Editing Monocotyledon (section)

==== Post Linnean ====

Although [[Carl Linnaeus|Linnaeus]] (1707–1778) did not utilise Ray's discovery, basing his own classification solely on [[floral reproductive morphology]], the term was used shortly after his classification appeared (1753) by [[Scopoli]] and who is credited for its introduction.{{efn|Scopoli, in his treatment of Linnaeus' scheme comments in the ''Hexandria polygynia'' on the fact that ''[[Alisma]]'' is a member of the ''Gens monocotyledon''<ref name=ScopoliAlisma/>}} Every [[taxonomist]] since then, starting with [[Antoine Laurent de Jussieu|De Jussieu]] and [[Augustin De Candolle|De Candolle]], has used Ray's distinction as a major classification characteristic.{{efn|See also [[John Lindley|Lindley]]'s review of classification systems up to 1853,{{sfn|Lindley|1853}} and [[Rolf Dahlgren|Dahlgren]]'s from 1853–1982{{sfn|Dahlgren|Clifford|1982}}}}<ref name=Kubitzmmonohist/> In [[De Jussieu system|De Jussieu's system]] (1789), he followed Ray, arranging his Monocotyledones into three classes based on stamen position and placing them between [[Acotyledones]] and Dicotyledones.{{sfn|Jussieu|1789}} [[De Candolle system|De Candolle's system]] (1813) which was to predominate thinking through much of the 19th century used a similar general arrangement, with two subgroups of his ''Monocotylédonés'' (Monocotyledoneae).{{sfn|de Candolle|1819}} [[John Lindley|Lindley]] (1830) followed De Candolle in using the terms Monocotyledon and Endogenae{{efn|''Endogènes'' (ενδον within + γεναω I create)}} interchangeably. They considered the monocotyledons to be a group of  [[vascular plants]] (''Vasculares'') whose vascular bundles were thought to arise from within (''Endogènes'' or [[endogenous]]).{{sfn|Lindley|1830}}

Monocotyledons remained in a similar position as a major division of the flowering plants throughout the nineteenth century, with minor variations. [[George Bentham]] and [[Joseph Dalton Hooker|Hooker]] (1862–1883) used Monocotyledones, as would [[Richard Wettstein|Wettstein]],{{sfn|Wettstein|1924}} while [[August Eichler]] used Mononocotyleae{{sfn|Eichler|1886}} and [[Adolf Engler|Engler]], following de Candolle, Monocotyledoneae.{{sfn|Engler|1886}} In the twentieth century, some authors used alternative names such as [[Charles Bessey|Bessey]]'s (1915) Alternifoliae{{sfn|Bessey|1915}} and [[Arthur Cronquist|Cronquist]]'s (1966) Liliatae.{{sfn|Cronquist|Takhtajan|Zimmermann|1966}} Later (1981) Cronquist changed Liliatae to Liliopsida,{{sfn|Cronquist|1981}} usages also adopted by [[Takhtajan]] simultaneously.<ref name=TakhtajanLiliops/>  [[Robert F. Thorne|Thorne]] (1992){{sfn|Thorne|1992a}} and [[Rolf|Dahlgren]] (1985){{sfn|Dahlgren|Clifford|Yeo|1985}} also used Liliidae as a synonym.

Taxonomists had considerable latitude in naming this group, as the Monocotyledons were a group above the rank of family. Article 16 of the ''[[ICBN]]'' allows either a [[descriptive botanical name]] or a name formed from the name of an included family.

In summary they have been variously named, as follows:
* class Monocotyledoneae in the [[de Candolle system]] and the [[Engler system]]
* class Monocotyledones in the [[Bentham & Hooker system]] and the [[Wettstein system]]
* class Monocotyleae in the [[Eichler system]]
* class Liliatae then [[Liliopsida]] in the [[Takhtajan system]] and the [[Cronquist system]]
* subclass [[Liliidae]] in the [[Dahlgren system]] and the [[Thorne system (1992)|Thorne system]]