Talk:Macrozamia riedlei

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Macrozamia riedlei. 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/20161120071826/http://www.kippleonline.net/bobhoward/plantsframe.html to http://www.kippleonline.net/bobhoward/plantsframe.html

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) 17:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Zamia staggers
Note to get these wobblies and the above interlinked, ref in other room. cygnis insignis 04:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Moving range map from infobox to "Cultivation": (The rightful place for this map?)
and I have had some discussion about this range map, and I link you to it: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MargaretRDonald#Distribution_maps. The issue concerns the fact that occurrence data maps show outliers which are beyond the native range. I have shifted the map to be more visible, but my view is that despite the outliers it rightly belongs in the infobox. MargaretRDonald (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The map now excludes all records for which the field, establishmentMeans, was empty or equalled "cultivated" or "unknown". Hence it now properly represents the native range. Hence I have moved it back to the taxobox. MargaretRDonald (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I was able to get a similar result, and noted that does not accord with what the sources state: the range at the south-coast extends to the east. cygnis insignis 02:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The most easterly results visible in the earlier map are probably now excluded, because valid collection data will now have been excluded, because the field indicating whether or not the specimen was cultivated is empty for those records. This does not invalidate the range map. These are the data - identified by professional botanists and held at the contributing herbaria.  (I am not comfortable with excluding records on the basis of the state in which they were collected: I could have excluded  data identified to state, but what would justify keeping WA records whose establishment means are unknown? I suppose we could work out some ridiculous criterion that when the data were collected early enough the failure to know establishment means is irrelevant, but who would try to justify a cutoff year?) MargaretRDonald (talk) 07:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Macrozamia riedlei Dist Map24.png Feel free to modify this and remove the NSW dot in Paintbox....... (But the far eastern WA records where we do not know anything about the establishment means, perhaps look a bit dodgy?) MargaretRDonald (talk) 08:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)