Content deleted Content added
TheAlphaWolf (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Plants}}. Tag: |
||
| (23 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Plants|importance=Mid}}
}}
{{merged-from|Agapanthoideae|10 December 2013}}
==Comments==
What good is the enormous "selected cultivars" list? (And does this imply that some names were actually left out???) In reality only a very few of these are commercially available. I would suggest deleting the entire list except for those few that are well-known or widely grown.
Line 16 ⟶ 21:
Maleny Agapanthus and Clivia in Australia
Website http://malenyagas.com.au/
Pine Mountain Nursery in Australia is breeding new bicolour cultivars
Website http://www.pinemountainnursery.com.au/category12_1.htm
A good website with information on agapanthus is
http://www.agapanthus.org.uk/uk/agapanthusfreunde.html
A lot of info about care, cultivars and history can be found at http://www.agapanthus.nl/eng from Piet Zonneveld.
If you really want good information on Agapanthus get the book Agapanthus A revision of the Genus by Wim Snoeijer {{ISBN
21 March 2006
I've deleted the list (to see it look in the history) because it looks HORRIBLE. A good idea would be to make a separate page and LIST them out. Having them how they used to be is pointless.--[[User:TheAlphaWolf|TheAlphaWolf]] 00:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
==Merge tag==
The page was tagged for a possible merge with "Agapanthaceae"; this family isn't recognized by APG III so such a merge isn't relevant and I removed the template. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 15:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
:I don't feel strongly about the merge, though I am chary of such merges. However in this case, in the light of the confused situation in the taxonomy, I suggest that the subject be put on hold until there is some clear opinion on which family or subfamily is the appropriate one. [[User:JonRichfield|JonRichfield]] ([[User talk:JonRichfield|talk]]) 16:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
::This is actually a {{em|different}} merge than the one I commented on in January 2012 – that was with the family "Agapanthaceae", this is with the subfamily [[Agapanthoideae]]. As we use APG III in the English Wikipedia which recognizes this subfamily, and as the subfamily is monogeneric, this merge should take place. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 09:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
::: Oh. OK then. [[User:JonRichfield|JonRichfield]] ([[User talk:JonRichfield|talk]]) 12:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
::::Merge completed – there was actually very little different information at Agapanthoideae. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 19:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
== External links modified ==
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Agapanthus]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=742716578 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104085302/http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/publications/researchpubs/Fecundity_of_dwarf_Agapanthus.pdf to http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/publications/researchpubs/Fecundity_of_dwarf_Agapanthus.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 10:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
== Spathe valves / bracts ==
Sources say that the umbel has two "spathe valves" (see e.g. [https://archive.org/stream/botanysupplement04unse#page/15/mode/2up p. 15 here]) at its base. These are described as "deciduous", i.e. they may fall off. Images and personal observation suggest that the umbel is initially enclosed in a spathe, which splits, supposedly into two parts, but I think that sometimes (in some cultivars?) there's only one split producing only one part. However, we can only put in the article what sources say, and I can't find a source for this. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 20:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the link - I previously had that paper and couldn't find my copy. Yes, that is what it says but definitely one part on the plants we have. It also says the bract(eole?)s subtending the pedicels are persistent, on our plants these are deciduous. Oh, well. [[User:Pcrooker|Pcrooker]] ([[User talk:Pcrooker|talk]]) 03:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
| |||