Talk:Banksia spinulosa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Banksia spinulosa 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.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on June 14, 2006.
October 14, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
Banksia spinulosa 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.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-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.
Flag
Portal
 Banksia spinulosa 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.
Featured article 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

Contents

[edit] POV para

  • There is a form sold as Banksia (spinulosa) cunninghamii variant, propagated by Bournda Plants of Tura Beach on the NSW south coast. Dave says the plants reach 70cm after 4 years and have black-styled gold inflorescences. The form came from David Shiels of Wakiti Nursery in Victoria, who got it from Alf Salkin. However it has a white undersurface (not brownish) and has a couple of serrations close to the tip of the leaf, typical of Banksia spinulosa spinulosa (which I suspect it actually is).

Call this para either POV or original research. It needs to be re written suggest something like

  • There is a form sold as Banksia (spinulosa) cunninghamii variant, propagated by Bournda Plants of Tura Beach on the NSW south coast. The plants reach 70cm after 4 years and have black-styled gold inflorescences. The form came from David Shiels of Wakiti Nursery in Victoria, who got it from Alf Salkin. It has a white undersurface (not brownish) and has a couple of serrations close to the tip of the leaf, typical of Banksia spinulosa spinulosa.

Actually I will put this in its place Gnangarra 12:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Cultivars

According to article cultivar, "a cultivar is a cultivated plant that has received a name under the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants". I checked against an article by Margaret Sedgely and there are only six Banksia cultivars, and none of them are spinulosa. The cultivar article goes on to say that "cultivar" has a different meaning to the legal term "plant variety". Variety (plant) states that "Recognition of a cultivated plant as a "variety" provides its breeder with some legal protection, so-called plant breeders' rights."

I suspect the terminology in the article needs to be changed to indicate that we're talking about varieties not cultivars. Snottygobble 06:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Margaret's article needs updating: You have a point, cultivars currently under PBR (and whose names should be capitalised and with double ""s instead of ' 's) are: "Birthday Candles", "BCO1" (which is actually "Cherry Candles"), as well as "Rollercoaster", "Pygmy Possum", "Yellow Wings", "Giant Candles" and the 3 "Waite - " cultivars. Others are registered wtih ACRA and most are not registered anywhere. I will look further into it. cheers Cas Liber 08:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes?

Honestly, I liked the version with blockquotes better... Any thoughts? Circeus 01:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No preference from me; I'll revert. Hesperian 01:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Me too. block quotes good...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Status of Banksia cunninghamii

Just for fun, [APNI] has it as a species, George has it as a variety and the debate goes on...I'm musing on how to put it here as it has implications for how the article develops.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

APNI has a page for every published taxon, regardless of whether current or not. In fact, APNI scrupulously avoids stating whether or not a taxon is current. Rather, it states what others have said about it. In this case, the APNI record for B. cunninghamii says that George (1981), George (1999) and CHAH (2005) all consider it a synonym of B. s. var. cunninghamii.
the ANBG offer a simplified service called WIN that sits on top of APNI, and does stick its neck out by saying what is current and what is not (and gets it wrong sometimes: it mishandles misapplications awfully). WIN says that B. cunninghamii is not current.
When it comes to adopting a name for title and discussion purposes, I would be inclined to follow George (1999), which is still the most recent arrangement. But of course we have to include discussion of Thiele and Ladiges' promotion, and the fact that the NSW herbarium[1] and possibly others have maintained it at species rank.
Hesperian 03:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Format for references

Cas, Circeus, (Gnangarra?,)

I fixed up a whole lot of broken refs last night, but in the process clobbered some page numbers. Didn't realise until too late what Cas was trying to do.

Until now we have never bothered to provide page numbers in references, partly because it's hard to do in the current system. There's a school of thought that page numbers are unnecessary because most sources have indices. I can see their point but am learning towards getting into the habit of including page numbers.

I think Cas's way of doing things - shifting into a separate bibliography only those sources for which page numbers are cited - was a bit confusing (it confused me):

==References==
1 ^abc George, Alex S. (1999). "Banksia". Flora of Australia Volume 17B: Proteaceae 3: Hakea to Dryandra. Ed. Wilson, Annette. CSIRO Publishing / Australian Biological Resources Study. 175–251. ISBN 0-643-06454-0.
2. ^Harden (2002), p. 100.
3. ^ibid, p. 150.
4. ^Taylor, Anne and Stephen Hopper (1988). The Banksia Atlas (Australian Flora and Fauna Series Number 8). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. ISBN 0-644-07124-9.
5. ^Harden (2002), p. 200.

 ==Texts cited==
* Harden, Gwen (2002). "Banksia", in Harden, Gwen (ed): Flora of New South Wales: Volume 2 (Revised Edition). Kensington: New South Wales University Press, 82–86. ISBN ISBN 0-86840-156-0.

I think we either need to stick to a single list:

==References==
1 ^abc George, Alex S. (1999). "Banksia". Flora of Australia Volume 17B: Proteaceae 3: Hakea to Dryandra. Ed. Wilson, Annette. CSIRO Publishing / Australian Biological Resources Study. 175–251. ISBN 0-643-06454-0.
2. ^Harden, Gwen (2002). "Banksia", in Harden, Gwen (ed): Flora of New South Wales: Volume 2 (Revised Edition). Kensington: New South Wales University Press, 82–86. ISBN ISBN 0-86840-156-0. p. 100.
3. ^ibid. p. 150.
4. ^Taylor, Anne and Stephen Hopper (1988). The Banksia Atlas (Australian Flora and Fauna Series Number 8). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. ISBN 0-644-07124-9.
5. ^Harden (2002), p. 200.

or else we need to put all sources in a separate bibliography, even those that don't cite page numbers.

==References==
1 ^abc George (1999).
2. ^Harden (2002). p. 100.
3. ^ibid. p. 150.
4. ^Taylor & Hopper (1988).
5. ^Harden (2002), p. 200.

 ==Bibliography==
* George, Alex S. (1999). "Banksia". Flora of Australia Volume 17B: Proteaceae 3: Hakea to Dryandra. Ed. Wilson, Annette. CSIRO Publishing / Australian Biological Resources Study. 175–251. ISBN 0-643-06454-0.
* Harden, Gwen (2002). "Banksia", in Harden, Gwen (ed): Flora of New South Wales: Volume 2 (Revised Edition). Kensington: New South Wales University Press, 82–86. ISBN ISBN 0-86840-156-0. 
* Taylor, Anne and Stephen Hopper (1988). The Banksia Atlas (Australian Flora and Fauna Series Number 8). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. ISBN 0-644-07124-9.

I think I slightly prefer keeping them all in one list, as separating them is a bit redundant where we cite a lot of sources only once each. What do you guys think?

Hesperian 05:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Frig I missed this. Anyway, unlike several other FACs, much of the material comes from a few pages within a certain text (generally the species description) so for the banksias I am happy with things in a single list (though this hasn't worked out like this on other FAs). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll retrofit it to the other Banksia FAs later. Hesperian 05:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
My comment: I agree citing page numbers even when the index is pretty straightforward (such as is the case in most floras) is always a good idea, if only because if makes later fact-checking faster. Splitting the references, however, is only truly useful if you have to cite many places in several books (e.g. Ine of Wessex), and I actually advocate against it where it is not the case (e.g. Tchad is unnecessarily split IMHO, but at least its not linked from notes to refs, which I believe is actually worse.) Partial split (e.g. Lion), when only a few books (or even only one) are split is also possible (and generally the most sensible option). Circeus 17:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I really don't like the Lion approach. I think we can all agree on citing page numbers wherever possible, and keeping it in one list? I had a crack at this elsewhere last night, and it seems to work okay. Hesperian 02:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Lion is a bit of an extreme case (only a few refs are split), but there are cases where the system does work rather well (especially with mid-size reference sections). Circeus 03:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)