Talk:Banksia telmatiaea/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Dist map added

I've added this to artcile any thoughts etc. Gnangarra 09:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Matches TBA almost perfectly. Thanks! Hesperian 10:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To do

Hesperian 11:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


  • Removed images need to be replaced with positive ID's. Gnangarra 01:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    • How depressing. But I agree it was necessary. :-( Hesperian 01:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Not really its more depressing wondering how many other ID's from there are also incorrect. Maybe we should contact them and question the ID of that specific plant. Gnangarra 01:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay, I've sent them an email, and bcc'd your good self. I'll forward any reply. Hesperian 01:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Looking into this further, the inflorescence and habit appear to match B. lanata and B. incana better than they do B. telmatiaea, but the leaves and infructescence matches B. telmatiaea better. The sprawling habit can perhaps be explained away by the fact that this is a swampland plant being grown on top of a hill. If you want to see what growing a plant outside its natural habitat can do to it, go check out the pathetic little white gum in the carpark at the W. A. Herbarium - it's a karri! That only leaves the flower colour to be explained, but these photos would suggest that the flower colour is quite variable. In short, I'm more confused than ever. :-( Hesperian 13:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Interesting Picts, I think since, Yule brook reserve in Kenwick/Beckenham is only five minutes from here I'll grab the camera one day next week and see if theres any flowering yet. I know they flower apr-aug so there should be some, besides natural habitat would be better anyway. Do you need any general area picts while I'm there. Gnangarra 13:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Great minds think alike - I was planning on taking my film camera out there this weekend. If you want to take it on, then... maybe I will still go, maybe I won't. It is quite a drive for me.
Speck and Baird (1984) contains a vegetation map of the reserve. I'll email it to you, as it will basically tell you what plants to expect where. Be warned though, this is UWA land, so I suppose it is possible that it is fenced off. Hesperian 23:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The flower colour is variable. Kevin Collins has pink ones too. Many seem quite variable -B. grossa was pretty amazing in that regard. I am not very good on IDing these little banksias cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 20:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clever idea

Guys - on the other bio articles, we're now putting Taxonomy section before Description. One advantage is that the Description is then way down past the taxobox and we can put images near it and not jam up the top of the article. Thoughts? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Because the discussion of taxonomy in plants tend to be very technical, my gut feeling is that we should not do this. Besides, currently featured plant articles all the description first, and I don't think a different order would pass at FAC. I wouldn't accept it, for one. Circeus 05:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Compare, for example, the straightforward taxonomy section of Common Raven and the tortuous Taxonomy of Banksia integrifolia. Many plant articles that warrant having an actual taxonomy section have ones that would lose the reader immediately if put at the top, which is not necessarily the case for animals, and almost never the case of description sections. Circeus 05:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, no just a thought. I was musing on this as I always have the problem of teh taxobox jutting into the Description bit where i want to stick all the nice piccies. It would also not gell with te other Banksia FAs.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Taxoboxes shit me too; they are constantly in the way. So it's unanimous. But I agree with Circeus that taxonomy sections are often far from straightforward, so are not a good place to start. Hesperian 11:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
You can't say "agree with C" in the edit summary as it is ambiguous in this case! :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Deliberate. You probably wouldn't bother to read what I wrote if I didn't provide a hook! ;-) Hesperian 12:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final to-do before FAC

OK - I know why most banksia flowers don't go on to fruit as it would be impossible to fit them all on the spike. I've just never seen it referenced anywhere!cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from Talk:Banksia telmatiaea/Comments

  1. Description - "A close up showing both flowers and leaves would do great in this section."
    • Gnangarra has asked us to hold off for a couple of weeks so he can get some better photos with his new camera. Hesperian 12:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Mostly, I mant something showing the leaves, since there is no image showing them properly, and if we can get the flowers too, all the better: We don't need two images. Normally, this could have been covered by the more broad, but these are far from ideal... Circeus 17:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I think I understood you correctly - see my message on Gnangarra's talk page. Hesperian 02:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Description - "It's possibly a good idea to mention why exactly "80% of fruiting structures set no seed.""
    • I thought it was 80% of flowers that didn't go on to fruit. Mainly it would be physically impossible due to the size of the follicles; there wouldn't be enouhg space on hte cone. There may be a general ref for this in Flora of Ausrtalia - I can check tonight.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
      • No, LamontScott was saying that 80% of cones contain no follicles at all. Hesperian 12:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
        Hmmm... that's not that uncommon either. I'll check.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Problem solved. I dug through Scott's paper again, and found that even he couldn't see why so many follicles were barren. Hesperian 02:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Ecology - "Consider better integrating that sentence in the next, so that it is specifically mentioned that Byron is being quoted."
    • I tried, but it didn't work. Describe the nectar, then describe the research - works well. As soon as I try to make the quote attribution explicit, the description gets mixed in with the research, and it ends up reading worse. Hesperian 13:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)