Talk:Lepilaena: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
rate |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject Plants|class=|importance=}} |
{{WikiProject Plants|class=stub|importance=low|needs-photo=yes}} |
||
==Marine species== |
==Marine species== |
Revision as of 20:04, 7 July 2013
Plants Redirect‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
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)