Cereoid+10 schreef
I was alluding to your grasp of English not the language in general.

+ + +
Thanks for the clarification
+ + +

Lets try this again because you don't seem to understand what is being
said here. Or is it you just like being verbose and obtuse?

Presently there are three primary clades of flowering plants recognized.

+ + +
? ? ? Depends on what you mean by "primary"
+ + +

1. The primitive trimerous dicots.

+ + +
According to Judd &al (2002) there are 4(+) primitive clades
(primitive = non-eudicot and non-monocot).
Not all trimerous either
+ + +

2. Monocots.

+ + +
Yes, this is the umabiguous one
+ + +

3. True (4-5 merous) Dicots. (so called "Core Eudicots")

+ + +
? ? ? The "Core Eudicots" are a clade within the Eudicots.
Certainly the "Core Eudicots" is a very big clade, but I would hesitate to
call it "primary".
+ + +

It is the first clade that is in need of a simple easy to understand name.

+ + +
The biggest (and trimerous) clade in that group goes by names such as
"Magnoliids" or "Magnoliid complex". This seems easy enough to understand,
isn't it?
+ + +

So what if the AGP uses the name "Core Eudicots" for the true dicots. It
is silly and redundant. As used in common botanical parlance, the term
"dicot" has a much deeper meaning than just the number of seedling
cotyledons.

+ + +
Obviously "dicot" is a name for a group of plants. The number of
cotyledons per plant is not constant in this group, although usually two.
+ + +

Dicots are angiosperms minus monocots only in your antiquated
understanding.

+ + +
Probably shared with 99%+ of botanists. Not to mention the general
population
+ + +

The present concept is that dicots are (4-5 merous) angiosperms minus
monocots minus trimerous dicots.

+ + +
This is what is called a self-contradictory statement.
Even if disregarding the slip likely you are in a minority of one here?
+ + +

I am not talking about the names of families, orders, classes, etc.

To which names for primitive angiosperms as proposed by the APG, as in the
book by Judd &al. do you allude? What makes the textbook by Raven &al. so
authoritative? Just the fact it is large and expensive and parrots Judd &
al.? Polly want a textbook?

Also, cite the links to the websites to which you allude.

+ + +
Actually there is life outside the web.
Certainly the bulk of literature is outside the web
PvR

======================
P van Rijckevorsel
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