Talk:Asphodeloideae

Optional synonym

I am unable to interpret the sentence "The family Asphodelaceae is an optional synonym of Xanthorrhoeaceae.". Does it mean that some botanical authority allows the name "Asphodelaceae" to be used for either family? Does it mean that the two are in fact the same family, and our two pages should be merged? Neither of these interpretations seems very plausible to me. Thank you — Pekinensis 17:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is official terminology used by APG, but it is very cryptic. I am replacing it wherever I find it. Brya 09:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed text

The following text seemed most inapropriate in this article - if every species was listed the article would go for ever and these two are neither especially characteristic or unusual. The text is saved here so that it may be re-used in a more appropriate place:

Bulbinella hookeri (Syn. Anthericum chrysobactron, Anthericum hookeri) is a distinctive New Zealand plant, 15 to 20 inches high, with bright yellow flowers, in long spikes in early summer. It grows best in moist, deep soils.

Echeandia flavescens is a plant having basal grasslike leaves and a narrow open cluster of star-like yellowish-orange flowers atop a leafless stalk, found in southwestern United States.

Velela (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phylogeny of Asphodeloideae

I agree with this edit; the removed material was left over from when this article concerned the separate family Asphodelaceae. However, the phylogeny of any group includes its position within the containing group as well as its internal structure, and I think some discussion of the position of Asphodeloideae within Xanthorrhoeaceae is needed in the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Asphodeloideae. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

APG ranks

Given that we use the latest APG classification here, it's important to map ranks and names used in sources that don't accept the broad circumscription of Asphodelaceae to APG-compatible ones, thus:

sensu APG III onwards	narrower circumscriptions favoured by many working on these taxa
family Asphodelaceae	(only a node/clade)
subfamily Asphodeloideae	family Asphodelaceae sensu stricto
tribe Aloeae	subfamily Alooideae sensu stricto

Peter coxhead (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]