Talk:Cosmos bipinnatus

How come is the monarch butterfly attracted to the seeds? I have cosmos and monarchs do come but (I think) not for the seeds but for the flowers and nectar. I suggest the author should cite the reference and/or explain why the butterfly is attracted to the seeds. I think the information (changed and made untrue) came from this site: http://plantanswers.tamu.edu/flowers/cosmos/cosmos.html I will change it back to what it should be Pro bug catcher 13:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Drought tolerance?

I disagree with the current description of this plant as not tolerating drought, even though it's referenced to a book. This is based on a search of cosmos bipinnatus drought site:.edu (sorry no permalink, don't know why). For example, Colorado State University's extension service site lists it as one of 'some drought-tolerant annuals' [1] and the University of Georgia's extension service has it in a 'Ornamental Plants Known to Have Above Average Drought Tolerance' [2]. Of course drought is a relative term, the authors of the book may have been talking about really arid conditions. So how can we rework this? Novickas (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cosmos bipinnatus. 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/20071215031014/http://www.cordobes.com/30dias/noticia13.html to http://www.cordobes.com/30dias/noticia13.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 13:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Half-hardiness an erroneous term according to article on hardiness

The section deacribing the plant describes it as an half-hardy annual. However, the word half-hardy links to the article on hardiness, which states that half-hardy is an erroneous term.

I removed the contradictory description from this article. However, neither claim has a citation. Which leaves me at an impass as to how to deal with this. Should the claim be removed from both articles? Or just have a citation needed added to the claim on the page for hardiness?VoidHalo (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The term “half-hardy” is widely used and referenced in British literature, for a plant which requires protection during part of its life. Many annuals have to be sown under glass during the winter months, and later hardened off for flowering outside.Darorcilmir (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the term "half-hardy" needs to be added to Hardiness (plants) to help prevent this sort of confusion in the future. Do you have a good book that would define the term as it is used in British gardening? Then it can be added back to article on Cosmos. Edit: wait, I found a pretty good one on archive.org. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed!Darorcilmir (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Fixed there and reworded for clarity here. Really the whole article needs quite a bit of work. I will put it on my list to work on along with the other 2000+ articles I need to write or rewrite. I also don't understand why it has the "written like a research paper or scientific journal" tag. This is one of the more casually written articles I have seen about wildflowers. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Cheers! I too am editing articles from a gardening viewpoint - so will be casting a beady eye over both entries. Darorcilmir (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you to both of you for your contributions. I'm not an expert in botany by any means. I merely noticed the contradiction and pointed it out. I really appreciate you, and MtBotany taking up the reigns and fixing it up as necessary. Cheers. VoidHalo (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe it was probably tagged that way because of the writing style in the Description and following sections, which consists of extremely short terse pseudo-sentences that are actually point-form notes filled with specialist terminology; for lack of a better name I will arbitrarily call it "Botanist's Field Notes Style". It needs real, English-teacher-style sentences, that describe and explain the material rather than merely giving a list of characteristics. Botanists might then complain that they are being asked to rewrite the Description section (and other parts) as if this was an article to be printed in a children's magazine; they would be essentially correct about that. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

... if we assume some fairly bright children. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 06:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah that explains the confusion. Well, thanks to you guys for clarifying that and making the appropriate changes. It's much appreciated. VoidHalo (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

References