Talk:Eremophila debilis

The image must be wrong!
I googled the botanical name for images and every one has the leaf as long and narrow in form, except for this one. Boscaswell  talk  10:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello and thanks for your interest in this species. The three images are by the same editor (Mark Marathon) who is usually pretty reliable with plant identification. The leaves in the other images conform pretty well to the description in Chinnock - perhaps Mark had trouble finding a flower on a part of the stem with typical leaves. (I can't see any flowers in the "habit" image.) It is a common species, the flower is almost certainly E. debilis, and I don't think he would get this one wrong. I have it growing in my garden and will try to get a better photograph when it flowers later in the year. Gderrin (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * thanks for your response. I’m 99% certain that it’s wrong.  I spent many hours yesterday looking at  low growing shrubs on the cliff  edge locally (NSW coast) and googled to identify so that I wasn’t removing those that weren’t bitou or boneseed.  I have been trying to identify a lot of it, and a lot of it looks like the photo that has been sitting on the article page.  But I’m 99% certain that what I had been looking at there is a Boobialla species.  And the same goes for the image I’m questioning.  I’m going to change the image.  I appreciate that I don’t have the botanical experience of other editors on these articles.  Incidentally, the lede says that the leaves are lance-shaped, whereas the article says they’re elliptical to lance-shaped. Those statements are conflicting?  Boscaswell   talk  21:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * please review. Thanks. 😊  Boscaswell   talk  21:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)