Talk:Flora of Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia / Biota (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Flora of Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (marked as Top-importance).
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
WikiProject Plants (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Grass tree[edit]

I don't think you should use the term 'black boy'. This term is no longer considered appropriate. A better term would be 'grass tree'.The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.128.218.206 (talk • contribs) .

Political correctness gone mad. Some things are what they are, and should be left as such. I do not see how anyone could find a plant being called black boy offensive.The preceding unsigned comment was added by Loscha (talk • contribs) .

floral emblem[edit]

Theres a gallery of a few Australian floral emblems on that article. Maybe it would be better here as that one doesnt specifically relate to Australia? ---- Astrokey44|talk 09:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

rare Australian tree[edit]

A rare Aussie tree was mentioned recently on some docu on PBS. Narrator called it "imbidic" tree, as he walked beside, ran his open hand across the rough bark (light grey in color). I can find no reference to it by this spelling which is the best I can do, phonetically. Sadly, I dont even recall which program. I need help on many fronts, obviously, but will settle for info on this tree.--briefcase 15:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Taxonomy and stuff - fungi more apt as fauna??[edit]

Technically fungi are more closely related to animals than plants, but they just sit there and grow, hence their place on a flora rather than a fauna page. Maybe a good idea to start a separate page.....................thoughts?Cas Liber 06:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the flora article states that flora is plants only. Fungi is not included. We could create another article for it, and move all fungi related stuff from this article into the new article. I really hope we get an Australian fungi expert contributing to wikipedia soon, that would be great! --liquidGhoul 08:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Fungi is considered as a part of the flora; its better here for the time being. --Peta 01:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get that from? The flora article states the opposite. --liquidGhoul 02:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
There is no dispute that fungi are distinct from the plants, and belong to an entirely different kingdom. I think what Peta is saying is that whenever attempts are made to jam the numerous kingdoms into an old-fashioned dichotomy between "flora" and "fauna", the fungi invariably end up under "flora". Hesperian 02:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Yep. Look at any Aus. government info on biodiversity and the fungi are grouped with the plants; lichens for instance are included in the Flora of Australia - it's hard to talk about lichens without talking about fungi. Mycology is a field of botany not zoology. Plus the information is useful here since we know about next to nothing about the fungal diversity of Australia, splitting it off into a daughter article would create a poorly maintained and undeveloped article until someone interested comes along (which may be never). --Peta 04:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Cas is interested ;-) Hesperian 04:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Ideally it would still be a daughter article of this one rather than fauna. --Peta 04:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree. If Cas wants to create Fungi of Australia, then great; until then, it should be in Flora not Fauna. Hesperian 04:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I was being a little facetious when I said 'fauna' - I recognise that it is well and truly under the botany banner. Have gotten a few texts and will start a page soon...Cas Liber 07:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I never had any suggestion of listing it under fauna, but I don't think it is appropriate in flora either. Looking forward to it Cas, glad that sorted it out. :) --liquidGhoul 08:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, made a page called Fungal flora of Australia as "Fungi of Australia" didn't sound right but on reflection......Cas Liber 09:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What is this?[edit]

I came across this whilst hiking in Heathcote National Park. Could it be sap or something like that. Could this be used for either this article or another.

Heathcote National Park tree.jpg