 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
What is the criterion used for this? Melchior system always would be considered as of high importance, mainly for practicability. It still have great importance until now, used in identification keys, floras, manuals, reference works, books on Taxonomy, etc, etc. It is not like APG and similars whose classification needs survey on genetic code to finally identify plants (they usually not use morphological characters for this) (see Chase, Mark W. et al. (2007).A proposal for a standardised protocol to barcode all land plants.Taxon 56(2):295–299, all this is impractical so far). Berton 18:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- But it is not "a basis for understanding all other imformation" in botany, which is the criterion for "High" ranking. --EncycloPetey 22:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- No, "a basis for understanding all other information" in botany, which is the criterion for "Top" ranking. Berton 23:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EncycloPetey (talk • contribs)
- Fifty years ago, this system would have held more importance. Today, it is more of a historical curiosity, preserved only in old books and a few herbaria filing systems. --EncycloPetey 12:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Fifty years ago this system was published and updated the Engler system, the more important system ever created. Until today this system is fully usable, mainly because it is fully practical. After Swift, Lloyd H. (1974). Botanical Classifications. Hamden, Connecticut, USA: Archon Books. ISBN 0-208-01455-1.: "A reference in all taxonomic courses is the Syllabus der Pflanzenfamilien, which follows the Melchior system."
- Classifications are mere suggestions, the main criterion should be the practicability, and the systems with morphological basis take advantage on the "phylogenetic" ones (including APG system).
- The chronological criterion is not valid. The Holy Bible, as well, would be a "historical curiosity"?
- Furthermore, this evaluation (WP:Plants assessment) is useless, it would be much more useful if the editors contribute for the articles.Berton 12:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fifty years ago, this system would have held more importance. Today, it is more of a historical curiosity, preserved only in old books and a few herbaria filing systems. --EncycloPetey 12:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, "a basis for understanding all other information" in botany, which is the criterion for "Top" ranking. Berton 23:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EncycloPetey (talk • contribs)