Talk:Banksia prionotes/Archive 1

Nectar or pollen ?

At the start it says it is the only plant with pollen for the honey eaters at some time of the year. Down the end it says it is the only plant with nectar for the honey-eaters. Honey-eaters eat nectar not pollen. One of those statements should be changed. Eregli bob 11:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Nectar. Fixed, thanks. Hesperian 11:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Notes

• Some pre-dispersal predation; need to see Scott (1982)
• prionotes senesces in stands older than 30 years; also inter-fire recruitment.(Cowling Lamont Enright 1990)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Banksia prionotes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi Cas, I'll be reviewing the article, in an attempt to help reduce the GAN backlog (that I'm contributing to). This will probably take me a few days to finish. Sasata (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The article looks very good already. I did a first-pass copyedit, and added some more links, but feel free to revert if you don't agree with them. Here are my initial comments. I'll read through the article again later, and check references and reference formatting more closely. Sasata (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Lede

*"The Acorn Banksia is pollinated by and provides food for a wide array of vertebrate and invertebrate animals in the autumn and winter months, and is an important source of food for honey-eaters, and is critical to their survival in the Avon Wheatbelt region, where it is the only nectar-producing plant in flower at some times of the year." Suggest this long sentence be split into two, which will help remove a repetitive "and"  Done

Description

*might it be possible to have a photo of the full-grown tree somewhere in the article? I know what the flowers look like, and the lower regions of a burned tree, but still don't have a good idea of what it looks like with its leaves at full-size. (can do)  Done

*the dimensions in the first paragraph are given in metric and imperial, whereas in the second paragraph only in metric.  Done

Physiology

*cite needed tag remains  Done

Taxonomy

*"A sheet at B. prionotes at CGE, labelled "Swan River, Drummond, 1839"," The acroynym CGE needs to be disambiguated; the expression "A sheet at B. prionotes" is awkward ''(CGE = University of Cambridge Herbarium) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

*"George has confirmed the obvious" I don't know who George is until a couple of paragraphs later, perhaps this initial mention of George should be linked instead?  Done

*"In 1999, George overturned Thiele and Ladiges' arrangement," Am wondering if George's analysis used molecular data, and if not, why it would overturn the phylogenetic data of Thiele and Ladiges. (George is a classical botanist and has questioned the wholesale acceptance of cladistics. He maintains the importance of floral characteristics in determining taxonomy of the genus. This has been a topic of much discussion in the genus Banksia in recent years) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• "To date, this remains the most recent, and therefore current, arrangement. " recent=current=redundant? (removed 'current')

*"The resultant F1 hybrids are fully fertile, with seed set similar to that of the parent species." seed set? (ok, or reword?)

Ecology

*"...but allows it to put on its main growth for the year." "put on its growth" is an expression I've never heard before... is this Australian English? (no, just awkward. It grows mainly in the summer which is the dry period, but this is mentioned in description, so I just made it 'grow' instead) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

*"Flowers open sequentially from bottom to top," bottom to top of the flower or the plant? (flower - explanation below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC))

• "with a peak rate of around two to three florets per hour..." does florets = flower? Didn't see this term used in the description.

Maybe in the description sentence "Flowers occur in a typical Banksia flower spike, an inflorescence made up of hundreds of flowers densely packed" florets could be mentioned parenthetically in there. Sasata (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• (florets --> individual small flowers, or florets) Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• cit needed tag needs to be dealt with

Conservation

*"meaning that the loss of B. prionotes from the region would mean the loss of all the honey-eaters as well." It might mean that, but it might not. Maybe it would be safer to say something like "the loss of B. prionotes from the region would severely affect the food source of honey-eaters as well." or something like that... not quite so definitive.

Thanks for the review. Just one quick comment for now: I'll double-check the source but I believe the "definitive" statement about the loss of B. prionotes meaning the loss of all the honey-eaters as well, is an accurate reflection of what those sources actually say. Hesperian 12:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've checked now. Walker (1995), p. 751, says:

"A second, more specific example of the importance of a single-species functional type comes from the wheatbelt in Western Australia, where Lambeck (1992) has shown that a single plant species, Banksia prionotes, is the only source of nectar during a critical period of the year when no other nectar-producing plants are in flower, and all the honeyeaters depend on it. The loss of this one species would result in the loss of all the honeyeaters from the region and, because many of the plants in the region depend on honeyeaters as vectors for pollination (Keighery 1982), the loss of the birds would have far-reaching effects on plant-species diversity."

Hesperian 12:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for confirming. Sasata (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

For Sasata, a Banksia inflorescence is made up of several thousand individual flowers. On an orange prionotes spike, the white bits at the top end are unopened flowers, while the orange section below is the flowers already opened. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Also - "seed set" means number of seeds produced. Will think on how to rephrase. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

more comments Sasata (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• I fact-checked some of the sources used in the article that I was able to access online, and everything checked out.
• I noticed that Lamont et al., (2003) mention that the distribution area of B. prionotes is "815 × 125 km (extending 600 km north and 360 km south-east from Perth)"; perhaps this could be included in the distribution section?
• If this were FAC, I would recommend checking out the following papers to see if they have any info worth including:

Conservation biology of banksias: insights from natural history to simulation modelling Author(s): Lamont, BB; Enright, NJ; Witkowski, ETF, et al. Source: AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY Volume: 55 Issue: 3 Pages: 280-292 Published: 2007

Title: Does phenotypic plasticity in carboxylate exudation differ among rare and widespread Banksia species (Proteaceae)? Author(s): Denton, MD; Veneklaas, EJ; Lambers, H Source: NEW PHYTOLOGIST Volume: 173 Issue: 3 Pages: 592-599 Published: 2007

Title: Seedling growth and physiological responses of two sandplain Banksia species differing in flood tolerance Author(s): Groom, P. K. Source: Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia Volume: 87 Issue: Part 3 Pages: 115-121 Published: SEP 2004

Title: Rooting depth and plant water relations explain species distribution patterns within a sandplain landscape Author(s): Groom, PK Source: FUNCTIONAL PLANT BIOLOGY Volume: 31 Issue: 5 Pages: 423-428 Published: 2004

In general, this is a very good article, and I will promote as soon as a couple of issues above are addressed. Now on hold. Sasata (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

Prose is very well written – engaging and articulate. Article complies with MOS.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR):

   Well-referenced to reliable sources; one cite-needed tag remains.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Thorough treatment of all important topics.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images have appropriate free use licenses.

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Pending a couple of revisions.

All suggestions/requests are addressed, so I will promote to GA. Excellent article! Sasata (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

One dead link

I forgot to check the out-links during the GA review.... ref #36 (Department of the Environment and Heritage, Australian Government) returns a 404, dead since Jan 3, 2009. Please fix. Sasata (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up I think I got it - will start going over it systematically for FAC soon and fix, as well as chase other journals etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

notes for future FAC

• "however the ground water obtained typically contains adequate ionic concentrations of chloride, sodium, magnesium, calcium and potassium, so these ions are available to the plant all year round."
  • This needs context. "Adequate" compared to what? The ions in the "infertile soil"? And what is the significance of "year-round"? Ci.
    • "Adequate" in terms of the plant's nutritional needs; i.e. it gets all it needs of these particular ions from the ground water. The nutrients that it can suck up with ground water are available all year. The nutrients that it has to extract from the surface soil are available only during the short period of the year when the proteoid roots are functional. H.
• "The water supplied to the laterals by the sinker root is continually lost to the soil; thus this plant facilitates the movement of ground water from the water table into surface soil, a process known as hydraulic redistribution."
  • I'm no professional, as such this seems an exceedingly counterintuitive way to use water. Basically, it feels like those anorexic people who make themselve vomit. Ci.
    • I don't think the plant wants to wet the surface soil. What it wants is not to lose any more of its root system. It already grows proteoid roots every year, but only gets to use them for a month or so, before have to discard them to reduce root surface area and thus moisture loss. The proteoid roots account for about a third of total root mass, so that means the plant has to regrow a third of its root mass every year. But the primary and secondary laterals that the proteoid roots grow off, have a reasonably low surface area, and thus a much lower rate of moisture loss, and these are needed every year as a framework for the proteoid roots. What hydraulic redistribution achieves for the plant is to keep these laterals alive despite the fact that they sit in hot desiccated surface soil all summer. Soil wetting occurs because the plant seems to have no way of preventing these laterals from exuding their moisture.

      What should be done here? Were you just commenting that it seems counterintuitive, or do you think the section needs to be reworked or expanded to make it less surprising? H.

      • I don't think it is absolutely necessary to immediately explain the specifics (i.e. the "why"s) of the plant's root grow. The "growth" section in particular ends up repeating almost all the information about root structure that is described right above, which would not be so bad if it were under "ecology" (although some details often do best if included under description: the basics of the life cycle of Verbascum thapsus if the first paragraph of the description). Ci.
        • Yep; that makes sense; I'll have a go. H.
• Quite honestly, I'm not sure there is true necessity for the physiology section. It seems most of the material there might be most at home with the very closely related stuff under "ecology" (which it partly duplicates and which should probably be read first to he;p understanding the "growth" section). It would also help making "Nutrition" more than one paragraph long (Disclaimer: I have an ingrained aversion to one-paragraph sections). Ci.
  • Yes, the problem is that the information on nutrition has a morphology component (tap root, laterals, proteoid roots), a physiology component (nutrient intake and metabolism) and an ecology component (oligotrophy, phreatophyty, hydraulic redistribution) I had difficulty figuring out how to organise it. I'll take a fresh look at it when I have the chance. H.
    • Well, as I say above, you have the very basics of root grow covered under description already, but the physiological aspect is too lopsided to be alone in a physiology section IMHO. Maybe an option is to merge the "growth" paragraph at the end of the description while moving the physiology aspect under ecology, as it really is a slightly secondary part of the ecology the way I see it.
      • Yep; that makes sense; I'll have a go. H.
  • Looking forward, I'm going to have the same problem working in the fascinating material on how B. hookeriana and B. prionotes probably speciated because of much reduced genetic exchange between plants on dune tops and plant in dune swales. Dune top fires are hotter and more thorough, so favour strong serotiny. Swale fires are cooler and patchier, so favour weak or non-serotiny. And weakly serotinous species have to flower early because the current season's seed needs to be mature by the bushfire season; whereas strongly serotinous species don't care if a fire wipes out a season's worth of immature seed because they have a canopy seed bank of many previous seasons. Hence a phenological barrier is erected.

    The above material has a phylogenetic component (speciation through reduced genetic exchange and eventually a phenological barrier), a biogeographical component (differences in fire regime lead to hookeriana on the dunes, prionotes in the wales), and an ecological component (different fire regimes create different adaptive pressures with respect to serotiny and phenology. Right now it is beyond me how to work this into the article. This is the main reason why I still haven't gotten around to including the above notes. Hesperian 00:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

    • How about making a quick mention of the origin of the species in "Taxonomy" (For the most part, species don't really warrant a full-blown philogeny section IMHO), and explain the rest in "Response to fire"? Ci.
      • And nothing in the distribution and habitat section? I reckon an answer to the "why" of the swale habitat would be the only interesting thing in an otherwise horribly boring and superficial section. H.
        • The way I see it, prionotes evolved by adapting to the swale fires, not by expanding in the swales because the fires there were most clement to it, so I'm not clear what could be included in the distribution section. Circeus (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Yes, I could come around to that way of thinking. I still think there is biogeographic information embedded in there—"It occurs only in dune swales and lower slopes." "Why?" "Because the intensity of fires on dune tops and upper slopes permanently excludes it from those habitats."—but since the real world doesn't divide into neat hierarchical sections, there is no perfect solution here, and your compromise is as good as any. Hesperian 05:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• "Flowers open sequentially from bottom to top of each inflorescence,"
  • Isn't that the normal mode of flowering amongst tower-flowered members of the genus? Ci.
    • Actually Banksia ericifolia and Banksia spinulosa are two common species which open the other way, as do a few others. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Bottom to top is much more common than top to bottom, yes. H.
• Seeds are very light compared to other species of the genus.
  • This needs numbers, and given as seeds are undiscussed anywhere else, I say it obviously ought to be moved under "description". Ci.
    • Good point Ca.
    • I don't know if I have a reference to quantify it, but yes, it should be moved. H.
      • I don't think I agree with this as a solution. The breading system section moves nicely through flower phenology, pollination, fertilisation, and then cone production and seed set—a nice temporal sequence. It is followed by a section largely focussed on seed dispersal, which also fits the temporal sequence. To pull out the information on cone production and seed set, and put it in a morphology section where it certainly doesn't belong, is, I think, a worse outcome than the "seeds are very light" problem that we were trying to address. Hesperian 00:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
        • These sections are always tricky to get flow right when a nice flow of material actually falls into several heading sections. We can have a play, I have no strong objections to seeking alternatives. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• "meaning that the loss of B. prionotes from the region would mean the loss of all the honey-eaters as well."
  • Consider switching to "honey-eating species" or something like if this is not another spelling for "honeyeaters" (birds). I certainly wondered which was meant.
    • correct - hyphen needs re-moving Ca.
    • Should be "honeyeaters". H.

Aaaaaand that's it. Circeus (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thankyou very much as always. I think Cas may have brought you in a wee bit early, since I still have a big block of fire notes further up this page, which I have not yet worked into the article. But I can't blame him for that, since these days I would never get around to finishing any of these articles without him here to pushing us along. Hesperian 00:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I will leave it up to you then Hesp for a while as my connection where I am sucks big time and I can't do much until late tonight. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Well I'll be offline shortly until Monday, so I won't hold you to that. :-) Hesperian 05:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Bother. oh well, will plug away nonetheless...Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

moved from further reading

Be nice if there were something specific and unique to add from this, then it can be used as an inline reference. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Keighery, Greg (1985). "Possible hybrids between Banksia hookeriana and B. prionotes (Proteaceae)". Western Australian Naturalist. 16: 87–90.

I have access; it is just a matter of finding the time. I'll try to sort it out this week. Do you want a copy? Hesperian 10:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Is the pope polish austrian? Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Hesperian 11:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Gah, I meant bavarian...well, does a fish have a watertight arsehole? or a bear defecate in a sylvan environment? answer - yeah..........Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

[1] Hesperian 12:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Check yer email. Hesperian 07:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Gottit - will lookover tomorrow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you?! And there I was thinking I'd forgotten to attach it.... Hesperian 13:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Images

Time to start shuffling the deckchairs around, I think.

Firstly, the image of the tree in the description section is just beautiful. I'm tempted to put it in the taxobox, as representative of the entire plant, even though the present image does a good job of illustrating flower spike and foliage.

Secondly, the images below are informative, if somewhat sterile. I'm kinda fond of them, and I wonder if you think they should be included.

• 
• 

Thirdly, can the identification of Gnangarra's juve be verified; and if so, do we want to include it?

• 

Thoughts?

Hesperian 13:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we have two closeups of the inflorescence in the article as is (nice though they are), and there are some baby plants around the base of the burnt tree (so we get seedlings and a burnt tree all in the one pic). Maybe take tree photo to taxobox, which makes room for leaf image in description? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Other option is Gnangarra's inflorescence-on-black into taxobox as it looks "taxoboxish" and sorta technical. The only issue I have with the gnarley tree in the taxobox is I think the caption is quite informative and it'd be a shame to lose it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the current taxobox picture suits the fuction well, it has an "instant recognition" factor showing inflorescence and leaves together. I don't think the whole of tree picture quite pulls that off at thumbnail size though it is brilliant when viewed at a larger size. The inflorescence on black is missing on foliage context, although its great for the acorn allusion. I think the leaf image is very informative and should be included. The young plant photo probably wouldn't add too much, as the foliage is much the same as an adult plant. Melburnian (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The bloom-on-black could be placed next to the text where the "Acron banksia" name is discussed in the taxonomy section then, if there is space maybe. I'm a one for trying to place pix next to relevant text. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Disclosure: "Gnangarra's inflorescence-on-black" is actually one of my photos, as is the leaves pic. That's partly why I opened a discussion instead of jamming them in myself. Hesperian 03:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hehehe, now why couldn't you have dug up a plant while you're at it and photographed the roots - preferably a mature one in a national park or other protected area (chuckle) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

notes on distribution and habitat

Still not happy with this section. Don't have time to fix it right now, so I'll dump some notes here.

• "widespread through much of the Southwest Botanical Province" is not supported; its range covers only about half of the province.

(yes and no - I get what you mean but it still has a range a heck of a lot larger than many other species, still, not sure exactly how to phrase this)

Needs quantification then; do we have a source that says it is one of the most widespread Banksia species. I vaguely remember a source that said this was the most widespread re-seeder... hang on, I'll find it.. it was Lamont and Markey 1995. —H.

George (1999): "widespread in WA" —H.

Collins and Spice (1986), citing George (1981): "a widespread, but disjunct, distribution in southwestern Australia" —H.

Here's a good one: Lamont et al (2003): "Banksia prionotes Lindl. is a tree up to 10 m tall, in the lower parts of dune systems, on calcareous uplands or along drainage lines, with a distribution area of 815 x 125 km (extending 600 km north and 360 km south-east from Perth)."—H.

• "locally common" is meaningless without quantification. Perhaps we mean to say that it occurs in pure stands rather than forming co-dominant associations like e.g. menziesii and attenuata. This would be worth saying if we had a reference for it. This is mentioned in passing on p. 137 of Seddon.

(I tried and left a hidden comment on where to put Seddon - what else does the ref note?)

Going from memory here: page 140 briefly discusses B. prionotes; the only interesting bit is already cited. Page 137 discusses B. attenuata, mentions the association with B. menziesii, suggests that there must be some advantage in the association, else one would outcompete the other, and you'd have pure stands... like you get with B. prionotes. Like I said, it is only mentioning it in passing. —H.

Atlas says "often locally common forming patches of woodland or tall shrubland where it may constitute the dominant plant." —H.

• Shark Bay to Kojonup, coastal and inland.

(Are you mentioning this because you are unhappy with it?)

Nope; it's here because I don't want it omitted. (These were just some notes from which I intended to reconstruct the section. I didn't imagine you would leap in and start working on it. Not that I mind. :-) ) —H.

• very strong preferences for deep white and yellow sands. This is the main determinant of distribution, so needs to be said first. Everything else follows with this in mind.

(This is where it gets tricky - traditionally I lay out a D & H section with D as one para, and H as the next, however I see your point on importance. I am open to ideas and am looking over it myself)

• most common in the north, in Kwongan heath on the Geraldton Sandplains north of Jurien. Distribution is continuous because sand is continuous. Extends inland to about the 350mm isohyet.
• further south it is patchy because sutiable sand occurs only in pockets.
• On the Swan Coastal Plain it is confined to pockets of suitable sand in the narrow transition zone between tuart forest and jarrah forest. Other than Point Walter it doesn't grow south of the Swan River. Not sure why all the other sand on the SCP is unsuitable?
• "the Darling Scarp limits its range to the southeast" is wrong; it occurs well south-east of the scarp. This is probably a misconstruing of what Taylor actually says, which is that the heavy soils of the Scarp are "a significant barrier to its distribution".
• East of the Darling Scarp, most of the soil is unsuitable. Banksia prionotes occurs only in deep pockets of alluvial or aeolian yellow sand. However it has a fairly wide range here, extending well south to Kojonup, and inland as far as Jerramungup.
• Seedling flooding stuff probably belongs in growth, except that it leads into the comment on prionotes moving in on littoralis, which belongs here. Not sure what to do with this.

(Never an ideal choice, but I thought segued nicely and added some explanatory depth to D & H section)

• Swales and dunes paragraph is okay.

Hesperian 04:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.dec.wa.gov.au/component/option,com_docman/Itemid,1/gid,2786/task,doc_download/ (page 5) Hesperian 04:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hah, I've been there. We were driving up from the southeast and came across that community. I was surprised Banksia prionotes occurred that far SE when I saw it. Nice to list some spp too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: Was going to look at D&H tonight but I am absolutely knackered. If you have a strong feeling on how to slot in sands bit, go for it - I will look sometime tomorrow. Need a clear head for this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just posted a rewrite, just before seeing this message! Hesperian 13:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, had a sleep and a coffee - yes, I think it works well. To be nitpicky there is an isolated red blip in the SE of its range on the map next to the text. That is Badjaling and environs, right? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No, Badjaling is almost due east of Perth. The blip is 300km south-south-east of Badjaling, roughly in the vicinity of Jerramungup. Hesperian 23:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Aha, my feel for WA geography ain't so good sometimes...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I only knew myself because of Banksia cuneata#Discovery and naming. Hesperian 01:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Right then.....

(jumps up and down and waves arms trying to atract Hesperian's attention)

Now circeus, who's usually pretty hard to please, and Guettarda have had a nose through - I'd be happy to nomnate it now as I figure other prose tweaks can be done as we go, but Hesp - do you still want someone to have another look at prose? If so, I will nag Eusebeus or Delldot or someone (but I have nagged them a few times), or mebbe Moni3(?). Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty stoked with how it has come together in the last week or so. I agree that the prose copyediting can happen in parallel from now on.

But I don't like the idea of "ignoring" the reviews we already have. It was only yesterday that I finally actioned Circeus' "honey-eaters" —> "honeyeaters" comment, and this makes me think there may be other comments from our three reviewers that haven't been addressed yet. Over the weekend I'll archive the talk page, comb through the discussion, have a fresh look at the FAC standards, and make a checklist of things to do. I'll also invite a couple of outsiders to have a look over it. How does that sound?

Hesperian 05:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(scratches head in a perplexed manner) I thought I got all the honeyeaters...okay. I recently got a couple through - Australian Magpie and Macaroni Penguin if that is a help. Sounds fine. I realise I haven't asked Moni3 to look at anything fora while....Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor grammar

"In 1981, Alex George published a revised arrangement that placed B. prionotes in B. subg. Banksia because of its flower spike, B. sect. Banksia because its styles are straight rather than hooked, and B. ser. Crocinae, a new series of consisting of four closely related species, all with bright orange perianths and pistils."

Using "because" twice in one sentence seems a bit clumsy, but I'm not game to try improving it. In fact the sentence doesn't seem right to me for some other reason I can't express.

Nah, it's fine. –Moondyne 10:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"especially if the intermediate characters of the hybrid offer it a competitive advantage over the parent species,"

Should this be intermediate characteristics? –Moondyne 07:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No but yes. Botanists say "characters", but this is not (solely) an article for botanists. Thanks. Hesperian 10:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Remaining items for actioning

Okay, I've been over the various reviews and pulled together the stuff that apparently hasn't been actioned. Mostly it was Guettarda who got ignored(!) A list follows. I'll probably have a go at these tonight.

• Some pre-dispersal predation; need to see Scott (1982)
  • Scott, J. K. (1982). "The impact of destructive insects on reproduction in six species of Banksia L.f. (Proteaceae)". Australian Journal of Zoology 30:901-21. Not online. Already cited at B. telmatiaea so I guess I must have a paper copy floating around somewhere. Hesperian 23:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    • prionotes is not one of the six, but on p914 Cechides amoenus is referred to as "the major seed predator of Banksia prionotes Lindl. (unpublished observations)". There's also an X in the "flower-destroying insects" table on p916, corresponding to Xyloryctis sp. 6 on B. prionotes.
• [2] Citation bot thinks one of our DOIs is broken, but I've checked twice and it seems correct. must be right; dx.doi.org is happy with it. Hesperian 00:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keighery, Greg (1985). "Possible hybrids between Banksia hookeriana and B. prionotes (Proteaceae)". Western Australian Naturalist. 16: 87–90.
• "characters" —> "characteristics"
• "B. prionotes": Don't start sentences with abbreviation. Spell it out once each section? It is to do with starting paras - I unbbreviated them - C
• "full name is Banksia prionotes Lindl." - Guettarda disputes changed "full name" to "standard author citation"; and asked Curtis for verification that this is appropriate.
• "uneventful" taxonomic history "uneventful" sentence removed. I restored the rest of the paragraph, but merged it into the next. Hesperian 00:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• stilted language in taxonomic history section: # "Otto Kuntze's unsuccessful 1891 attempt", "the 1870 arrangement of George Bentham", "informed by" or "based on"

Have a look now - para 1 of taxo section = initial description and name(s), para 2 = common names, para 3 =development of taxonomic placement, para 4 = molecular input. Made paras less stubby this way too

• Not sure that the bit about subsuming Dryandra' into Banksia really belongs in this article

Hesperian 07:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• You should have an article describing prostrate (botany) or a section in Prostration or a redirect if there's some other term meaning the same thing. Created a crappy stub for prostrate shrub. Hesperian 13:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• The caption for the image of the prostrate form at the end of the article needstidying

–Moondyne 12:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

yeah, I wasa bit slapdash there, had to upload in a hurry. Will look. Good points too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Two more images for consideration:

• 
  Mature cone
• 
  Trunk, bark

Hesperian 13:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think every plant article should ideally have images showing, flower, fruit, leaves, trunk/bark and habit. The image description section should have most of these, the perennial question is how do you find the space? Dare I suggest a section gallery? Melburnian (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It is frustrating that when one tries to place the images next to relevant text, one gets stuck with a trying to squeeze a preponderance of images in the description section. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons I like placing the taxonomy section above the description section - as the first section is often still hemmed in by a taxobox on the RHS..Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It couldn't hurt to see what it looks like. But I suspect it will have to come out again. People will conflate the <gallery> tag with the gallery concept. Hesperian 14:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Update - I slotted in the old cone beneath the young cone to show a natural progression (bloom, young follicles, old follicles), and also makes good minimising white space in taxo table. Buggered if I can figure out where to stick the bark - mused on fire section, where it notes the bark is not thick in the text - not ideal but best I can come up with, unless we want to cram description section. Anyway, I will think as I sleep. Anyone is welcome to have a play. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've tried out a gallery in the description section. I think it will have to come out again. It ain't pretty. And people will see the <gallery> tag and go all Oh Noes on us. This is a shame because I do think this version does the best job of describing this plant's morphology. When it comes to morphology, nothing is more clear and succinct than a gallery of pertinent images. Hesperian 14:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's growing on me.... Hesperian 14:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not thrilled but open to it - any way it can be anchored to the centre? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it to an {{image gallery}}, which sizes (and resizes) itself according to page width... but it turns out that the <gallery> tag has an align= parameter, whereas {{image gallery}} doesn't. Hesperian 00:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Older bark

It seems a little misleading to offer a photo of typical bark when older bark can look so very different. But no, I am definitely not suggesting that this article should have two bark pictures. We're already very image-dense. I did toy with the idea of breaking out a separate article on the morphology of Banksia prionotes. The potential for expanding the description section into its own article comes from our present section's failure to cover seed morphology, follicle morphology, floret morphology, and foliar arrangement (leaves scattered? inflorescences terminal?) But no, I'm being stupid; it ain't gonna happen. I think, though, that I may try to push some of this information into the description section. It is, after all, the second shortest section in the article. Hesperian 00:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Am now looking at the page from an older screen and the image gallery is split into two rows with three, then two pix. Looks funny :( - I think running images down the side may be best bet. Will be easy to dig up some more for description section on seeds, follicles etc. later today. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • • Yes, I get four images across and one image on the next line ... looks like my gallery idea isn't going to work :( Melburnian (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe we should expand it to 60 images, so that the final row is filled regardless of whether there are 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 images per row. (Joke!) Go for it. Hesperian 00:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, will get some extra material and add to description. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Good stuff. Follicles and seeds done!

Just need to rip off the "perianth composed of four united tepals" stuff from another FA, add a mention of the terminal inflorescences (which is mentioned already at Cultivation but that's a bit late for it) and whether leaf arrangement is scattered, opposite, whorled, or whatever. Hesperian 02:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm awesome.[3] Hesperian 01:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Got a bit excited there. I regret saying that, having made it difficult for you to declare that you think my solution sucks. :-( Hesperian 02:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

And I only put the extra bark image in because of the need for a sixth image to make it work. If only we had a seed pic, we could use that instead. :-( Also, if it is crowding your smaller screen, we could try it with 3x2 layout instead of 2x3. Hesperian 02:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That looks great on my screen. Melburnian (talk) 03:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Hesp, I'd have to travel 4000 km to get a cone - wanna get a cone and hit it with a blowtorch or over a gas oven flame and take a few snaps of what comes out? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You'll wean me off my book learnin' yet.... I'll see what I can do. Hesperian 04:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: The 3 x 2 box looks good on my smaller-res screen too. 2 x 3 would work ok too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Snakepit time then?

OK, I am happy with some bits on seeds and follicles I added - I suppose I could scrape a bit more from somewhere but we now have this box-image thing. Hesp do you wanna get the seed image first or shall we just send to the snake pit now.... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it has become clear that I can go on finding excuses to further improve the article forever and ever and ever. On the other hand, I think this is the best banksia article we've written so far, right now, as it stands. Time to bite the bullet and nominate, I think. Hesperian 05:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright then...we can co-nom it and jump together I guess :) - you wanna do the writing up and technical or shall I do it? (the stuff below is not deal-breakers and can be done very quickly as we go I think) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not fussed. I'll do the jobs below before I turn my thoughts to writing a nom. If you feel eloquent and want to get cracking on a nom, go for it. If you don't, then I'll have a crack when I'm ready.

You should be able to write FAC noms in your sleep by now :-)

Hesperian 05:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sure the pace at which nominations are commented on will mean the bottom tweaks will be done anyway before we get any comments. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)