Talk:Euphorbiaceae

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plants High‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Malpighiales or Euphorbiales?

Would someone be kind enough to expatiate on the controversies concerning the classification of Euphorbiaceae. The order is variously given as Malpighiales and Euphorbiales. Why is this? Has any consensus occurred?I was hoping for some discussion in the article. NaySay 15:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The APG II (See: [1]) clearly assigns the Euphorbiaceae to the order Malpighiales : "Changes in Malpighiales mainly reflect assignment to this order of six previously unplaced families and the dismemberment of broadly circumscribed Flacourtiaceae and Euphorbiaceae". If there has been any confusion, it is because (according to AGP II) : "No molecular evidence supports Euphorbiaceae s.l. as monophyletic, and here they are divided into three families (as in Chase et al., 2002). Euphorbiaceae s.s. comprise the uniovulate Euphorbioideae, Crotonoideae and Acalyphoideae". JoJan 15:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Most spurges are herbs, but some, especially in the tropics, are shrubs or trees."

The article says "Most spurges are herbs, but some, especially in the tropics, are shrubs or trees." The word "most" is ambiguous. It could refer to number of species, could refer to biomass in the field, could mean "dominance" in a vegetation types, could refer to biomass or unit numbers in commercial use (e.g. Poinsettias in greenhouses), or some meaning of "most" that is unlikely to be what the word is interpreted to mean by a layperson reader.

The following is from a Poinsettia cultivation web page - "If cuttings are allowed to stretch prior to pinch and a hard pinch is performed the tissue on the lower stem is more mature and woody. This woody tissue does not break as well resulting in fewer shoots". This euphorbia is considered to be "woody", and from this perspective would considered a shrub, not an herb. It is possibly true that "most euphorbias a person is likely to see during their lifetimes are Poinsettia shrubs." In the sense of a Brave New World dystopian perspective, the following (dark humor) sentence might actually be true, "If 20th Century trends of ecosystem destruction, unregulated collection of wild plants in the field, and commercial use continue, most Euphorbias will be Poinsettias".

Some clarification is needed as to what is meant by "most" (in this otherwise valid sentence), with RS sources. FloraWilde (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Euphorbiaceae. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101213041459/http://delta-intkey.com/angio/ to http://delta-intkey.com/angio/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070103200438/http://delta-intkey.com:80/ to http://delta-intkey.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 02:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why does "Tártago" redirect here?

Not mentioned in article. Equinox ◑ 23:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Equinox: Good question. Based on this source it should either be a disambiguation page (but it's not an English word) or deleted. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: I found it while researching the word for Wiktionary. So it might be a (possibly rare or archaic) English word for a certain plant in this family. See e.g. [2]. (I have to say, it doesn't seem to have any common/frequent English use, so I'm going to drop it. You can do what you want with the redirect.) Equinox ◑ 00:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]