Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a24e3a297b447fd8

Jump to content

Talk:Agavoideae

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 9 years ago by 160.111.254.17 in topic Agavaceae

Untitled

[edit]

Genus Eremocrinum is not included on this list. Can anyone say if this is because of a controvery about its inclusion or about the integrity of the genus itself? NaySay 16:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

If only we had Eremocrinum to explain... :-) The genus seems well-attested by external sources such as FNA, but placed in Liliaceae, while Wikispecies seems to use Lohmueller's page that puts it in Anthericaceae and then includes that in Agavaceae. The genus should probably be mentioned in both family articles so it can be found. Stan 14:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I checked the Flora of North America volume, which I believe follows the Cronquist system (thus Liliaceae s.l.) and in the introduction they provide an alternate classification placing the various genera of Liliaceae s.l. in various segregate families that have been recognized more recently, with Eremocrinum in Anthericaceae (which I guess places it in Agavaceae in the APG II system?). I've added it to the genus list. MrDarwin 14:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Agavaceae

[edit]

It's a bit aggravating that "Agavaceae" redirects to this page. APG III is one classifification, widely but not universally accepted, and the concept of Agavaceae still exists and is still accepted by some taxonomists. It would be useful to have a separate article on Agavaceae, as a historic and/or alternative classification, including its circumscription (which is not necessarily the same as Agavoideae), who still accepts it as a family and why, as well as why it is rolled into Asparagaceae by APG III (a family circumscription which I must stress has not been universally accepted or adopted!) 160.111.254.17 (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply