Talk:Cephalanthera

Discussions

Hi BerndH, sorry to have got into an edit conflict here. I've got some more species to put in and the easiest way is to go back to the taxobox format I was working on but I don't mind if you change it back to put the species list in the body of the text - I am never sure which is better. seglea 12:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentially, the sources I've found say that C. damasonium is now treated as a synonym of C. pallens, but I don't have any technical knowledge to know how convincing that is. I've taken it out of the species list for that reason though. seglea 12:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I´m not sure about the guidelines, but I´ve seen several articles where the species list is in the text - for instance Orchis. I think after a certain number of species it should be better to put the list in the text.

I am using is the german "Journal Europäischer Orchideen" [1] as a refernce. I don´t know why but according to an article in 2002 Cephalanthera pallens is a synonym. --BerndH 13:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a scout through the net and I agree that most sources (and the more authoritative ones) seem to have damasonium as the accepted name and pallens as a synonym. I'll change it. seglea 13:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cephalanthera austiniae

I've got two questions according to this species:

What is the correct spelling? I've seen "C. austiniae" as well, but "C. austinae" seems to be more oftenly used.
Why does it say "partially myco-heterotrophic" in the article? As far as I know, the species does not contain any chlorophyll (at least, the plants are white). So why are they not fully myco-heterotrophic? Thanks in advance! 134.76.3.35 12:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]