Talk:Lepilaena: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
rate |
Adding {{merged-to|Althenia}} and adjusting WikiProject banners (easy-merge) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{merged-to|Althenia|13 March 2021}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Plants|class= |
{{WikiProject Plants|class=redirect}} |
||
==Marine species== |
==Marine species== |
Revision as of 09:53, 13 March 2021
The contents of the Lepilaena page were merged into Althenia on 13 March 2021 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Plants Redirect‑class | |||||||
|
Marine species
Larkum et al. is an authoritive reference on seagrasses. It is recent. I trust it more than FloraBase, although I would usually use only FloraBase for Australian species (it's easier). Of Lepilaena" "two species are truly marine (Womersley, 1984)" --69.226.103.13 (talk) 10:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Any better? The information for L. cylindrocarpa at FloraBase shows the herbarium's records of an inland distribution, summarising it as "marine" seemed misleading. I didn't change marina :-) BTW, Florabase is only good for species in the western third of the continent. cygnis insignis 14:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it's better. I put the source for the marine inside the brackets because after reviewing some literature online I found most sources say the genus is not marine. I think that plus the additional text makes the article much more useful. Micropaleontologists are only interested in the western third of the continent. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)