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.
A fact from Magnoliidae appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 July2008, and was viewed approximately 34 times (disclaimer). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the Magnoliidae include species that produce safrole, the primary precursor for synthesis of Ecstasy(chemical structure pictured)?
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant
No, it doesn't. That was published as a minority opinion in an "accompanying paper" by two of the APG III authors. The APG III (2009) recommendations include no specifications for names above the rank of order. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
If someone has something on the use or non-use of that classification, I'd be interested in hearing about it. But I agree that it isn't part of APG III, and kind of hope we'll be able to ignore it. That's mostly because it upends long-standing classifications even more than APG does. Less relevant for wikipedia purposes is my own opinion - that it makes no sense to cram 300,000 species of land plants into a single class in order to avoid elevating green algae classes to phylums (affecting 10,000 green algae species). Kingdon (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
It also assumes that clades of equal geological age must be given equal rank under a Linnaean system, which is more shoehorning than I care for. They should try to make the zoological community fit in as well. Since the tetrapods evloved about the same time as seed plants, the two should have equal ranks, right? So the Amphbibia, Reptilia, Aves, Mammalia and extinct groups of land vertebrates should all be combined into a single subclass...just for the sake of misguided consistency. If zoologists can live with the inconsistency that class Aves lies within class Reptilia, then botanists can live with the fact that old algae clades are not ranked in the same way as the clades in their more diverse sister taxon. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
