Talk:Banksia telmatiaea

Untitled
Previous discussion archived to Talk:Banksia telmatiaea/archive

Re-examination
Looked this over as an old FA that has not been TFA. I see a few possible improvements, but nothing that should require pulling FA status. I compared this with the more recent FA Banksia aquilonia.

General comments:
 * Plant description is rather short, in comparison: there's no description of the foliage and bark in this species.
 * can't find anything on bark. scouring for bits and peices now - found a bit but need to sleep! more later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * What makes this distinct from B. sphaerocarpa? A direct comparison of the two, and an explanation of why George chose to separate this species, would be a good addition to the Distribution section.
 * added a bit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

In the Taxonomy section, can we include a reference to the common names to get the inline citation out of the lead?
 * moved now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Prose quibbles:
 * In the lead: "not published as a species"; I feel that "not described as a separate species" would sound better.
 * agreed - done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In "Description": "may be embedded with"; I find the use of "embedded with" jarring, as I'm only used to seeing the preposition "in" coupled with that verb. I might say something like "Up to 70 woody follicles, each of which...may be embedded in the cone."
 * tweaked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In "Ecology": "the Lichmera indistincta"; drop the definite article. Idiomatically, I feel that it would be OK preceding the common name but not the scientific name. "species of Xyloricta"; can we say "species of the moth Xyloricta"? Clearer for the reader not familiar with banksia-eating insects. "this unusual nectar...attributed it to"; I would say "attributed its transformation to". It's the change in the nectar that's being attributed to cyanobacteria, not the nectar itself. "normal nectar sugar compositions"; I would say "a normal nectar sugar composition, albeit dominated by sucrose".
 * sounds good - done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Choess (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
{{Substituted comment|page=Talk:Banksia telmatiaea/comments|length=10315|lastedit=20070604015933|comment=

intro

 * Consider having the lead image adjusted a bit: it's washed out, and the small thumb size doesn't help.
 * I'll have a look at this and the other image stuff mentioned below tomorrow, when my bandwidth will be better. Hesperian 05:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * many of of the Abietinae
 * Reformulate. Such a formulation is usually used above genus level. make sure to mention "series" ✅

Description

 * Why is it relevant to mention lignotubers? Do most Banksia species have them? it is an important distinction in bushfire-prone country; woody plants either regenerate from seed or by resprouting from a woody lignotuber after bushfire so this disticntion is noted in all ausie dry country woody plants if knowncheers, Cas Liber  talk    contribs 03:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The "and proteoid roots with no lignotuber" was added to the description section as an afterthought; I've removed it again, as it gets ample coverage in the ecology section, and Circeus' question indicates that we're just going to confuse people unless we give the context. Hesperian 05:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A close up showing both flowers and leaves would do great in this section. There doesn,t seem to be any close up showing leaves.
 * made up of hundreds of pairs of flowers
 * Reformulate to remove at least one "of"'' ✅
 * I culled this a bit - I want to avoid implying that flower spikes are typical or characteristic of Banksia, since the Dryandra transfer makes this not at all the case. Hesperian 05:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 'a spiral around a woody axis'
 * around &rarr; surrounding'' ✅
 * removed altogether; the spiral arrangement is pretty much invisible in this species. Sure, the bracts on the rachis have a helical arrangement, but that seems to be getting altogether too technical for this article. Hesperian 05:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The flowers have a color, the flower spike doesn't ..tricky this, it has an overall hue made up of composite colours
 * ✅, doesn't hurt to attribute colour to the flower rather than the spike. That is, after all, what George does. Hesperian 05:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * five centimetres (1–2 in), ✅
 * That should be a stop, not a comma.
 * consists of tubular perianth ✅
 * consist of a...
 * also been observed in November. ✅
 * as late as November.
 * Not sure I agree here; Taylor 88 records an observation in November, but not in September or October. I haven't reverted but. Hesperian 05:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The previous formulation seems quirky, just in a different way. maybe something along the lines of "a case of flowering in November"? Circeus 06:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's possibly a good idea to mention why exactly "80% of fruiting structures set no seed." Looks like it,s because if the specific requirements for seed release.
 * Seed develops within a year.
 * subject-verb agreement anyone?
 * They do agree, if you read "seed" as a mass noun. But ✅ Hesperian 05:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Do something about that gallery. Just because we can have them doesn't mean we should.
 * Point taken. People don't like galleries because people rightly associate galleries with gratuitous overuse of images. But in this case, all those images are highly relevant to the description section, and the description section is better for them. A gallery seemed like a sensible way of marking them up. But the outcry has been strident and unanimous, so I shall learn my lesson and never use a gallery ever again. ;-) Hesperian 05:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and placed the two most relevant images on the right. Doesn't seem necessary to place a burned fruit image here, since there is one in the most relevant place ("ecology") already, and a normal fruit too.Circeus 06:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Having moved the map right too, we're looking a bit right-heavy now. I don't think we've found the final resting place for these images yet. Hesperian 08:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally don't have a problem with the new configuration, but I won't oppose if you place it back on the left. Maybe we could switch around the flower images from "Description" and "Taxonomy" since the one in "Taxonomy" is less tall? Circeus 17:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Taxonomy
Have I ever said how much I like these sections?
 * Sorry, that's not actionable :-) Thanks, I think they're the most fun to write. Hesperian 05:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Banksia aff. Sphaerocarpa.
 * I'm assuming "aff." is some sort of now obsolete abbreviation meaning "a new species related to, but without specific name" (i.e. affinis)? (yes indeedy) I really need to start that List of abbreviations used in taxonomy and nomenclature...
 * Is it obsolete? It is and has always been uncommon, but has it been completely replaced by the "Banksia sp. The Moon (Hesperian 1234)" format? Do we need to explain that this is an obsolete informal naming convention? Hesperian 05:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily needed, I guess. I was just surprised because I had never seen such an usage before, it won't make a difference to just about all the readers.Circeus 06:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So I guess we're ✅ here. Hesperian 08:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it would be proper to give the specimen number for the type. The idea was suggested for Verbascum thapsus and I think it's pertinent.
 * ...and labelled "A. S. George 9309". ✅ Hesperian 05:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * George placed B. telmatiaea in subgenus Banksia because its inflorescence is a typical Banksia flower spike; section Oncostylis because it has hooked styles; and series Abietinae because its inflorescence is roughly spherical.
 * Use commas instead of semicolons. ✅
 * but placed B. scabrella (Burma Road Banksia) between B. telmatiaea and B. leptophylla.
 * Voice the implications of this (i.e. that B. scabrella is closer to B. telmateiaea than B. leptophylla)
 * ✅. Hesperian 08:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Does subg. Spathulatae have any subdivisions? (not yet -Austin and Kevin didn't get that far)
 * I think this is made clear enough from the following sentence? Or do we need to be more explicit about it? Hesperian 08:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Distribution and habitat

 * Consider cropping the map so the distribution is clearer.
 * I've been toying with a different map format. Would you recommend we use this map instead? Hesperian 05:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm finding the whole extra "floristic regions" thing a bit distracting. Just cropping eas
 * How about this? Hesperian 08:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "such as alongside swampss and marshes." ✅
 * "areas alongside"? I tred locations
 * How about "the margins of"? Hesperian 05:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds okay to me.Circeus 06:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ecology

 * First paragraph lacks a reference
 * solubilisation of nutrients
 * Now you've lost me completely. And the next phrase is not actually helping.
 * Oh, and replace "these" with "they" or "this type of roots"
 * Working on this. I've rephrased, which might help, but I need to get my head around this a bit more, and to find the perfect reference. Further reading:, , . Hesperian 08:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe a quick mention that Apis mellifera is an introduction to Australia? (if it is, obviously)
 * ✅ Hesperian 05:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * but their involvement in pollination is assured
 * "is certain"
 * Yeah, ✅. Hesperian 05:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * the strong, musky odour; the occurrence of inflorescences hidden within the foliage close to the ground; the large amounts of nectar produced; and the pattern of nectar production, which peaks at dawn and dusk.
 * Again, commas, not semicolons
 * ✅. Hesperian 05:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * seed attrition
 * "seed loss"
 * ✅. Hesperian 05:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * and eventually becoming "an almost black, gelatinous lump adhering to the base of the flowers".
 * Double check whether position of punctuation within quotes is variety-dependant or not. I'm not sure it is.
 * Consider better integrating that sentence in the next, so that it is specifically mentioned that Byron is being quoted.
 * As of 2007, the cause remains unknown.
 * "As of February 2007," You never know.
 * ✅, and the rest of the sentence into past tense. Hesperian 05:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Conservation ✅
Substituted at 08:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * it has a wide distribution
 * Wow... Australian botanists have a quirky definition of "wide distribution"...
 * I suspect I'm guilty of editorial there, sorry; will get back to you. Hesperian 05:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, no evidence of a "wide distribution" in the sources; my bad. ✅ Hesperian 05:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * P. cinnamomi
 * There actually is a Phytophthora cinnamomi article.
 * Yes, I know. Probably a copy-paste error from B. brownii, where the link is in the lead. ✅. Hesperian 05:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)}}

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Banksia telmatiaea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927001800/http://www.naturebase.net/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_details/gid,312/Itemid,548/ to http://www.naturebase.net/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_details/gid,312/Itemid,548/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)