Jump to content

Talk:Lepilaena: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

WikiProject iconPlants Redirect‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
RedirectThis redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this redirect.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]