First of all, thanks a lot to @vojtechzavadil for clarifying that not all monocots have parallel venation.
The guide on the difference between dicots and monocots for Week 3 of the ID-a-Thon is not so clear no this, however (at least in my opinion). I was of the impression – from studying the guide, the way the guide was presented – that all monocots have parallel venation, and all plants whose leaves have parallel venation are monocots.
Does a plant have to have ALL the characteristics listed in the appropriate column in table in the guide to be either a dicot or a monocot? I’d like to learn more about telling dicots and monocots apart.
Start local, and you can accumulate the exceptions as you go. Follow your notifications and nurture the taxon specialists who are kind and patient with explanations.
With monocots and dicots, the number of dicot species is much bigger than the number of monocots. There are some people who specialize in monocots, or can reasonably fish their favorite group, lilies for example, out of a pool of monocots. But the dicot group is so big it’s not particularly nice to work with. In that sense Diana is right that families are more useful. But of course there’s more than two families, so more information to learn. On the bright side sometimes members of families look more obviously like each other than a pair of random dicots look like each other.
There really aren’t any 100% consistent rules for figuring out if something is a monocot vs. a “dicot” (more info below), but I would recommend learning some of the common monocot orders and their characteristics, then go to families that occur in the region you are identifying. For example, species in the order Liliales can have either parallel or reticulate venation, but if memory serves, in North America the only groups in the Liliales that consistently show reticulate venation are the Smilacaceae and Melanthiaceae tribe Parideae (Trilliaceae in alternative taxonomies). These have specific characteristics that make them recognizable.
Plants are endlessly complex, which is attractive to some and off-putting to others. On that note, “dicots” aren’t actually a natural group; iNat is built on an older taxonomy that used just two higher angiosperm groups, when we know now that there are many groups that are neither monocot nor dicot, with most of these being the oldest flowering plant lineages. On iNat, there are 9 orders under “dicots” that are neither monocots nor eudicots (the revised dicots), and these frequently break rules typically ascribed to monocots or “dicots.” For example, many of the magnoliids (pawpaws, for example) have floral parts in multiples of three. Due to iNat’s technical limitations it is not currently possible to update the taxonomy at these highest nodes.
Thanks for the information - I spent a fair amount of time searching for the other groups, before figuring out that iNat follows the older system. Good to know the reason.
I agree that identifying down to family would be more useful that a higher level. I’m not sure if it’s easier to learn taxonomy at the family level, if you’re not already familiar with the genera and species in that family. I have no experience or expertise with African flora, so I’m certainly a beginner. I looked at a few observations from South Africa and most weren’t in one of the families in that guide. (OK, I didn’t limit the search to the Cape Province, which the guide is written for.) It seemed to me a a judicious use of the CV suggestions, raising the ID to genus or family, if it seemed appropriate, was an easier approach to the task.
A tool fit to purpose tho. For people who want to ID Cape families. And there are other tools for other places. These families were deliberately chosen as the most observed ones, so, most likely to be seen here.
Is there a good resource where I could learn more about this? The taxonomic trees are really helpful to me when doing coarse IDs, but I also want to understand the differences that are out there from what’s on the iNat system.
The fibrous roots vs. taproot item in the guide made me raise an eyebrow….even saying “bulbs are monocots” is hard bc what exactly is a bulb vs. a tuber…..
I agree with those who suggest familiarizing oneself with the monocot families. Lilies, orchids, and grasses/sedges/rushes are three major groupings that will get you pretty far.
Except here - (true) lilies are horticultural exotics. Our flowering bulbs are ‘underground storage organs’ in amaryllis, iris or scilla families. Lily confuses iNatters when they trip over Liliaceae (one particular Family) or Liliopsida (all the monocots). Then our arum lily is neither an arum, nor a lily !
@larry216 sometimes you can ID to family without knowing what you are looking at. There are some families that can be IDed by the shape of the flower (fused petals etc), arrangement of the inflorescence, or the arrangement of reproductive parts.
I go to the taxon page and work out where what I know fits in. Palms is a good example ‘everyone’ can recognise a palm tree - then it depends whether you want to learn to tell them apart - or whether like me you are happy to direct those obs to palm specialists. But ID as palm family, not monocot - which means someone else has to palm it off from the Needs ID queue. Follow your notifications and in time you can learn to recognise some of them.
PS iNat lets you set common names in up to 3 of your chosen languages. Particularly if you ID where there are 2 or 3 active local languages - that helps to find the scientific name. And if your common name is not yet in iNat - add it - you should be able to search for, and find, it!
As mentioned above, yes they are monocots. But, not everything called a “palm” is a monocot. For example, a sago palm is a cycad which is not a monocot.
