Talk:Ironbark

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Plants Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Australia: Biota Low‑importance Ironbark is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Where does it grow? --2600:6C65:747F:14C9:88E0:EE9C:14F2:6934 (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baker, R. T. (1917). "Some ironbarks of New South Wales". Journal and proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales. 51: 410–422, plates XX–XXIV – via BHL. Baker proposed splitting E. paniculata into four species, noting that the timber of each has a different character. The other three were Eucalyptus fergusoni, Eucalyptus nanglei, and Eucalyptus beyeri ( = E. paniculata var. angustifolia Wools). The paper also contains some information on other species and common names. Those three names are red links, so not sure what became of the proposal for new species, was it not accepted by the scientific community? Pelagic ( messages ) – (07:47 Sat 03, AEST) 21:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Found Eucalyptus × beyeri, which already has a citation to Baker, also Eucalyptus beyeriana. James Nangle [1][2]. EUCLID mentions J.H.Maiden, Crit. Revis. Eucalyptus 5: 259 (1921) for both nanglei and fergusoni under E. paniculata.[3] Pelagic ( messages ) – (08:21 Sat 03, AEST) 22:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Critical revision of the genus Eucalyptus, 8 volumes BHL. At p. 259, Joseph Henry Maiden writes "I match E. Fergusoni perfectly with specimens of E. paniculata. My attempts to separate them have been most painstaking. " and "I am not able to separate E. Nanglei from E. Fergusoni, nor either of them from E. paniculata." Pelagic ( messages ) – (08:39 Sat 03, AEST) 22:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P. 259 is description of the plates, more detailed exposition is on pages 225–230. Given that synonymy with E. paniculata or E. paniculata ssp. paniculata appears to be still accepted, much of this information belongs at that article, sorry. Pelagic ( messages ) – (10:11 Sat 03, AEST) 00:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Made redirects for furgusoni, nanglei, and beyeri. Red links begone. Pelagic ( messages ) – (10:30 Sat 03, AEST) 00:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]