Talk:Cephalanthera
Appearance
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Discussions
[edit]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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Cephalanthera austiniae
[edit]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)