Talk:Fabaceae

message: Every peanut pod that I have ever seen is split along a seam.  What am I missing here?
*Dehiscent seed pods split open to release the seed, indehiscent pods don't bust open on their own. The  legume article is using the word indehiscent in the wrong context. Thanks for pointing that out.--Peta 06:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a peanut is an indehiscent legume, that is, one whose pod is not split along a seam.  

message: I linked here from the page on nuts. I would consider myself an amateur botanist (lots of study, plenty of interest, but never took a class), so I don't know enough to see the difference: why are legumes not nuts? Are legumes different from the fruit of a plant, or are they a type of fruit (like a nut or a drupe)? FoiledAgain 20:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Legume can refer both to plant species in Fabaceae as well as the type of fruit they produce. The difference between legumes and nuts are that legumes are usually dehiscent (splitting open at maturity), while nuts are indehiscent (not splitting open). --Schzmo 00:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Nuts? 

message: Is there any good reason why this page entirely overlooks the woody legume species? The page gives the impression that legumes only exist as herbaceous plants. That excludes the numerous woody leguminous species, many with significant ecomomic value. 
Is there a reason for this?
:I don't think it's overlooking them as much as generalizing about the family, since it's a very diverse group of plants. I don't see anything in the text that would make the reader think the family would not include woody plants. There is a sentence "Some genera such as...are ornamental trees and shrubs." Maybe you feel that way because the pictures do not show the woody species? --Schzmo 00:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree on your first point, because simply being redirected to here from Talk:Legume doesn't imply that all legumes are herbaceous, since the first meaning of "legume" is just a synonym for Fabaceae. (However, I think the redirect should not be there because legume also refers to the fruit of Fabaceae plants, which should be a separate topic.) I agree on your second point though, many legumes are trees, harvested commercially for their wood. --Schzmo 01:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why no mention of woody legumes

message: The statement "The International Code of Botanical Nomenclature allows the use of Leguminosae as an equivalent botanical name to this larger family," is simply wrong. The language of the code, cited above, allows the use of Leguminosae for Fabaceae, period, with no requirement of a specific circumscription. I have changed the wording accordingly.--Curtis Clark 19:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Curtis, please re-read the last sentence of Art. 18.5, which I interpret to mean that the name Leguminosae cannot be used for the family in its narrow circumscription although I'm a bit confused as to the relationship between the names Fabaceae and Papilionaceae. Is this saying that Papilionaceae must be used over both Fabaceae and Leguminosae when the family containing Faba is narrowly circumcribed? MrDarwin 19:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. Please ignore my paragraph above. This may very well be the only place where the ICBN regulates circumscription.--Curtis Clark 19:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leguminosae 

message: Taking away the following text may look like a large deletion, but I actually believe this material is already covered in the rest of the article or can be covered by a small amount of text elsewhere.  In particular, the 3 (sub)families are discussed in the Subfamilies section.  I added a sentence near the top of the article emphasizing that fabaceae can have two meanings.  I have added the mention of which way APG and Cronquist go in the subfamily section (although with reservations - I'm not really sure it is important to mention this here).  I have added a mention of the relevant article of the ICBN to a See also section (again, with reservations, because people who care about names generally know where to look, or can find it elsewhere in wikipedia).
:Fabaceae is the botanical name of a plant family. The name has two common meanings:
# It can refer to a large family, Fabaceae sensu lato, which consists of three subfamilies, Mimosoideae, Caesalpinioideae, and Faboideae (often called Papilionoideae). The International Code of Botanical Nomenclature allows the use of Leguminosae as an equivalent botanical name to this larger family. This meaning is used by the APG system and many floras.
# It can refer to the subfamily Faboideae treated at the family level. In this circumscription, the other two subfamilies become the families Mimosaceae and Caesalpiniaceae. This circumscription is used in the Cronquist system and elsewhere. The smaller Fabaceae in this system can be referred to as "Papilionaceae", a name also approved by International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.
:In consulting any book that uses the name Fabaceae, care should be taken to make sure what group it applies to.
I am motivated by a desire to focus on what is agreed knowledge/classification about these plants, not on naming controversies/differences (I seem to have been successful at this in spermatophyte for example). Kingdon 17:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the edits--while the text could be worded better, it represented a compromise that was hashed out between several editors.  The latest edit simply removed too much significant information without clarifying anything. The problems of Fabaceae/Leguminosae naming are significant, and referring to the ICBN under "see also" seems like a non sequitur unless you already know what's going on. MrDarwin 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first paragraph refers to genera that are not included in Fabaceae s. str. Having that paragraph after the taxonomic explanation confuses the section even more. Perhaps it would be best for the article to explicitly cover Fabaceae s. lat., and mention Fabaceae s. str. as an alternative.--Curtis Clark 04:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I rearranged the opening section slightly, to put what I considered the more important (and less technical) information at the top. Let me know what you think, but I'm certainly not opposed to further rewriting to improve. I primarily want to see the text become less confusing while retaining the same information, rather than dropping it entirely. MrDarwin 14:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, your rearrangement does a lot to accomplish what I was trying to do.  We seem to agree that opening up with a dive into taxonomic terminology isn't what the average reader is going to find most interesting.  As for the text from "According to the classification system being consulted" to "make sure what group it applies to", it still seems wordy and/or overspecialized to me.  But at least it isn't right at the start now. It is possible that the real solution is going to have to include renaming the article to "Fabaceae sensu lata" or "Leguminosae" (with Fabaceae as a disambiguation page).  But the idea of trying to agree on which of the two terrifies me :-) Kingdon 12:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might also want to look at my edits to Legume and Papilionoideae and Papilionaceae (the latter two changing redirects).  Hopefully not as controversial... Kingdon 13:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concisify taxonomic information 

message: I'm not sure this image belongs here. Would it be more useful in the article about Faboideae? I think we probably need a better description of the flower of a Faboidea, by the way. If somebody can make SVGs or wants to clear the background I can provide the photo without any description. Aelwyn 11:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehm... the edit obviously wasn't a minor one! Sory Aelwyn 12:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image 

message: This edit from 2007 introduced references to "Chapphill 1994; Tucker & Douglas 1004; Doyle 1983; Doyle & al. 1997" and "J. J. Doyle & al. 2000 and references; Bruneau & al. 2001".  These references persisted until earlier today despite the fact that I don't see any full cite (then or now).  I've gone ahead and replaced them with some papers by Wojciechowsk (and coauthors) which do supply the given facts, but thought I should let people know, in case anyone wants to track them down or finds it interesting that this situation persisted as long as it did. Kingdon (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete references which were there for almost two years(!) 

message: Judd (see ref list) gives a figure of 257400 angiosperm species. Using their figures for the top 5 legume genera we get 4800 species out of 18000 for the entire family, so 26.67%.  The top 5 legume genera amount to 1.86% of all angiosperm species. All legume species amount to about 7% of flowering plant species. Plantsurfer (talk) 09:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers of species in top 5 genera 

message: Today, I went ahead and merged Pulse (legume) into Legume article, with intention to consolidate all the (fragmentary) information about agricultural importance of legumes into one article. It is still far cry from even a C-quality article, but it has to start somewhere.Now, there is a significant content (and editing effort) overlap with this article, and I think it should be addressed. I think there are two ways to proceed:
* Merge the two articles. Currently, there is not much in legume that is not covered here. 
* Keep two articles, but reorganize the material so that Fabaceae is more focused on botanic aspects, while Legume would contain more about history, agriculture and other economic aspects. 
I would prefer the second approach, which would mostly involve moving contents of Fabaceae#Economic and cultural importance into Legume, and shortening it here. ("#Industrial uses" subsection is particularly apt). To my knowledge, such splitting is a common (but not universal) practice for commercially important plants. However, it is kind of complicated here, because of wide scope of both articles.
Thoughts? No such user (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlap with [[Legume]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Fabaceae. 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/20101213041459/http://delta-intkey.com/angio/ to http://delta-intkey.com/angio/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fabaceae. 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/20131019140707/http://loco.biosci.arizona.edu/pdfs/MagallonEvolution2001.pdf to http://loco.biosci.arizona.edu/pdfs/MagallonEvolution2001.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.medigraphic.com/espanol/e-htms/e-lamicro/e-mi2005/e-mi05-1_2/em-mi05-1_2f.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Idk 103.171.58.213 (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mimosa