Talk:Paschalococos

Untitled
As far as photos go, there are none of the tree. There aren't even drawings. All that remain are natural casts of root bosses, hollow three-eyed endocarps, and pollen. kwami (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I figured as much, but generally we keep that "needs-photo" notice around until filled with something (it really should be "needs-image"). You never know, 5-10 years down the road what might pop up. And if there's a public domain image of the pollen or the casts or some fossil, that'd be great. And sometimes an artist's representation of the plant will come to the surface, which will allow us to get one of our image specialists to make a rendering, something we had done over at Archaeamphora longicervia. --Rkitko (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Source for article title
There's no proper source given for the recognition of the genus and species names. Secondary sources, such as WCSP and TPL, don't appear to accept them. Scientific names should not be based on a single primary source. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)