Talk:Rosids
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rosids article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
More photos needed
[edit]Because the Rosids are a large and diverse group, what is needed here is a gallery section. I must admit my inability to provide it. 128.171.106.213 (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
info desired
[edit]It would be very nice if this article gave some information about the physical features that generally characterize rosids, as opposed to asterids and other groups. Since the group was described long before the earliest molecular studies, there must be some. Looie496 (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC) YES, DITTO!Tedtoal (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, what makes a rosid a rosid? Gpcfox (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Some common rosids?
[edit]Just for making the page more accessible... i.e. Cucumber! --Dan Bolser (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Source for little known fact is outdated and should be changed.
[edit]The source that is referenced when calling eurosids "true rosids" is outdated and no longer mentions anything regarding it. Initially, I thought that this piece of information was well known enough to come from multiple different sources, but I was wrong. Searching for "true rosids" yielded few results, most of which cited this article or the outdated reference. Some didn't even cite any sources at all. It took me forever, but I was finally able to find a new viable source: an old textbook from 2001.
In summary, the current citation being used for "true rosids" should be changed to page 46 of Macmillan's Plant Sciences Volume 1 (2001). Below is the link to the source and the information needed to create the citation:
Media: Textbook
Title: Plant Sciences
Volume: 1
Imprint: Macmillan Reference USA
Publisher: Gale
Year Published: 2001
Author/Lead Editor: Richard Robinson
Other Editors: Robert C. Evans, Wendy Mechaber, & Robert S. Wallace
Page(s): 46
Notes: Part of "The Macmillan Science Library". An archive.org account is needed to access the book online.
Link to Source: https://archive.org/details/plantsciences0000unse_k6s0/page/46 Stargazer49 (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- I would interpret the citation as being for the classification, rather than for the term "true rosids". "true rosids" is an English calque of "eurosids" and I would argue doesn't need a citation. I would also interpret it as an explanation of the meaning of eurosid rather than documentation of a term in use - "eurosids (true rosids) rather than "eurosids or true rosids".
- The is scope for argument on whether the calque adds to the article. eu- is widely understood as a prefix denoting a narrower clade. The calque may cause more confusion than understanding.
- One could still switch the citation to a more stable source (such as APG IV). Lavateraguy (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm already aware that Eurosids are split into two subclades - Fabidae (Eurosids I) and Malvidae (Eurosids II). However, due to the fact that the claque "true rosids" is so rarely used to begin with, and that the general public likely having no idea what calques even are, it makes sense to still have it cited. I do like the idea explaining this detail, though, so along with updating the citation, "true rosids" being a claque, could then be added as a footnote nested under the new/updated reference, linking to Calque (Wikipedia article). Stargazer49 (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)