Talk:Anthodon (plant)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anthodon (plant) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 9 October 2009 by reviewer Amorymeltzer (talk · contribs).

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Sources

Pretty much any and all mentions I can find of this genus are very minor (which is fine), but almost all from the 1800s. This page implies there's a bunch more, but I don't know. Just some food for thought. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are not really other species. In fact, there might be only one. I will add a section to the article to explain that. 128.171.106.205 (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in information which i would not have if it had been at Celastraceae. I felt that this was alot easier than trying to rewrite "Celastraceae", which needs to be expanded, but that would be a major project. I hope that someone is up to it. It should be alot easier after another phylogeny paper or two comes out. 128.171.106.205 (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]