revised and corrected all the citations and placed them in a consistent format. I have also made a start at expanding the pre-Linnean taxonomy.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  One amusing example of bad translation is the phrase ""o "núcleo de las monocotiledóneas" por el APW ("core monocots" en inglés)"" translated as ""or 'core monocots' by the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website ("core monocots" in English)"" !! The translator seems to have forgotten they are writing in English.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's what you get when you use Google translate! Peter coxhead (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Monocotyledon. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Conc.converg.Liliales2002.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't seem to be able to edit the introduction. Please change "who" to "which" in the following sentence:
About half as many species belong to the true grasses (Poaceae), who are economically the most important family of monocots. 
 KC 16:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edit 

message: This page has some confusing and self-contradictory information regarding the number of species in Orchidaceae and Poaceae.  Here's what we have currently:
In the introduction
"The monocots include about 60,000 species. The largest family in this group (and in the flowering plants as a whole) by number of species are the orchids (family Orchidaceae), with more than 20,000 species. About half as many species belong to the true grasses (Poaceae), which are economically the most important family of monocots."
In the section titled Taxonomy
"Of these, the grass family (Poaceae) is the most economically important, which together with the orchids Orchidaceaeaccount for half of the species diversity, accounting for 34% and 17% of all monocots respectively and are among the largest families of angiosperms. 
In the section headed Cladogram 2
"Of some 70,000 species,[90] by far the largest number (65%) are found in two families, the orchids and grasses. The orchids (Orchidaceae, Asparagales) contain about 25,000 species and the grasses (Poaceae, Poales) about 11,000."
In the Wikipedia page for Orchidaceae, the number of species is put at about 28,000, and in the page for Poaceae, the number of species is put at about 12,000.
Issues:
Is the number of monocot species about 60,000 or about 70,000?
Orchidaceae is not the largest family in flowering plants.  Asteraceae has 32,913 according to its Wikipedia page.
Is the number of Orchidaceae 20,000, 25,000 or 28,000?
Is the number of Poaceae 11,000, 12,000 or "half of Orchidaceae?"
65% of 70,000 is 45,500 so orchids and grasses are less than 65% of the species.
I would like to make the number consistent within this page and with the Orchidaceae and Poaceae pages.  However, I am not a botanist so this would be best handled by someone from the WikiProject Plants.
neals384  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neals384 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments are very hard to follow, but there is no inconsistency in the statistics, merely in the degree of presumed accuracy in the sources. "about 25,000" and "about 28,000" is essentially saying the same thing with a different assumption of accuracy. "more than 20,000" is entirely in line with both of those values. While you might want a single statistic to be used consistently, doing so would fail to reflect the degree of uncertainty about the number of species. Different counts are obtained using different assumptions about the completeness and accuracy of the known (and unknown) data. It is actually better to provide a range of stated values from the literature because of the uncertainty about the total number of species. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  species counts 

message: Monocotyledon 154.74.127.92 (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biology 

message: Voice concern 102.150.133.126 (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy 

message: Monocots and Dicots 1.38.141.137 (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science 

message: monocot and. Dicot 103.181.227.241 (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science