In article m,
Cereoid+10 writes

Presently there are three primary clades of flowering plants recognized.

1. The primitive trimerous dicots.

2. Monocots.

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

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

* It is also far from obvious that the first group is a clade, many
sources reckoning it as a paraphyletic group. Judd et al (1 edn, start
of chapter 8) give 6 alternative cladograms, in none of which are the
"primitive" dicots a clade.

Tree of Life

http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Angiosp...=Spermatopsida

has yet another cladogram which has three basal lineages (Amborallales,
Nymphales and Austrobaileyales), and a pentachotomy in the
Euangiosperms. (It does have most of the primitive euangiosperms in a
tetrachotomous magnoliid clade.)

Angiosperm Phylogeny Website has a similar cladogram

http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/Research/...apweb2map.html

I notice, that if you ignore the ANITA taxa, this has restored the
monocot-dicot dichotomy, with Ceratophyllales incertae sedis.

* Your trichotomy excludes some plants, viz. the basal eudicots. The
eudicots are the clade with primitively tricolpate pollen, not all of
which have 4-5-merous flowers. The Core Eudicots are a group therein,
excluding, at least, Gunnerales, Ranunculales and Proteales. Whether the
Core Eudicot clade is equivalent the clade which has primitively
4-5-merous flowers is the point under discussion; there's enough
variation in the floral morphology of non-rosid, non-asterid eudicots
that it is not obvious to me what the character polarities should be on
a cladogram.

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.

Yes, it refers to a suite of traits which distinguishes the combination
of the basal angiosperms and tricolpates from the monocots, one of which
is the number of seedling cotyledons. (Not all of which are universal in
either group, due to subsequent changes of character states.)

Dicots are angiosperms minus monocots only in your antiquated understanding.
The present concept is that dicots are (4-5 merous) angiosperms minus
monocots minus trimerous dicots.

Not on Tree of Life, not on Angiosperm Phylogeny Website, not in Judd et
al, nor in any other source I've seen. Have you a citation for this
"modernised" redefinition of the term dicot?
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley