Talk:Nymphaeales

If this were combined with hierarchal taxonomy, then the Nymphaeales must be placed into their own class, Nymphaeopsida.

If integrated with a hierarchial taxonomy that rejected paraphyletic groups, that would be true. One would also need classes Austrobaleyopsida and Amborellopsida, possibly a few more. But as far as I can tell, this has never been done. Nymphaeopsida has been used, but it's really hard to tell if it's ever been used in the sense given here. Hard-core monophyletics seem content to go without classes. As such, shouldn't the above be tempered somewhat, to reflect how uncommon the system it's proposing is?

---

Groan. Hierarchical taxonomy is inching closer to phylogenetic correctness. I agree that the other groups you mentioned would be necessary. So what? We're using taxoboxes of hierarchical taxonomy. If you feel this way, then I guess what I need to do is to start adding a second taxobox to each page to reflect the PhyloCode. jaknouse 18:52, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think I understand what you're suggesting. Are you arguing that mentioning Nymphaeopsida in the text is necessary to follow PhyloCode? Because under that system, there's nothing wrong with treating the Nymphaeales as a direct subgroup of the Magnoliophyta is entirely acceptable, without introducing any classes. If that isn't your objection, I'm afraid I've missed your intended point. -- Josh