Talk:Banksia epica/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An entry from Banksia epica/Archive appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 1 September 2006.

Contents 1 lead vs descritpion 2 distribution map 3 to do 4 Review 5 Another image - positioning problem 6 Images - now on commons 7 thoughts...suggest 8 1991 survey

[edit] lead vs descritpion

Leads says the plant grows to 2m tall, description says the branches grow to 3.5 meters tall. Gnangarra 13:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] distribution map

Opinions which format do you guys think is better for this article, I put the full aust version into the article but as the distribution area is so small I thought the cutting the map area down would improve its appearance.

left WA image is 200px, the full Aust image is 200 px(current size in article), right image is 140px. Gnangarra 05:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've only got a minute now; I'll get back to you later. I just want to point out that Cas has edited neither the article nor this talk page, so there's no reason to believe this is on his watchlist. If you want his opinion you might have to draw his attention here. Hesperian 06:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What about cropping to the WA border? Then we can have a caption that reads "Distribution of B. epica within Western Australia." Hesperian 12:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I can do the crop, I think a caption reading "Distribution of B. epica within Western Australia." may create doubt especially at FAC. My first thought was "is it found out side WA and why havent you included that" Gnangarra 15:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

New cropped map to SA/NT border Gnangarra 11:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I liked full version map at B.brownii for those readers overseas. What about an inset with even greater detail. Fred 08:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps something like this: User:Moondyne/temp —Moondyne 11:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Not bad for a mockup. I druther the closeup extend somewhat further into the bight, leaving a big patch of ocean in the bottom right to house the Australian inset. Hesperian 11:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

By which I mean to say, start with this:

then shrink it down and stick it in the box inside this:

I don't much like the idea of doing this with {{superimpose}}. I don't think images created with superimpose can be framed and captioned like a normal image. Gnangarra's manual maps might not be as "wiki", but they look bloody good. Hesperian 12:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Gn's hand made maps do look better and they can be tweaked to show what you want without compromise. —Moondyne 12:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This much detail does highlight potential inaccuracies as available sources dont have this level of detail, which is the reasoning behind using fuzzy edge regions instead of solid edge regions Gnangarra 12:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

True. I'd like to zoom in close enough to allow the display of separate dots for the two populations. But if we zoom in too far, the dots would have to become areas, and we don't know the shape and extents of the sandpatches. Hesperian 04:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] to do

{{to do}}

Need a to do section to help me finish this off. Hesperian 10:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

UOM on distribution section I'll be back to do tonight. Gnangarra 08:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Hesperian 11:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Finished with that now. Hesperian 11:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review

To my mind, the only remaining tasks for this article are

1. Gnangarra to take more photos at Kings Park, when he has time;
2. Hesperian to go to the State Library to see a copy of Australian Plants 171, when he has time.

It could be ages before these get jobs done, yet neither are likely to change the article very much. So I'm going to go ahead and ask our friends Peta and Tony for pre-FAC reviews. Hesperian 07:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK - I am back. I have issue 171 of Australian Plants so will check and see if any other info can be referenced into here, however I just got home and have 300 emails to sift through.....Cas Liber 13:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! But you've written 173 in the article; which is it? Hesperian 22:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it is 173. cheers Cas Liber 11:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Two things from me; I think that the lead could be fleshed out a little bit more, also - how is it that the species has such a limited distribution but isn't rare? --Peta 00:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the logic is that they don't know if it is rare until they have undertaken a thorough survey; until then they only know that it is poorly known. That makes sense to me in general, but it seems to me a bit silly in this specific case, considering the species occurs only on siliceous sand, which occurs only where there are cliff-top dunes, of which there are exactly three, all of which have been surveyed. Hesperian 01:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another image - positioning problem

(Dang, now why can't the description be below the taxobox on the page..)

I found another old photo I took at the Banksia Farm; Kevin Collins showed me the unusual purple follicles. Trying to work it into description section (though I suppose it will move down a little bit if the intro has a second para)

Will I have a go at a 2nd para?

cheers Cas Liber 20:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images - now on commons

• B_epica_02_gnangarra.jpg
• B_epica_04_gnangarra.jpg
• B_epica_06_gnangarra.jpg
• B_epica_08_gnangarra.jpg

These are now full size and available on commons Gnangarra 09:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thoughts...suggest

I've checked all the links they now go direct to an article, the only exception is King George Sound which redirects to Albany WA, cant believe this still hasnt got an article. In taxonomic History section A 1991 survey subsequently found both B. epica and B. media at Toolinna Cove. needs a cite at the end of the para and subsection its just asking to be picked on. South West Botanical Province this needs to be a stub then it appears ready for FA. Gnangarra 12:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The other thing is how strict is the 2-3 paras rule for the lead? I'd put a sentence about it being closely related to the well-known and widely cultivated Southern Plains banksia (B. media) or something. maybe somthing highlighting the remoteness of it there too just to beef up and liven up the intro..Cas Liber 22:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I've created a stub for King George Sound and put a mention of B. media in the lead.

Regarding South-west Botanical Province, this is now a redirect to Southwest Australia, as it should have been all along. Actually, I'd like to rewrite this and relocate it at South-west Botanical Province, but that's another story. For now it is appropriate to link to the redirect, per Wikipedia:Redirects#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken.

I agree with the other comments too; will get to them over the next few days. Hesperian 11:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

How's the lead now, Cas? Hesperian 11:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup - only one minor tweak which you may want to revert - the sentence after I mused on but replacing "not much" with "little" leaves two "little"s which doesn't look too crash hot either..Cas Liber 12:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Then" is better, thanks. I had two littles and changed one to not much; I'll have a think about it. Hesperian 12:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks better now Cas Liber 12:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

---

[edit] 1991 survey

Having trouble tracking down a reference for the 1991 survey. The survey itself gets passing mention in Craig and Coates (1991), but that can't be used as a reference for B. media being found at Toolinna Cove. I'll try to get hold of a copy of:

N. L. McKenzie, Robinson, A.C. and Belbin, L. (1991). "Biogeographic survey of the Nullarbor district, Australia", in C.R. Margules and M.P. Austin: Nature Conservation: Cost Effective Biological Surveys and Data Analysis. Melbourne: CSIRO, 109-126. 

If I can't get it, or it isn't a suitable reference and doesn't point to one, then I'll just have to take the statement out. Hesperian 12:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks better Cas Liber 12:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What about the Banksia Atlas wasnt B.media recorded there, and epica suspected which resulted in its recognition Gnangarra 12:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have all my books/papers with me at the moment, but the chronology goes something like this:

1981

The Genus Banksia (Proteaceae) L.f. lists B. media as occurring at both Point Culver and Toolinna Cove; B. epica doesn't exist yet.

1984

The Banksia Book (First Edition), ditto;

1986

(George recognises B. epica as a new species, and discovers that the only known specimen of B. media from Toolinna Cove is in fact an B. epica, so assumes that B. media doesn't occur there)

1987

George includes B. epica in the Second Edition of The Banksia Book even though it hasn't been formally described yet. Names it B. epica "...in reference to the long journeys of Edward John Eyre (who first saw this Banksia, in 1841), and John Falconer...." B. media is listed as occurring at Point Culver but not at Toolinna Cove;

1988

George publishes B. epica, repeating the above claim;

1988

The Banksia Atlas is published; can't remember what it says at the moment.

Some time between 1988 and 1999

(George discovers that media does in fact occur at Toolinna Cove

1999

Flora of Australia 17B - George refers to both epica and media as referring at Toolinna Cove.

Actually, this conversation has clarified things in my head - George (1999) would be an appropriate source for the claim that B. media is now known to occur at Toolinna Cove [1]. Problem solved. Hesperian 23:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)