Talk:Taxonomy of Banksia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Banksia nom. cons. ?
I looked up the Olde paper, but it contains no reference to Banksia being a conserved name whatsoever. Could his statement be re-sourced? Circeus 00:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that is definitely not the right reference for that. My information on this originally came from George 1981. But I suggest it would be better to reference the list of Nomina generica conservanda et rejicienda in Appendix III of the ICBN Code. Ideally we would cite the Vienna code but it's not online yet; the entry for Banksia in the Saint Louis code can be seen here. That reference doesn't attribute Sprague, but George 1981 does. In the longer term, I would like to look at and cite the discussion on its conservations in Rehder et al., Kew Bull. (1935) 368–369, and the final decision in Bull. Misc. Inform. 98 (1940). Hesperian 01:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- For reference, it seems to be record #2068 in the list (JSTOR page link). Circeus 19:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Categories: Start-Class Banksia articles | Start-class plant articles | Start-Class Australia articles | High-importance Banksia articles | Low-importance plant articles | Low-importance Australia articles | WikiProject Australian biota articles | Start-Class Australian biota articles | Unknown-importance Australian biota articles