This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
|
At the moment there are two labelled diagrams of the daisy florets (ray and disc) with a key hidden on the diagram's description page (BTW the disc floret's key is missing). It would make more sense for the text to refer to these diagrams and these labels. As it stands the diagrams aren't well integrated into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vynbos ( talk • contribs) 07:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The shown phylogeny of the Asteraceae needs to be updated. It misses the recently found subfamily Famatinanthoideae (Panero et al. 2014: Resolution of deep nodes yields an improved backbone phylogeny and a new basal lineage to study early evolution of Asteraceae. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 80: 43–53) -- Gerschi89 ( talk) 07:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Asteraceae. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Why, No mention about the relation of the Fibonacci sequence to the number of pedals of a flower? You can understand it more here in this documentry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_38IjRypb4 -- 172.251.199.47 ( talk) 23:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I like the use of the Bidens torta example. I added another image that shows the individual flowers. Hopefully, this is the clarification desired. User-duck ( talk) 20:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Section Floral Heads relies primarily on one source and does some pretty close paraphrasing of its content. I tagged it and am leaving this note here. Source is
Content appears to have been added by User:FloraWilde in June 2014, a suspected sockpuppet. Should the content (which is needed) be removed? Not sure I'm up to analyzing it right now, but I discovered this because I recently bought the book. — Eewilson ( talk) 04:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I would like to ask the community for consensus (or not) regarding moving the reference definitions of this article to the References section. This article needs some expansion (and cleanup, see recent discussion, above), and I thought I might try to work on it here and there. I personally find that easier to do and for my poor tired eyes to read when the reference definitions are moved from inline and when the {{r}}
template is used. Please give your thoughts on this. I know not everyone has the same preferences. —
Eewilson (
talk) 23:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
{{
R}}
(but see the boxed note at the top of its documentation).
Peter coxhead (
talk) 09:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
{{
R}}
(readability, typeability -- I have chronic pain and moving my hands to type the brace is less painful than the gt/lt symbols), and I like citation templates. So for now, I'll pretend I didn't read that R may be deprecated. That would be sad for me. Thanks for your input! —
Eewilson (
talk) 10:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Jussieu's 1789 Genera Plantarum recognises the group as his unnamed Classis X, divided into 3 ordines (families in modern parlance) roughly corresponding to Carduoideae, Cichorioideae, and Asteroideae. But I would expect that such an obvious group was recognised earlier (e.g. in Linnaeus's sketch of natural groups in Philosophia Botanica), but referring to my draft article on the history of Malvaceae classification to remind me of early works on classification brings up von Royen's Flora Leydensis of 1740, which not only recognises the group, but also uses the name Compositae. (Which probably settles the question of whether Compositae or Synanthérées was coined first.) For a post-Linnaean usage, Adanson's Familles des Plantes of 1763 has Composées/Compositae. In Tournefort's Elemens de Botanique of 1694 Compositae is represented by Classis XII to XIV, but Classis XII also includes Dipsacaceae. Lavateraguy ( talk) 23:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)