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.
Title: Consistent individuality in the timing and magnitude of flowering by Adenanthos obovatus (Proteaceae) Author(s): Wooller RD, Wooller AJ Source: AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY Volume: 46 Issue: 5-6 Pages: 595-608 Published: 1998 Times Cited: 0
Will check and add soon (seeing which Adenanthos are closest to GAN...Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Bradshaw et al (2007) "Ecology of the Honey possum, Tarsipes rostratus, in Scott National Park, Western Australia" contains a figure with caption "Flowering phenology of the seven major food plants of Tarsipes rostratus in Scott National Park: Banksia occidentalis, Beaufortia sparsa, Corymbia callophylla, Banksia ilicifolia, B. meisneri, Adenanthos obovatus and A. meisneri", showing this species flowering from early june to last september. We already have superior information on flower phenology, but the fact that it is one of the "seven major food plants of Tarsipes rostratus in Scott National Park" is interesting. Species seems to have been mentioned in passing in a few other Tarsipes rostratus papers, so it may be possible to pull something solid together there.
yup. added this one. you're right as there are other papers mentioned...Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Shearer et al (1998) "Susceptibility of Plant Species in Coastal Dune Vegetation of South-western Australia to Killing by Armillaria luteobubalina" lists this species in Table 6: "Plant species that occurred in less than three disease centres of Armillaria luteobubalina in coastal dune vegetation, and were killed with mycelial sheaths of the pathogen beneath the bark of the root collar".
Grant (1950) "The Protection of the Ovules in Flowering Plants": "The destructive habits of birds in their visits to flowers may be associated with the presence of strengthening tissues in many bird flowers... Adenanthos obovata is marked by the development of nests of sclereids in the corolla and tracheary elements of the style."
Bentham (1873) "Notes on the Styles of Australian Proteaceae": four sentences detailing flower anatomy and physiology, and a figure.
PS: Hesperian, you wanna do the distrib map or leave it to me? Happy either way. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Meh, I have an unhappy relationship with distribution maps at the moment. In short I think the maps I create are crap, and I don't like producing crap, but I can't see my way to generating good solid svg maps that I can be proud of. Having said that, I guess I don't mind producing yet another crap map, since the article needs one. Hesperian 00:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thatd be great. I'll leave it to you and ferret out more sources. Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I noticed the species is reported in field surveys of Phytophthora cinnamomi, listed as an 'indicator species' observed during impact and recovery. That any use? cygnis insignis 06:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
"taxonomy" would go before description in my eyes, but I don't know if there's actually a guideline on that somewhere?
This is one of those cases where there are converging layouts. Pushing for taxonomy to go above description was mainly my idea (generally so that the description section (which is often where one wants to put photos) is then down below where the taxobox ends), and I did it in lots of bird, plant and fungus articles. Hesperian initiated most of the proteaceae articles (banksia and now adenanthos) and I have followed his lead in these. We've got some action across all bio articles in streamlining articles but has been challenging as there are so many...there are no strict guidelines as such.)Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
"obovata" So this is a synonym? Perhaps note it in the taxobox?
Good question. Ultimately I don't think it is, and that it is merely a case of altering the gender of the species name (like a latin adjective) to align with the presumptive gender of the genus. It is not listed as such elsewhere.Casliber (talk·contribs)
"who he" whom? I may be wrong.
either is acceptable, but I do like whom too...Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
this is tricky - the first definition on hte target page is fleshed out, followed by some other links. I need to read more to see which it might pertain to, as many of the target pages seem a bit narrow. The whole set of pages there might be in need of an overhaul. I am tempted to delink for the time being as "sterile" is a common enough word until we have a proper target to link to.Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I created a new stub on sterility (physiology), defined as the inability to effect sexual reproduction in an organism or organ otherwise anatomically equipped to do so. I'm shocked we didn't already have a page on this. As Cas says, the whole set of pages there is in need of an overhaul. Hesperian 12:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
"published Adenanthos intermedia" Is that a recognised use of the word "published"? I read that as "published a work called...", rather than "described a species called..."
Shouldn't the Description section go after Taxonomy? I'm not sure, but it's just something I've noticed in other taxa FAs... Auree★ 01:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
It's all Hesperian's fault as we've done it this way for all the proteaceae :( ...but seriously, years ago I always placed (and still do for birds, fungi etc.) taxonomy above description as (a) it gives a bit of background as to what we are defining as a species (b) there is a bit of description in the lead anyway (c) generally on older sqaure monitors, you're wanting to put images in the description section, which is a pain if there is a taxobox jutting down the RHS of the screen. Point (c) is becoming less relevant as we go to wider screens though. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, there is a new stable template that I have placed on this talk page. The purpose of this template, as explained in the documentation and in a short discussion at the village pump, is to help against article rot (the deterioration of quality that can occur in articles), and to keep a link to a stable version, which will be reliable, and not so prone to those errors, vandalism, and erroneous information that can crop up at any moment. It has no effect on the actual article, and can be upgraded/changed at any time - ideally to reflect a newer, improved stable version. This being said, if you are against using it on this talk page (some have found it intrusive), feel free to discuss or remove it - I believe that it will benefit some articles more than others, and I accept that not all will see a need for it on each article. Falconusptc 22:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)