Talk:Botrychium: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:20, 5 April 2015

Plants Start‑class Low‑importance

	Plants portal 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.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This needs a complete revision

Is the separation of the grapeferns tenable? I think the latest word is "certainly not"... in any case species need to be reviewed and Botrypus is one hell of a mess. Dysmorodrepanis 00:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus at the Plant project is that it is at least reasonable to have a page for every genus level, though not necessarily for every species levels. I'm doing an undergraduate research project on Botrychiums this year so I'll try to get some more sources added when I come across their journal articles. Ataylor18 (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that the Botrychium lunarioides picture is not actually a B. lunarioides. The trophophore looks nothing like I've seen before and the sporophore seems too upright and diminished. The pinnae should be more rounded on the apex and spread out. It usually sits flush with the ground, not slightly above as in this picture. There is normally alot more sporangia. To me, it just looks more like a B. virginianum than a B. lunarioides but I'm not saying it's that, either. Maybe someone can give a third opinion, here. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ataylor18 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, my take is that it looks like B. virginianum, too. The apices of the divisions of the trophophore seem much too acute to be a B. lunarioides. Choess (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the thumbnail.

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 I'm concerned that the ''Botrychium lunarioides'' picture is not actually a ''B. lunarioides''. The trophophore looks nothing like I've seen before and the sporophore seems too upright and diminished. The pinnae should be more rounded on the apex and spread out. It usually sits flush with the ground, not slightly above as in this picture. There is normally alot more sporangia. To me, it just looks more like a ''B. virginianum'' than a ''B. lunarioides'' but I'm not saying it's that, either. Maybe someone can give a third opinion, here. :)  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ataylor18|Ataylor18]] ([[User talk:Ataylor18|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ataylor18|contribs]]) 16:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 :FWIW, my take is that it looks like ''B.&nbsp;virginianum'', too. The apices of the divisions of the trophophore seem much too acute to be a ''B.&nbsp;lunarioides''. [[User:Choess|Choess]] ([[User talk:Choess|talk]]) 00:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
+::I removed the thumbnail.