Talk:Rosaceae

message: It'd be better if the characteristic morphological traits of Rosaceae, e.g. the possession of a hypanthium, were described. S.R. Hinsley, http://www.malvaceae.info
:Please do! - MPF 21:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, no kidding!  Unfortunately I don't know enough about it to do so, but I was rather disappointed that there weren't really any "distinguishing characteristics" given of such a major family! - 4.252.5.36 05:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old comments

message: There a new paper out on the phylogeny of Rosaceae - Phylogeny and classification of Rosaceae. Unfortunately it's behind a paywall, so I don't know what it says, but the abstract indicates that Dryadeae is promoted to subfamilial rank, and Maloideae and Amygdaloideae are sunk in Spiraeoideae. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More comments on this below, since 2011 the correct name for the subfamily that includes the old Maloideae, Amygdaloideae, and Spiraeoideae, is Amygdaloideae. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Phylogeny Paper 

message: "The largest genera are Sorbus, Crataegus and Cotoneaster". Did someone forget about Rubus? --195.130.92.43 (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That has been fixed. Nadiatalent (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest genera 

message: Far be it from me to dispute the fact that flowers of the rose family are indeed frequently used for show, but worded as-is ("The flowers are generally showy"), the sentence is not very informative.  How exactly is "showy" defined?  When I hear the word "showy," I think of a diva who likes attention but presents a somewhat fake facade in order to get it.  I'll admit, I haven't really got any great alternatives in mind at the moment, but I think just about anything would be better than leaving it as open-ended as it currently is.  Cheers.  Sleddog116 (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: All that I can say is that botanists often describe the flowers in that way, and consistency of the terminology would be a good thing. "Very visible" was offered as an alternative that I don't find very satisfactory, perhaps only because they are sometimes a bit submerged in the foliage, though it is certainly true that most Rosaceae don't hide their flowers. Rosaceae flowers generally fit some or all of the meanings of showy, such as flashy, impressive, gaudy. (There are exceptions, such as most raspberry flowers, but those are neither showy nor visible.) Nadiatalent (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, when I offered "very visible", that wasn't something I had my heart set on or anything; I just thought it would be better than what was there.  The important thing here is that even though that may be how botanists describe the flowers, this article isn't written for botanists - it's written for laymen.  Might I suggest that we change it to "Botanists often describe flowers in the rose family as 'showy'"?  That's a little bit more specific, which is what I think we need here.  Do you agree? Sleddog116 (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll leave it to others to contribute opinions. As a botanist, I'm hopelessly biased. Nadiatalent (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see if I can get a third opinion, then.  Thanks.  Sleddog116 (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted the entire sentence.  You can use "Botanists often describe flowers in the rose family as 'showy'", but you will need a citation for this.  I'm also coming from WP:3O but do not disregard this as a dismissable opinion because I am also contributing to consensus.Curb Chain (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Horticulturists often describe flowers as showy ("when to prune trees with showy flowers", "Showy Flowers Nursery", "Tulips have showy flowers", "Hibiscus is often grown for its showy flowers"), and it occurs in common names such as "Showy Gaillardia", "Showy Lady's Slipper". Nadiatalent (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with your statement, Nadia, but as Curb Chain said - we'd definitely need a citation for that.  If you are a horticulturalist, can you provide some horticultural resource that we can cite that describes these flowers as "showy".  If there is, there shouldn't be any problem because we can just describe the flowers the same way the source describes them.  (Even a print source like a field guide would probably be sufficient - we just need something we can use to verify the use of the term.)  Sleddog116 (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See  Lavateraguy (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Addition: I found a couple of other sources (here and here) that might help.  I'm going to attempt a bold edit here - anyone can feel free to revert it and bring it back here if you don't like it.  Sleddog116 (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "showy" 

message: The larger subfamily that includes the old Spiraeoideae, Amygdaloideae/Prunoideae, and Maloideae/Pyroideae is the subject of a change to the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, and there will be an explicit example in the code about this case. The new code has been in force since July 2011, but the text isn't yet available in its final form (some earlier versions can be found in a set of publications, but it is probably easier to wait a bit longer). The distributor of the publication (Koeltz Scientific Books) says that it will appear in November 2012. In the meantime, there is some explanation at Amygdaloideae. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of subfamilies 

message: This article describes rosaceae as a medium sized family of angiosperms,but,given all the fruits that are members of this family,such as those listed in the article, I would have thought it a rather large family.Vorbee (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: About 4828 species in 104 genera. Compare with large families Poaceae, 11,554 species in 759 genera and Orchidaceae 27,801 species in 899 genera. Plantsurfer 22:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 11,554 species in 759 genera and Orchidaceae 27,801 species in 899 genera.--AlfaRocket (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Medium sized

message: Is it possible we could have the first sentence a IPA spelling of Roseceae?
Is it roze-AY-see-uh? 
roze-AY-see?
ro-ZAY-see-uh? 
ro-zay-SEE-ay? 
I've spent so much time thinking about it, it's stopped making any sense to me. Satyris410 (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation