Talk:Angiosperm Phylogeny Group

message: I removed the following reference, inserted by an anoymous user.  It is not cited in the text and it is not obvious why it is relevant.  If you decide to put it back in the page, please explain here why - and mke sure the text tells the reader why it is relevant:
*G.E. Gvaladze, "The Chalazal Polar Nucleus of the Central Cell of Angiosperm Embryo Sac", Publishing House "Metsniereba", Tbilisi, 1976, 138 pp. (a monograph. In Russian, English summary)
:seglea 19:00, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

message: On reading this, I am looking for more on how APG was originally convened, what its organizational stucture is,  and what is the process it uses to maintain and revise its work.  underalms 15:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. However, I think this is a difficult article to re-write (I agree that at present it's not very good); I have tried but failed to produce something which satisfied me. One problem is the multiplicity of articles in Wikipedia. There are separate articles on the output of the APG (i.e. APG system, APG II system and APG III system). Inevitably there will be overlap. Further, changes and developments aren't clearly described when split up in this way. Thus the article on the APG II system needs to be altered, since it implies that it "is" the system produced by the APG, whereas now it "was" an earlier system. Wouldn't a single larger article on the APG and its work be better? Then there could be sections on e.g. "Origins", "Composition", "Purpose", "APG I system", "APG II system", "APG III system", and so on. Peter (talk) 09:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins, history, and process of the APG

message: The article currently reads, "The system is based on two chloroplast genes and one gene coding for ribosomes. This selection of genes from cell organelles is significant; zoological taxonomy similarly uses genes of mitochondria. The genome of cell organelles is separated somewhat from the nuclear genome, both chloroplasts and mitochondria having their own DNA, actually prokaryote DNA. The sequence of nucleotides is subject to a different rate of change compared to nuclear DNA."  This appears to be refer to APG (2003)'s substantial reliance on the research of Solstis et al, 2000 (Angiosperm phylogeny inferred from 18S rDNA, rbcL, and atpB sequences. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 133: 381–461).  However this is by no means the only form of analysis that APG (2003) uses - the article refers to 4-, 5-, 7- and 11-gene analyses, and even some morphological analyses, e.g. Doyle & Endress, 2000 (Morphological phylogenetic analysis of basal angiosperms: comparison and combination International Journal of Plant Sciences 161 (6 Suppl.): S121–S153).  The form of words we currently have therefore seems misleading.  However this seems to be a surprisingly convtroversial article, and it's not my area of expertise, so I am raising the issue here rather than changing the page immediately; what do other editors think?.
:I agree that what was written in the article was misleading. In my re-write, I've *currently* left out all reference to this topic. I think something should be said, but it's not clear quite what, since I see the APG article as an overview/summary, which is expanded in the separate articles on each of the versions of the system. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Basis for the system

message: Following WP:Bold, I have re-written the article. I've tried to use as much of the previous material as possible, but now re-arranged into sections and expanded. The only bit missing is something about the genes/genetics involved. What was there before is not accurate, as APG II and III have increasingly used more evidence, including multi-gene data sets. I'm not sure whether this should be discussed in this article or in the separate articles on APG I, APG II and APG III. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Under Members of the APG, your treatment of Fay is inconsistent with your treatment of the Soltises. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, yes, I hadn't recorded Fay as a contributor to APG I and II. Just a mistake. I'll check both tables again... Thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: The section added in this edit expresses an opinion which is unsourced, and seems to be an editorial comment. Further, where is the source for the statement that the APG III system is "still limited to being largely based on just three genes"? Unsourced facts and opinions don't belong in the article. I removed the section, but material was put back. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. the APG systems are based on the findings of many other studies, which often use many more than "just three genes". The first reference in this later diff isn't reliable (and is WP:FRINGE). I can't find any other source that even mentions the second publication, which appears to possibly be self-published -- the ISBN mentioned doesn't appear to exist, and no reliable links turn up when you search for "International Seminar on "Multidisciplinary Approaches in Angiosperm Systematics"". The added text revealed a complete lack of understanding of plant systematics in general. As it stands, the text should not be added back. Rkitko (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's like those maps that say "up to date" across the front and hide the publication date where one is unlikely to find it. That first reference is undated, but has a subheading "The big (un-finished) debate". It appears to be discussing APG I, which would be appropriately dismissed as "so 1998", and is thoroughly superseded even by APG II, let alone APG III. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand I don't think it is our place to paper over controversies, but to provide information that allows readers to make their own decisions. Therefore I think the posted sources should be part of the bibliography. APG was never supposed to be the last word, and the impending APG IV exemplifies that. It was the best approach given the information available at the time and being the product of a committee involved compromises. It was rejected by a number of scientists from the start, which is hardly surprising since many of them had their own systems. That a homeopath didn't like it was also not surprising. Popperian scientific philosophy measures the strength of a theory by its refutation, so the controversies are informative. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Incidentally I did find the conference proceedings that are mentioned above, and they appear to be legitimate.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorial comment