Talk:Placospermum

Nonsense

This article is not carefully gathered from the sources,

"The precise relationships of the genus were unclear, though it was clear it was an early offshoot and retained primitive characteristics, until Lawrie Johnson and Barbara G. Briggs,"

as this does not really make senses. "The precise relationships of the genus were unclear," what relationships of the genus? What's "an early offshoot" that "retains primitive characteristics?" Do you mean it's basal within its clade, the family,and used "offshoot" because the article uses this term earlier? It "retained primitive characteristics" until two scientists classified it? Your sources demand that you use an ampersand instead of the word "and?" What kind of source is that? You have also just cited the formal citation; that isn't a source that indicates it is the first formal description of the plant, and you should add that information also, the citation that indicates this is the initial formal citation.

Thanks for accusing me of bad faith in an edit summary. Removing nonsense is not usually an act of bad faith; although accusing someone of less than good faith edits seems to be. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, are there "informal scientific" descriptions? There are so many words and so much repetition of tortured phrases that the article is hard to read, in addition to, I suspect, being incorrect.

A "single described species " and a few words later, the "sole described species?" Are there species that have not been described, is that why it is emphasized? It is tortured. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay - I only just got online and saw this - there is only one species - no other undescribed. I will have a look at the edit history and get back to you. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Casliber. It appears from a quick look at the edit history you may have written the tortured line, and I would appreciate a clean up. I enjoy your Proteaceae articles a lot, keep contributing! -166.137.210.34 (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

'68.107.137.178' i stand by what i wrote. From edits done there or above talk here i don’t see any proposal of drafts with better wording. That edit i reverted diminished the meanings drawn directly from the sources.

Really, please put up better wording drafts or stop making a rhetorical fuss and puff about insignificant words. Sure, i/we have plenty of ability to improve it. However, it is an article condition nowhere near the extreme of the rhetorical exaggeration "tortured" and rates as a priority far less than the highest priority for editing.

Above, too much has been read into it and then made a fuss over.

Insignificant repetition wording becomes necessary when using better shorter sentences containing only one meaning and clause, for the lead summary paragraphs. These allow the lay-person reader to read the single meaning, then pause, think and absorb its terse summary details. Then to move on, picking up the subject again by means of the repetition of the subject. The repetition provides absolute clarity, in each terse lead sentence. Good writing practises but not perfectly practised by me (at least) in this article. Unfortunately your edit did not improve the wordings, instead it diminished the meanings.

Again, propose a draft of a better paragraph here in talk, please.

Here we can collaborate to decide and reach agreement about if its wordings or other wordings are better.

Don’t exaggerate the subject of the ampersand. It’s a minor correction edit to do and was a minor edit slip on my part, nearly 2 weeks ago, when adding this reference by copying and pasting.

Note that currently the article is start class (and low importance), not feature class nor good class nor even C class. The major missing features of the article are references on more and different subjects about Rose Silky Oak.

What do you think about the WP fuss about plants’ common names in title case (capitals) vs. in all lower case, in the two places of, body text prose sentences and the first introductory lead sentences? i have a carefully considered personal policy, after more than 20 years.

Please realise the article was created only recently. ——--macropneuma 09:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

A small number of ten examples of the thousands of informal scientific descriptions of plant taxa, across flora literature everywhere and in every time for example ever since Linnaeus’s starting of formal binomial naming centuries ago; in science also commonly referred to as manuscript names:

• Asystasia sp. Newcastle Bay (L.J.Brass 18671)
• Justicia sp. Marr Creek (B.Hyland 16069)
• Ilex sp. Gadgarra (B.P.Hyland RFK 2011)
• Argophyllum sp. Boulders (B.Gray 6326)
• Argophyllum sp. Koolmoon Creek (B.Gray 1040)
• Hedraianthera sp. Mossman (V.K.Moriarty 2557) –see my edits at Hedraianthera (genus). See here the Australian National Herbarium’s confirmation of the acceptance of this provisional description and descriptive scientific name from the Queensland Herbarium in the authoritative Australian Plant Census (APC, via APNI); quoting their tick of approval: "√ APC". Then more recently—too recent for the APC to have updated and shown its acceptance yet—in 2012 Andrew J. Ford formally scientifically described and re-diagnosed the taxon as the first Australian member of the genus Brassiantha, hence Brassiantha hedraiantheroides – an interesting side issue, here.
• Hollandaea sp. Pinnacle Rock Track (P.I.Forster PIF10714) –now formally scientifically described as Hollandaea porphyrocarpa
• Orites sp. Devils Thumb (P.I.Forster PIF10720)
• Stenocarpus sp. Hinchinbrook Is. (FDH AQ229860)
• Stenochlaena sp. 'Cameroon' – read: Chambers, T. Carrick (11 April 2013). "A review of the genus Stenochlaena (Blechnaceae, subfamily Stenochlaenoideae)". Telopea. 15. Mrs Macquaries Road, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia: National Herbarium of New South Wales, Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust: 13–36. doi:10.7751/telopea2013004.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: location (link)

——--macropneuma 23:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC) —10—--macropneuma 00:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC) —clarifying with more recent information—--macropneuma 15:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Clarification needed tag

I did add a clarification needed tag. The precise relationships comment does not make sense. It seemed you had to be talking about the relationship of the genus to other members of the family, but since you rejected that, and returned it to this vague unspecified relationship to something, I have no idea what is meant. Please clear this up. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)