Talk:Allocasuarina distyla

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article 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.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: New South Wales / Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Allocasuarina distyla 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 New South Wales (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Photo of developing fruit is actually a photo of insect galls (IMHO), so I suggest this possibility be considered, and if my suggestion is confirmed then the photo should be moved from the speciesbox and relabelled, and an alternative photo used for the speciesbox. It is a great photo and a worthy inclusion, but it relates to pathology not normal development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IanRiley (talk • contribs) 07:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The image was of immature female cones. Gderrin (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some of the other photos appear to be Allocasuarina littoralis not A. distyla. The cones seem wrong, so perhaps the other photos are also wrong. The Flora of Australia's descriptions for the cones are: A. distyla = bracteoles obtuse to truncate, pyramidal protuberance shorter than bracteole body; A. littorals = bracteoles thin, broadly acute to obtuse, thick pyramidal protuberance shorter than bracteole body, occasionally with 2 lateral bodies. The bracteole in the photos seem to match A. litoralis being thin and acute. The problem is there are other misidentified photos on the web, even on sites that might be considered be relative reliable. This might arise because both species can occur at the one site with A. distyla even growing around the base of A. littorals. The Alas of Living Australia (www.ala.org.au) appears to have correctly identified images of these two species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IanRiley (talk • contribs) 10:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The images were correctly labelled, although originally described as A. littoralis by the uploader, who subsequently made the correction. Gderrin (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]