Talk:Coneflower: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 22:39, 30 January 2024

There seems to be a problem with this article. What does it describe? A genus or a species? If it is a species, what is its Latin name?

The taxobox is that of a genus. In the List of Asteraceae genera it is listed as the genus Dracopis. The article text mentions a member of Rudbeckia or Echinacea. That's 3 genera. The words 'a member of' suggests it is a species.

TeunSpaans 13:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coneflower is a common name used by two (or three is you also take Dracopis) different genera. Dracopis is a monotypic genus with Dracopis amplexicaulis, the accepted name of the synonym Rudbeckia amplexicaulis JoJan 16:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good edit - now it's clear we are dealing with a genus, not with a species. Could you also included a bit on the Dracopis in the article? Else visitors coming from List of Asteraceae genera are a bit lost as to why they have been redirected here. TeunSpaans 18:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup and split-up

I strongly suggest we split this article up into 3 separate articles, each one dealing with one and only one genus. As for the term Coneflower, it deserves a disambiguation page which points to different genera in different articles (plus a few explanation for the origine of the term perhaps). Moreover, a cleanup is necessary and taxon names used in this article are very messy (coneflowers, black-eyed susan...). What do you think ?Qwertzy2 1 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll do it if no-one else gets in first - MPF 14:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=List|
+{{WikiProject Plants|importance=low}}
+}}
 There seems to be a problem with this article. What does it describe? A genus or a species? If it is a species, what is its [[Latin]] name?
 The taxobox is that of a genus.
-In the [[List of Asteraceae genera]] it is listed as the genus ''Dracopis''.
+In the [[List of Asteraceae genera]] it is listed as the genus ''Dracopis''. The article text mentions ''a member of Rudbeckia or Echinacea''. That's 3 genera. The words 'a member of' suggests it is a species.
-The article text mentions ''a member of Rudbeckia or Echinacea''. That's 3 genera. The words 'a member of' suggests it is a species.
 [[User:TeunSpaans|TeunSpaans]] 13:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
+: Coneflower is a common name used by two (or three is you also take Dracopis) different genera. ''Dracopis'' is a monotypic genus with ''Dracopis amplexicaulis'', the accepted name of the synonym ''Rudbeckia amplexicaulis''  [[User:JoJan|JoJan]] 16:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
+::Good edit - now it's clear we are dealing with a genus, not with a species. Could you also included a bit on the ''Dracopis'' in the article? Else visitors coming from [[List of Asteraceae genera]] are a bit lost as to why they have been redirected here. [[User:TeunSpaans|TeunSpaans]] 18:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
+== Cleanup and split-up  ==
+I strongly suggest we split this article up into 3 separate articles, each one dealing with one and only one genus. As for the term ''Coneflower'', it deserves a disambiguation page which points to different genera in different articles (plus a few explanation for the origine of the term perhaps). Moreover, a cleanup is necessary and taxon names used in this article are very messy (coneflowers, black-eyed susan...). What do you think ?[[User:Qwertzy2|Qwertzy2]] 1 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)
+:Good idea. I'll do it if no-one else gets in first - [[User:MPF|MPF]] 14:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)