Jump to content

Talk:Taxonomy of Banksia integrifolia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Just dropping some notes I digging up on the red links, not enough to start an article yet. Gnangarra 02:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red links to be started

All done. Hesperian 12:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To do

[edit]
  • Content of first sentence of intro isn't repeated in article.
  • Intro implies doubt over subspecies, which isn't the case. Rephrase
  • Background - should mention and link Australia in discussion of distribution.
  • Is "then followed two centuries of uncertainty" OR? changed to Then followed by two centuries of variations to the taxonomic limits...
  • People aren't responsible for publication, refinement, promotion or demotion of autonyms - that's what makes them autonyms. Rephrase.
  • Possibly mention the notable publications in which names and arrangements were published.
  • Bentham reduced from 60 not 58, as two more species had been published since Meissner. Fix this.
  • Why did Kuntze's challenge fail - because he was an idiot so everyone ignored him. Make this clearer.
  • What's the story with Britten and A.T.Lee? This doesn't make sense as written here.
  • Who conserved it? How was this done? Original source?Who cares? - find out for Taxonomy of Banksia, but it is marginal to this article.
  • Is Harden's Flora of New South Wales a notable publication? - if so then link to it and blue the link.
  • Overall structure needs work.

Hesperian 06:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You sure because the says Britten proposed this in 1905 that 7 years before she was born? Gnangarra 12:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, right you are. The published name is "Isostylis integrifolia (L.f.) A.T.Lee". This clearly says that it was A.T.Lee who transferred it from Banksia to Isostylis. However, the APNI record lists the taxon as appearing in Britten (1905) Illustrations of Australian plants collected in 1770 during Captain Cook's voyage round the world 3: 83, t. 269, which is of course impossible considering A.T.Lee wasn't born yet. And George (1981) states that Britten challenged the name Banksia.
My best guess is that Britten informally challenged the name Banksia and suggested Isostylis as an alternative, but didn't actually publish a formal transfer. Many years later, A.T.Lee took up the baton and published the transferred names. I'll need to dig around for some sources to verify this interpretation. Hesperian 00:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've discovered that:
  1. George 99 lists it as "Isostylis integrifolia (L.f.) Britten, in J.Banks & D.Solander, Illustr. Austral. Pl. Cook's Voy. 3: 83 (1905)." (my emphasis)
  2. APNI lists any number of names published by A.T.Lee for which the reference is one of Britten's publications. Either APNI has multiple data entry errors confusing A.T.Lee with Britten, or Lee has made a project of formally publishing Britten's names. If the latter, then APNI really should be pointing to Lee's publication, more so than Britten's one.
I've sent an email to the CPBR people requesting verification/clarification. Hesperian 01:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh those boys are on the ball - they've already responded to my email and updated their database. A.T.Lee is just plain wrong; it was Britten. Hesperian 03:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review for FAC

[edit]

I overread (that's clearly not a word...) on Circeus' talk page that a review is wanted for this article for a potential FAC. Since I have nothing to do at the moment, I thought I would go through, do some copy editing and give my notes:

  • The opening sentence appears to be grammatically incorrect to me (shouldn't it be "The taxonomy of Banksia integrifolia has a long and complex history, which is the result of confusion caused by the species' great variability, and similarities with some closely related species." or The taxonomy of Banksia integrifolia has a long and complex history: the result of confusion caused by the species' great variability, and similarities with some closely related species."?)
  • In "Discovery", was every individual specimen drawn or every species?
  • I can't discern what is trying to be said in the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph in "Early taxonomic history". Its syntax seems awkward at any rate.
  • What is meant by "known species" in the 1st sentence of the 4th paragraph of "Early taxonomic history"? Does is mean he described all of the known specimens that were available, or that this was an exhaustive study, or does it rather mean all of the curently known species? It should be a bit more clear.
  • In that same paragraph, it may be worth shortly noting that B. paludosa is currently a distinct species (it only mentions that it was considered a variety of B. integrifolia for an unspecified period of time). While it is discussed later, some readers might have lost sight of which species was which by that point. But this is a very minor point.
  • Explain "dentate" in the following paragraph.
  • In the final paragraph of that section you should also explain why the challenges failed for the taxonomically impaired.
  • In the "20th century" section, you may want to consider explaining "infraspecific taxon", though most intelligent people would be able to figure it out (but common sense is not so common, as they say).
  • Despite the fact that "cladogram" has an internal link, it would be nice to give a short definition. Same with "paraphyly" in the following section.
  • Get a ref for the last sentence in the 1st paragraph of "Subspecies and hybrids".
  • If others agree and if its doable, I would like to see a little more reasoning given for certain taxonomic shifts (e.g. raising var. compar to subspecies level, raising var. aquilonia to subspecies level and then to a distinct species). In addition, short description of how the subspecies differ would be beneficial to readers (for example, how does aquilonia differ from integrifolia and what makes the new monticola subspecies distinct from the type.

I think most of my notes are quite minor and despite my relative inexperience with FAC, I would say that this article would certainly be ready after these minor fixes (probably now even, though some of these issues may be brought up). Great article and good luck! Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 19:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input - I'll have a look later today :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taxonomy_of_Banksia_integrifolia&oldid=1216639935"