Talk:Dipterocarpus turbinatus

I have added a detailed description, taken with permission from EOL (see http://eol.org/info/terms_of_use). I believe that we should should have accurate botanical descriptions, just as we have accurate taxonomic info. The description is cut and pasted, it is a technical description, using precise botanical terminology. It could be written in plain language but if that is done then the precise botanical descriptors still need to be included to prevent ambiguity and the description would blow out to how long? While extremely dry to read, two things could be done to improve the section. First, a standardised 'box' for botanical descriptions in Wikipedia would satisfy the need for information that casual plant observers and others for a way to identify and differentiate taxa, I don't have the skills necessary for this as yet, anyone? Second, some of these features are common to Dipterocarpus and Dipterocarpaceae in general, what is particularly needed is the distinguishing traits to be marked, with perhaps those most amenable to field identification highlighted.Brunswicknic (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)