It is a matter of naming.
Not sure English in the wide sense has much to do with it

"Core Eudicots" is a name as used by the APG.
The group it applies to could be approximated by "true dicots" although this
would not be especially helpful. These certainly are not "original" in any
sense of this word. Certainly they cannot be called just "dicots", a
different concept entirely (dicots are angiosperms minus monocots).

It might be regarded as a problem that the names for clades as used by the
APG are not regulated by any Code. They could be formalized under the ICBN,
but the APG does not seem to propose that. They could also be formalized
under the PhyloCode, if ever this becomes operational.

Nevertheless these names are pretty widely accepted and used. What is your
problem with the names for primitive angiosperms as proposed by the APG, as
in the book by Judd &al ? (BTW followed by and large by the authoritative
textbook by Raven &al).
PvR

Cereoid+10 schreef
Problem with English here.

"Core Eudicots" are the original true dicots so simply calling them dicots
should be sufficient.

The primitive trimerous dicots are not true dicots in the modern sense and
they are the group in need of a name of their own. Presently the group still
lacks a name of its own.

If you claim the group has a name, tell us what it is.

Cereoid+10 schreef
Calling the true dicots with 4-5 merous flowers "Core Eudicots" is
redundant and unnecessary.

P van Rijckevorsel wrote in message
+ + +
Since it is a distinct clade it deserves a distinct name.
"Core Eudicots" may not be a thing of beauty, but is unambiguous
+ + +

What is needed is a term to describe the primitive 3-merous false
dicots!!

+ + +
All the basal clades do have names.
BTW There is no such thing as "false dicots"
Although it has lost quite a bit of luster as a hypothesis for a natural
grouping, "dicot" is still a name in current usage and none of the plants
belonging to it are false. They all do exist.
PvR