Talk:Banksia neoanglica

Taxonomy of Banksia neoanglica
To date, all the material in this article appears to have been written when this species was regarded as a variety of Banksia spinulosa. It would seem to me to be appropriate to omit George's taxonomic arrangement and to rewrite the whole "Taxonomy" section, mainly using Stimson's 2012 paper. The material under "Description" is also incorrect - B. neoanglica is sometimes a shrub with a lignotuber, other times a tree without it. Gderrin (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh? It's never a tree (that's cunninghamii). There is another paper coming out that is a global review of the spinulosa complex - there are some disagreements on whether some lineages would be called species or subspecies. I'd hold. Much of the historical still applies as it givens a feel for how we classify things and change our opinion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Cas Liber has forgotten more about Banksia species than I will ever know, but Stimson's paper (on page 75) includes a description of Banksia neoanglica - "Shrubs with 2–8(–10) stems to 2.5 m from a lignotuber or trees to 7 m tall." Also, (on page 68) "Banksia neoanglica has a variety of growth forms ranging from small rounded multi-stemmed shrubs to single-stemmed trees." Seems to me that if we have a Wikipedia article about Banksia neoanglica the material it contains should be about that species and not about Banksia spinulosa var. neoanglica. The present "Description" begins "As with other varieties......". Perhaps the article should have been left as Banksia spinulosa var. neoanglica? I would be happy to have any information I write now, changed in the light of future papers. Also happy to include in "Taxonomy" the history of changing opinions on the subject.


 * I am having second thoughts about the images I uploaded. The leaves do not match well with the description in the paper. Will visit the type location and those mentioned in the paper in GRNP over the next few days. ("Type location" - another interesting story there!) Gderrin (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Better pics now. Gderrin (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I am surprised. I will go read the paper again. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)