Talk:Dicotyledon

message: is an obsolete category, since some of the plants that have two cotyledons are more remotely related to the (large) majority of dicotyledons than are the monocotyledons. See for example UCB. Note that Magnolia, which is pictured in the taxobox, is not among Eudicotyledonae. --Etxrge 06:35, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not merely paraphyletic, but polyphyletic, so the term if it is used by professionals either is used in the old-fashioned sense, or to mean eudicots. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obsolete naming 

message: I like the useful comparison between monocots and dicots at the end of the article, as monocot/dicot is if out of favor still a very commonly referred-to distinction and their characteristics are required.  However, since it's no longer 'good' knowledge, I suggest adding a rationale for the last section, such as 'though now considered by most cladisticians a misleading classification system, the classical contrast between monocots and dicots remains useful for both practical and historical reasons and their characteristics as presented in the common schoolbook are as follows:" or something.
Hm. I was not aware that monocot/dicot was out of favor; I'm taking an upper-level plant physiology course at my university and they still use the "obsolete" distinction. I came here through the Eudicot article, and although the articles say that the dicotyledon classification was paraphyletic, and therefore unfavorable, there aren't really any examples of "dicots" whose closest relatives produce embryos with a single cotyledon. Examples, as well as additional references, would be most helpful. Also, to the user who posted above: please remember to sign your name with four tildes (~) after posting. Murphy2010 (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me like the "textbook comparison" should be between monocots and eudicots, and there isn't much need to go into detail on the others (which are, after all, smaller in number). I'm not really sure what you are asking for in terms of examples, but magnoliids (say, magnolia or Asarum or Asimina) have trimerous flowers yet do not have parallel leaf veins.  Is that what you mean? As for references, how about  ()?  But again, I'm not sure what kinds of references you want. Kingdon (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Schoolbook Classification" 

message: Do not merge: At least according to the Magnoliopsida article, the term Magnoliopsida does not necessarily mean dicotyledons - it can be angiosperms, or even part of the magnoliids. There's more discussion at Talk:Magnoliopsida Kingdon 16:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging Magniolopsida 

message: Whether this article is the important one, or eudicot/magnoliid/etc, or both, kind of depends on how we organize the material. But eudicots and magnoliids are both large and familiar groups of plants, and we could have more material (and better-organized material) about things like common traits, their molecular biology, adaptations, etc, etc. Kingdon 00:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality/Importance 

message: Can someone more talented at HTML than I please edit the page so that there isn't a huge amount of white space inbetween "...further divided." and "The following lists..."?
It really cuts down on theusefulness of the article.
Portalthinking (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing more than the usual between-paragraph whitespace using Firefox 2.0.0.9.  But I did get rid of the  which had been there.  Does this help?  Removing it seems to work for me. I think that div had been intended to make sure that the table of APG and Cronquist subgroups aren't next to the photo or the taxobox, but there is now enough text so that won't happen anyway.  But if I'm wrong about that, someone please advise. Kingdon (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: As a lay person, I would value additional generalised information written for the public.  I came here from the link on the monocot page, where there is the scientific information as well as quite interesting stuff on geographical spread, economic value and lots of common names of plants I recognise.   I was hoping to find similar information here so I could compare dicot and monocot in general terms rather than taxonomic.
This isn't a criticism of what is here, I'm not qualified to do that, but is instead a request for more. maturin (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A table has been added concerning that. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 17:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request More General Information 

message: It redirects here but the word does not appear in the article. Equinox (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just a short form of "dicotyledon", much less used in my experience. Added to the lead with a reference. Good catch! Peter coxhead (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does "dicotyl" mean?