Talk:Casuarina equisetifolia

Infobox image

C. equisetifolia subsp. equisetifolia image has been used for sometime in the infobox of the article due to the correct colouring and the tree is clearly visible and just as illustrative as the other photo, C. equisetifolia subsp. incana image has poor colouring. If you can get a photograph which has the same colouring as C. equisetifolia subsp. equisetifolia then posted here. Bidgee (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I must say where I have a preference, I generally like to have the nominate subspecies used if possible. The other image is pale, but its name is incana which suggests it has pale/grey foliage (??) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Most likely the camera which took the photograph of C. equisetifolia subsp. incana has poor colour balancing, foliage of C. equisetifolia subsp. incana. incana is Latin for "hoary or white, in reference to the hairy new shoots"[1].Bidgee (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It is clear that Mark Marathon knows Wikipedia's policies and is trying to use it in his favour but yet they fail to use the talk page to address the valid concerns raised. Even an editor pointed out that the C. equisetifolia subsp. equisetifolia is the best photograph for the infobox, if you can find an image that has correct colouring then upload it. Bidgee (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The equisetifolia image has not been used for some time. You added it after I added the image of incana. I hohestly have no idea what you are trying to say here, but a claim that it has been used "for some time" is simply not true. Several trees are clearly visible in the photograph, so it is not as illustrative as the other photo. C. equisetifolia subsp. incana image has perfect colouring. Meanwhile the image of equisetifolia that you posted has horrible colouring, looking like it has been put through a red filter. If you can get a photograph which has the same colouring as C. equisetifolia subsp. incana then posted (sic) here. Mark Marathon (talk)

How about learning some photography? Fact is I don't use a red filter, it is what you would see with your own eyes, where as you would need to have your eyes tested if you could see like the C. equisetifolia subsp. incana photo. Bidgee (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

How about you learning some photography and some botany, rather than just messing about with effects in photoshop? See I can make "blunt" personal comments too. It doesn't get us very far. I understand that you feel an attachment to your grand work of art, but the fact is that it's not very good. If you have anything to add that isn't pointlessly subjective then please do so. You can start by explaining what you mean when you say that the equisetifolia image has been used for some time when you added it after I added the image of incana. But if all you have to offer is subjective artistic art advise then there really isn't anything to discuss. I disagree with your subjective opinion, and it is therefore insufficient grounds for reverting my edits. When come back bring consensus Mark Marathon (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you know nothing, fact is I use photoshop to crop and remove dust marks but not for effects. You don't even have a consensus when in fact another editor has stated that they agree that the C. equisetifolia subsp. equisetifolia is far better quality. Bidgee (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay okay, I am trying to expand the text so we can include all - it is good having photos of different subspecies. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Madagascar

I changed the wording in the intro to better reflect the statement in the reference that the native status of this species in Madagascar is doubtful. 'Possibly native' doesn't accurately express this doubt, but rather makes it seem that it is relatively likely that the species is native. This is an important distinction as it has implications for the native range and spread of the species, and reading that they are 'possibly native' to Madagascar is certainly odd and needs more explanation. I think this is worth a few extra words. Could also move this further down to 'distribution and habitat', but it should definitely be included. Let me know your thoughts, cheers! Rainbowwrasse (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

allelopathy

no mention of it... FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Casuarina equisetifolia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605113952/http://www.csiro.au/science/ps334.html to http://www.csiro.au/science/ps334.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Casuarina equisetifolia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605100028/http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?9553 to http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?9553

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Distribution

Plants of the World Online includes the historical "Malaya" in the distribution of this species - it probably should be Peninsular Malaysia. It also includes "Turks-Caicos Is.", but in my opinion is this is unlikely, since those islands are in the West Indies and do not appear to be marked in green in the associated distribution map. Conversely, a reference from Center for International Forestry Research includes New Zealand in the distribution, but this is not confirmed by Plants of the World Online, nor by the New Zealand Plant Conservation Network. Gderrin (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

References