Talk:Taxonomy of Banksia

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Banksia: Plants High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Banksia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the plant genus Banksia and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.BanksiaWikipedia:WikiProject BanksiaTemplate:WikiProject BanksiaBanksia articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Plants (assessed as Low-importance). Australia: Biota Low‑importance Taxonomy of Banksia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

I looked up the Olde paper, but it contains no reference to Banksia being a conserved name whatsoever. Could his statement be re-sourced? Circeus 00:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is definitely not the right reference for that. My information on this originally came from George 1981. But I suggest it would be better to reference the list of Nomina generica conservanda et rejicienda in Appendix III of the ICBN Code. Ideally we would cite the Vienna code but it's not online yet; the entry for Banksia in the Saint Louis code can be seen here. That reference doesn't attribute Sprague, but George 1981 does. In the longer term, I would like to look at and cite the discussion on its conservations in Rehder et al., Kew Bull. (1935) 368–369, and the final decision in Bull. Misc. Inform. 98 (1940). Hesperian 01:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, it seems to be record #2068 in the list (JSTOR page link). Circeus 19:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That link doesn't work for me :-( Hesperian 12:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it will only work if you have JSTOR account. I was at Uni when I recovered it.Circeus 17:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey when looking up Cryptostomata I was redirected here. This is a problem because Cryptostomata is an Order of Bryozoa. I was expecting to go there. No page exists. This should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.11.27.149 (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've created a placeholder article for the Bryozoan order. Hesperian 14:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article states that the genus has 80 species. But the Banksia article says 170. Could that be clarified? Dick Bos (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]