 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Redirected edit
The article was unreferenced, and severely out of date. As an interim measure I have re-directed it to Taxonomy of the Cactaceae. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the expansion of the article in January 2020 by Cs california was not explicitly sourced either, and is now also somewhat out-of-date. It's hard to keep up with the classification of Cactaceae! Peter coxhead (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- There's a review of the state of knowledge of cactus phylogenetic relationships in 2019 at doi:10.1093/jhered/esy064. As seems to be the case at present, clades are used in many cases rather than formal ranks. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- All of that is usually imported from the other wikipedias. If you got something more recent please do replace it--Cs california (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Cs california: ah, thanks for the response. When you import material from other wikipedias, please put
{{Translated page}}on the talk page. It's necessary for copyright reasons, but also helps other wikipedia editors to understand where the material came from. - On the issue of an updated classification, at present I think there isn't a system supported by more recent molecular phylogenetic studies. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Cs california: ah, thanks for the response. When you import material from other wikipedias, please put
- All of that is usually imported from the other wikipedias. If you got something more recent please do replace it--Cs california (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)