 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
New image?
editI think the image in the taxobox should be replaced. The main reason is because the leaves in the photo are not that of Clintonia borealis, which is misleading. Comments? Tom Scavo (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Trscavo: I agree. In the taxobox, ideally there would be an image of the whole plant with flowers. I looked through the images in commons:Category:Clintonia borealis and picked the one I thought best matched my criteria – it turned out to be one I took, but I honestly didn't know this when I first chose it. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: Yes, that's better, thanks. However, this is the same photo as in Clintonia borealis, so I wonder if we can do even better. For the genus, I think we should look for a whole plant with fruit. This is because the fruit of Clintonia is more-or-less consistent across species. Do you agree? Tom Scavo (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Trscavo: or maybe two photos, which the taxbox allows? I lightened one that is in Commons and added it. It turns out, I think, that this is a difficult plant to photograph well: yellow flowers are generally a problem with digital cameras, often coming out over-exposed, and if you get the yellow right, the rest is under-exposed; and the blue berries don't show up well against foliage, which is probably why many photos omit it. What do you think? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: I think the flowering plant in the taxobox should go in the photo gallery with the other flowering plants there. Tom Scavo (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Trscavo: sure, feel free to move it. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: Done, thanks. Still looking for a photo of Clintonia udensis… Tom Scavo (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oops, found a bunch of photos commons:Category:Clintonia udensis
Bluebead lilies
editThe common name bluebead lily is solidly entrenched, at least throughout the web-accessible literature. Usually this common name refers to Clintonia borealis but in California it refers to Clintonia andrewsiana.[1][2] Is this enough to use the generic common name bluebead lilies in this article? I can only find one reliable reference that refers to the genus as bluebead.[3] Do you know of other references that use the name bluebead lilies as a generic common name (or bluebead lily for a species other than Clintonia borealis)? TIA Tom Scavo (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
References
edit- ^ "Clintonia andrewsiana". Calflora. Berkeley, California: The Calflora Database.
- ^ "Blue Bead Lily (Clintonia andrewsiana)". Calscape. California Native Plant Society. Retrieved 25 August 2020.
- ^ USDA, NRCS (n.d.). "Clintonia". The PLANTS Database (plants.usda.gov). Greensboro, North Carolina: National Plant Data Team. Retrieved 4 August 2020.