Talk:Banksia sessilis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Banksia sessilis is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 18, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
March 8, 2010 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject Banksia / Plants (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Banksia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the plant genus Banksia and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Plants (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Australia / Biota / Western Australia (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Banksia sessilis 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (marked as Low-importance).
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for other than editorial assistance.

Notes[edit]

Common name[edit]

  • Knight (1809) - Sessile Josephia
  • Brown (1810) - no comment
  • Aiton (1810) - Many-Flower'd Dryandra
  • Sims (1813) - Many-Flowered Dryandra
  • Bentham (1870) - no comment
  • Pelloe (1921) - Prickly Dryandra or Shaving-brush Flower (according to Bennett (1991))
  • Dell & Gardner (1934-5) - Holly-leaved Dryandra (according to Bennett (1991))
  • Blackall (1954) - Holly-leaf Dryandra
  • Gardner (1959) - Parrot Bush
  • Royce (1961) - Parrot Bush
  • Lord (1967) - Holly-leaf Dryandra
  • Newbey (1968) - no comment
  • Lord (1970) - Holly-leaf Dryandra
  • Fairall (1970) - Parrot Bush or Holly-leaf Dryandra
  • Erickson (1973) - Parrot Bush
  • Hartley (1979) - Parrot Bush (according to Bennett (1991))
  • Wrigley & Fagg (1979) - no comment
  • Lord (1982) - Parrot Bush or Holly-leaf Dryandra
  • Abbott (1983) - Budjan, Butyak or Pudjak (according to Bennett (1991) and this website)
  • George (1984) - Common Parrotbush
  • Dell (1986) - Parrot Bush (according to Bennett (1991))
  • Marchant (1987) - Parrot Bush (according to Bennett (1991))
  • Blackall & Grieve (1988) - Parrot Bush (according to Bennett (1991))
  • Powell (1990) - Parrot Bush
  • Robson (1993) - Common Parrot Bush or Parrot Bush
  • FloraBase (1999) - Parrot Bush
  • George (1999) - no comment
  • Cavanagh (2006) - Parrot Bush


  • Sessile Josephia - Knight only
  • Many-Flowered Dryandra - Early European horticulturists, 1810 - 1813
  • Prickly Dryandra - Pelloe (1921) only
  • Shaving-brush Flower - Pelloe (1921) only
  • Holly-leaf Dryandra - Aus botanists, 1934-1970, with hangover in later editions of Lord; possibly originated in the Western Mail article. Will need to take a look.
  • Parrot Bush - 1959-present, undisputed since 1970. Possibly originated with Gardner, although Royce says "well known to bee-keepers as Parrot Bush".

Whence came the name "Parrot Bush"?

Need to find out what Pelloe had to say in 1924, if anything. And need to check the original '33 or '34 Western Mail article in which Dell's painting first appeared, and Gardner's 1935 text.... Both of these now answered by Bennett, E. (1991) Common and Aboriginal names of Western Australian plant species.

Gardner has been written up so often I do not know if any one biuo bit would have anything about it but - I would suspect his wide travels and his contact with many people would have placed him in the opprtunity to find that the bee keepers had called it that SatuSuro 14:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

According to this site Abbott cites Moore as the source for these names. Presumably Moore means George Fletcher Moore's 1842 A Descriptive Vocabulary of the Language of the Aborigines, which I have a scan of. Will take a look. Hesperian 06:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If it helps, it is not the only thing to be called "Parrot Bush". see also the 'weedy alien, Polygala myrtifolia, or Myrtleleaf Milkwort. Cygnis insignis 06:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Rough draft of names section[edit]

B. sessilis was given the common name Sessile Josephia when first published in 1809, but this was rejected along with the scientific name. In 1810 the common name Many Flowered Dryandra was coined for the Hortus Kewensis, and this was used by Sims in 1813.

In Australia, the names Prickly Dryandra and Shaving-brush Flower were offered up by Emily Pelloe in 1921, but neither of these were repeated. The name Holly-leaved Dryandra was used in the Western Mail articles of 1933 and 1933, and this was taken up by William Blackall in 1954, and was still in use as late as 1970. Meanwhile, Gardner used the name Parrot Bush in 1959, a name by which the species was "well-known to bee-keepers", according to Royce. This name was widely adopted, and by 1970 was in almost exclusive usage.

The only indigenous names known for the plant are "Budjan" and "Butyak", both of which were published by George Fletcher Moore in his 1842 A Descriptive Vocabulary of the Language of the Aborigines. Ian Elliott has suggested the latter name should be preferred, but with the orthography "Pudjak".

  • Moore's "Budjan" and "But-yak" are both ascribed by him to Banksia fraseri not Banksia sessilis. Either Abbott is wrong, or he has a good reason for declaring Moore wrong. We won't know until we can get hold of Abbott (1983) Aboriginal names for plant species in south-western Australia. Hesperian 05:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Cultivation[edit]

  • Australian Plants (1961) - "... favours superior soil types.... is usually of a pleasing shape...."
  • Newbey (1969) - "A very good ornamental species both in flower and foliage. A very hardy species but requires good drainage. Makes moderate to quick growth."
  • Lord (1967) - nothing worth mentioning.
  • Lord (1970) - nothing worth mentioning.
  • Fairall (1970) - "an attractively shaped bush... grows in sand... flowering well in the third season".
  • Wrigley & Fagg (1979): "PROPAGATION: From seed. CULTIVATION: Not easily grown in eastern States although some success has been noted in Melbourne. Excellent drainage essential. Frost tolerance not tested."

Hesperian 04:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Australian Plants (1994) - Dryandra from cuttings ..."Most species are slow to root and some, especially those with thick or hairy stems such as D. praemorsa, D. nobilis and D. sessilis ... have proved nearly impossible."

--Melburnian 07:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

broken reference[edit]

Number 29: both previous Cavanagh refs included page numbers in their names. Circeus (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I think I fixed it already before I saw this message... by changing my mind about including it. Hesperian 04:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Mabberley 1985 is broken/incomplete. DrKiernan (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Fixed. DrKiernan (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

2 things...[edit]

I have a seedling in a pot here - I took some seeds to see if it would grow on the east coast as it is such a colonizer - the sedling has cotyledon leaves plus two more. Wanna photo?

Also, I heard Kerosene Bush as another name for it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Kerosene Bush normally refers to Banksia nobilis. You sure you've heard it applied to B. sessilis? Zero ghits: http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22dryandra+sessilis%22+%22kerosene+bush%22 Hesperian 11:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
You are probably right. Te term was used by non-plant people and I just assumed it was this species they were referring to - incorrectly as it turns out. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

To do[edit]

  • Lead is crap
  • Description is too brief
  • Discovery and naming: redlinks: Peter Good, On the Proteaceae of Jussieu, On the cultivation of the plants belonging to the natural order of Proteeae
  • Discovery and naming: ref The Journal of Peter Good
  • Taxonomy: 31 redlinks
  • Taxonomy: Poiret transfer, Kuntze transfer
  • Taxonomy: Mast and Thiele's (very preliminary) phylogeny - placed alongside formosa, fairly basal.
  • Cultivation: Current subsection headings are crap
  • Ecology:
    • Proteoid roots
    • Obligate outcrosser - phenology favours crossing, because of protandry and timing of nectar production.
    • Plant killed by fire, has to regenerate by seed
    • Not serotinous, no canopy seed bank
    • Therefore extremely heavy seed producer
    • Germination factors? - Moisture? Heat? Age? Granivory?
    • Seedling establishment factors? - Moisture? Heat? Competition? Soil? Light? Herbivory?
    • Disease: P. cinn., Armillaria

Citation needed?[edit]

This article is well-sourced and in good shape. There is, however, a citation needed tag after the sentence "These were subsequently republished in Charles Gardner's 1935 West Australian Wild Flowers, but the text did not cover cultivation." Anyone have a source for this? Firsfron of Ronchester 21:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It is frustrating. I have a much later edition. In fact, many books on wildflowers do not cover cultivation. One last try mebbe.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Banksia sessilis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ucucha 01:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking good so far--I'll give the article a thorough read, fix any small issues I find, and come back here with any concerns. Ucucha 01:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  • No alt text (not a GA criterion, but including it is a good idea regardless) (alt text done) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "|ISBN status = May be invalid – please double check" - please do
The National Library of Australia gives the same isbn, so checked. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
There's another one further down the article (Wrigley, 1979). Ucucha 12:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
checked, fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "not unlike some varieties of Ilex Aquifolium" - the MOS generally discourages links in quotes, but this may be a legitimate use.
(I note that the use of links is not prohibited per se, and I see this as the most practical way of linking without some ungainly explanation. I don't see how we'd otherwise link to holly, and it is a pertinent and specific enough link to be worth keeping) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, sounds like a good reason for an exception. Ucucha 12:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "The name Holly-leaved Dryandra was used in the Western Mail article of 1933–34" - do you mean articles?
  • "It is unclear whether Abbott has corrected Moore's error, or introduced an error of his own." - can you cite this? (Discussed below)
I'll ask Hesperian, who added this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a conversation; I'll start a section below. Hesperian 00:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Varieties - could you also include diagnostic features and distributions for the non-autonym varieties?
(expanded) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Good. How about the distributions? Ucucha 21:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Added now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Please resolve the {{fact}} tag under "Ecology". (Also, does this belong under "Ecology" rather than "Characteristics", where other aspects of reproduction are covered? Ucucha 02:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC))
  • "Nothing is known of the conditions that affect its distribution, as its biogeography is as yet unstudied." - how about the climate change paper cited later?
(the paper mentioned was an overview without focussing on this species in particular, which has been little studied as yet. There are over 12000 species of flowering plants in the SW corner of Western Australia, more than Europe and Asia combined, so many haven't had much field work yet :)) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I see. :) Would it perhaps be better to move that sentence about the influence of climate change to "Distribution and habitat" from "Ecology"? Ucucha 21:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
(Good idea, and done) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Another fact tag under "Cultivation".
(I just removed a bit and sourced a bit) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Domin, Karel (1923). "[Title unknown]". Memoires de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Boheme. 2 (2): 19.  - seems an odd choice for further reading.
(Karel Domin was an early describer of the species, but his name in the authority of the taxon dropped out after its recent renaming) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
"Further reading" should list works that give useful information that is not in the article, I think, and I'm having a hard time believing that a 90-year-old taxonomic paper would fall under that. Ucucha 21:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
(good point. removed) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll come back later with a few more general comments (if any). Ucucha 01:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  • "Germination takes about six weeks." - this isn't only relevant to cultivation, is it?
technically no, but it is in a segment of text on cultivation in the source - feasibly I suspect that dry seeds might lie around in the soil for alot longer than seix weeks, so I figure it is better where it is Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The lead is focused rather too much on details of its distribution, and doesn't include information from the "Discovery and naming" and "Taxonomy" paragraphs.
    • I see this is already stated rather more succinctly two sections above here. :) Ucucha 03:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Much better now, but the Darling Scarp and kangaroo pieces don't seem to be anywhere in the body of the article. Ucucha 13:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I subtracted the bit on kangaroos and disturbed ground for the time being. Will look to see if it can be sourced and added to body of text. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
        • The Perth bit is also not in the body. The lead is getting a bit on the short side, too. Ucucha 21:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
          • ditched ther Perth bit from the lead (frustrating as I know it's true - did find a limited ref which is now added in the body of the text but not the lead). added a couple of facts to the lead Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
            • Thanks, lead looks good now. A pity that you couldn't find a full ref for that. Ucucha 01:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Images are all verifiably sourced. Consider moving a few to the left for a more varied appearance.
  • References all appear reliable. Ref. 30 is missing the year.
added Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha 02:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, only two issues left to address: the unsourced paragraph under "Ecology" and the minor textual problem with the "Holly-leaved Dryandra" piece. Ucucha 01:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Both have been resolved, so I am now passing this as a GA—it's certainly a great introduction to this plant. Some further comments that don't have a bearing on GA status:

  • It would be nice if the distribution map had separate colors for the varieties, as B. sphaerocarpa does.
  • The "Description" is still a little on the short side. Also note my suggestion above to move the formerly unsourced paragraph under "Ecology" here.

Ucucha 13:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Abbott and Moore[edit]

This is an interesting case. The reliably sourced facts before us are:

  1. Moore (1842) lists Budjan and But-yak as indigenous names for Dryandra fraseri.
  2. Abbott (1983) lists Budjan and But-yak as indigenous names for Dryandra sessilis, and sources this to Moore (1842).

Both facts are relevant to the article. Both facts are intimately related to each other. It makes sense to present this as "Abbott says... but Moore says...."; but there a danger, as we're all aware, of making a novel synthesis: putting these two facts together and implying a conclusion that neither source supports. My concern was that the "Abbott says... but Moore says...." sentence can be read as "Abbott says... but Abbott is wrong." I spent ages wording and rewording to try to avoid any hint that we are laying blame for the contradiction. In the end I decided to cut the Gordian knot by more or less explitly stating that we aren't taking a position. That is what the "It is unclear... " sentence does. No, there is no source for it. If it has to go, it has to go, but I still say that in its absense the paragraph will read as though we are faulting Abbott. Hesperian 00:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You could say: "However, Abbott mistakingly sources..." and leave the last bit off. A slightly shorter synthesis...--Grahame (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I assume there are no other reliable sources which discuss the issue?
I think Hesperian's reasoning is sound, and the article as it stands appears to deal with the issue fairly (Grahamec's rewording does not, for the reasons Hesperian gave). I feel it's counterproductive to insist on WP:NOR here, so I won't do it, but if you take this to FAC (don't know whether you're planning to), others may find fault with it. Ucucha 00:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes this article is likely to go to FAC - I feel the sentence is necessary to state the relative positions and curent level of uncertainty. By removing it, it misleads the reader into believing Abbott has continued the error when we are not sure that this is infact the case. Thus the sentence can be seen in some way as an OR-avoiding measure. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Banksia sessilis. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Banksia sessilis. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Banksia sessilis. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)