Talk:Banksia integrifolia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Banksia integrifolia is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 27, 2007.
November 16, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted

	Banksia integrifolia is part of WikiProject Banksia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the plant genus Banksia and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance for WikiProject Plants assessment.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance for WikiProject Australia assessment.

Portal	Banksia integrifolia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Talk archives: Talk:Banksia integrifolia/Archive 1

Contents 1 Another possible ex link 2 Stamp 3 Corrections 4 Note

[edit] Another possible ex link

The ANBG has a good page of natives as bonsai here; it might make a good ex link since bonsai of the species is specifically mentioned. --Peta 03:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Peta very interesting, its got images of both species referred to in the article, I've add as a ref. Gnangarra 04:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stamp

Did you know it was on a 2000 postage stamp [1]? —Moondyne 01:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Are postage stamps in the public domain? ffm ^yes? 01:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No, we didn't know (Thanks Moondyne); and no, Australian postage stamps are not in the public domain. This should be included in the article. Hesperian 01:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks again. We could use the stamp image under Fair Use provisions, but I don't think it would add much to the article. Hesperian 01:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

For future use, see List of flora on stamps of Australia. —Moondyne 04:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corrections

rather grievous math error... been corrected (kg per cubic meter and pound per cubic foot equivalent were way off) Jcforge 14:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Verified. Thanks. Hesperian 23:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note

"These changes culminated in George's 1999 arrangement, which had broad acceptance until 2005, when Austin Mast, Eric Jones and Shawn Havery published a phylogeny that did not accord with George's arrangement."

Seeing as Mast was already publishing interim results as early as 1998, this narrative is not quite right. Need to fix this eventually. Hesperian 03:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Have been musing on this today. I think although Mast's material has been around since 1998 (an followiing the discussion since that time) that it has been only recently that the Mast himself has reported his classification as unequivocal, so that the broad status quo was George until very recently. Even now, the old subgroupings still stand as series and subseries have not bee published. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. Mast has been publishing a phylogeny since 1998; he published some nomenclature in 2007; and he still hasn't published a taxonomy. I think the narrative needs to make it clear that:

1. George's 1999 arrangement remains the current arrangement;
2. Since 1998 it has become increasingly clear that George's taxonomy is at irreconcilable odds with Mast's inferred phylogeny;
3. Sooner or later, Mast will publish a taxonomy that accords better with his phylogeny.

Hesperian 05:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Nicely laid out. Now question is, do we have this on all the banksia sp. pages or just the taxonomy one? cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Aye, there's the rub. For species like brownii and telmatiaea, where Mast's phylogeny actually has something to say about the species itself, we should of course say it in the species article. But for species like integrifolia, which doesn't even appear in Mast's cladogram, it is hard to justify including it. The problem is that whether a species belongs in subg. Banksia or subg. Spathulatae under Mast's new split is notable for each species, and unfortunately one can't insert that information without giving a heck of a lot of context. How do you reckon we should proceed? Hesperian 05:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

With this article I can't see how it can be improved without making it really big and messy. It sums the situation up rather succinctly as is. As for the overall taxonomy of banksia I'l compare it with what you've written in a sec.(I just goofed up on the Notability page trying to link academics onto people after a notability tag was placed on a mycologist stub I wrote) cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I can see a way to tweak this sentence so I'm happy with its accuracy, and you're happy that I'm not going on and on and on and on. I'll have a go tonight. Hesperian 06:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If enough information is common why not create Mast's cladogram or something to cover an overview, general information and future disputes. Then you can limit to more specifics where necessary without the long explanation using just one or sentence linking to this article. (look at me suggestion more articles for Hesp, sorry ;-{ ) Gnangarra 06:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the title, but there would surely be some merit in an article on the phylogeny of Banksia. Or maybe evolution of Banksia to cover both phylogeny and fossil record.

After all this time I am finally starting to appreciate the significance of phylogeny in and of itself, as opposed to phylogeny as a tool for informing taxonomy.

Hesperian 06:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That is the question reall, how to map out the forks nicely under Taxonomy of Banksia....gotta run now. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 06:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)