Talk:Magnolia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Magnolia is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
Hello. Although im not very good at it, im going to try to fill the articles to the species you linked. My first article ever here was on the Fraser magnolia (do you think is it any good?)
Contents |
[edit] more info and photos
The magnola-articles are shaping up well and begin to have a structure. I will try to help in filling more info and with more photos. I am new on Wikipedia, so it is still the "technical stuff" that is most difficult for me. I was just wondering one thing: M. x wieseneri is a wonderful magnolia indeed but it is also a garden-hybrid. Wouldn't it be even better to picture a species in the scientific box?
[edit] new sections
In the past few days, I added sections on the origin of the name Magnolia, early references, and nomenclature and classification to the article. I did my utmost best to provide good references, at the same time trying to keep the text easy to read. I'm sure many readers who are interested in Magnolia's will find the information usefull. Meanwhile I realise that I could not avoid being technical now and then. Adding explanations of every technical term would make the text very long.
If you think the item has become too specialised or too technical, please be as bold as to add links or explanations, but do not just delete the parts that up to this point do not come up to Wikipedia standards. I'd appreciate if you hint me here, on the discussion page, about how I could best improve the article, while keeping al the information available to the interested reader.Wikiklaas 23:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Catesby's Natural History of Carolina
The year '1930' for Nat. Hist was indeed a typo. I meant of course 1730. In many cases you find 1731 for the year that the first volume was issued. I'll have to check TL-2 (Stafleu, Taxonomic Literature) once more but I believe the year 1730 was on purpose. Somewhere in the back of my mind, it says that I read that Catesby's Natural History was issued in parts, and the plates that I refer to here were already issued in 1730. I'll have to check this once again. Wikiklaas 13:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
It's been a while since I wrote this but IPNI and Stafleu indeed confirm that the first pages of Catesby were issued in 1730. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiklaas (talk • contribs) 00:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Tree
That tree in the article is not a magnolia tree. It looks like a regular oak tree. Of course, I could be wrong, its sort of blurry. It is a magnolia tree. 68.211.33.170 15:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Description
I'd appreciate more description of the traits shared by magnolias as a group, even if only in a range, (its leaves, flowers, reproductive cycle, general habitat, length of life, common diseases, best growing conditions, etc.), as very little is currently written on that facet of the plant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.168.21.149 (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] 245 species?
check this BBC NEWS article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6511985.stm it says there are 245 species. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.220.79.108 (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
- There is an explanation for that in the first reference note. Magnolia#_note-0 --Dara 03:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Is Southern Magnolia tree a fast grwing tree? Also is it water tolerant?
Bill K Orlando, FL
[edit] 5 billion people?
"The group also found that 5 billion people use traditional plant-based medicine for health care.[1]" I realize that the article says billion, but I'm willing to bet that it's a typo for million. I don't think that "five billion people still rely on traditional plant-based medicine as their primary form of health care," considering that's nearly 5/6 of the world. We can't assume they meant million, so should that bit just be deleted? 63.252.67.60 (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an estimate by the WHO, which i've now made apparent. I've referenced this, and the material the BBC article was based on (rather than the article itself). --mark (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)feversleeves
