Talk:Welwitschia

message: Does this count as a good ref: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oa82WNk0mis&feature=sub ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.167.176.2 (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2000 years old 

message: I have nominated this article to be the next monthly collaboration of WikiProject Plants.  While this article does contain some good information, it lacks appropriate citations and clear writing style.  More pictures, text sections, and general organization are needed.  If you would like to help out, please vote for the nomination here and feel free to contribute to the page in any way you can.  A few general ideas to start:
*A thorough fact check of the article and addition of appropriate in-line citations.
*Replacement of "Scientific classification according to different sources" section with a clear and informative Taxonomy section.  The current table (as I see it) stands mostly to say that various classification systems are different from one another.  It affords very little information regarding the actual taxonomic status of Welwitschia and is unnecessarily large, colorful, and confusing.
*New sections on:
**Taxonomy
**Ecology
**Range and Habitat
**etc.
Any other thoughts appreciated! --Columbiabotany (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed rewrite

message: This topic is unresolved in the scientific literature. The previously cited paper in this article (Willert et al., 2005, Functional Plant Biology) mis-reports their own data in their abstract and falsely summarizes previous studies as well. Willert et al., 2005 presents no evidence of CAM photosynthesis in W. mirabilis. While some of the first papers published on this topic lightly suggest CAM photosynthesis (Smith & Epstein, 1971 [results not supported by later studies]; Dittrich & Huburt, 1974; Ting & Burke, 1983), others have found no evidence of this (Von Willert et al., 1982; Winter & Schramm, 1986; Willert et al., 2005).  
Cabbagetreeeater (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Crassulacean acid metabolism]] (CAM) classification

message: I would like to add an external link <http://www.namibia-1on1.com/Namibia-Coastal/Welwitschia-mirabilis-plant.html> Are there any objections?
Keith Irwin 15:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link does not appear to be working, at least on my computer. Columbiabotany (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: External link addition

message: Maybe add the IUCN conservation status indicator to the taxobox? 87.194.223.183 (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has not been assessed by the IUCN from what I can tell. Mgiganteus1 (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservation status 

message: This is, without a doubt, a very unusual plant. Which leads me to ask the following questions about it:
# What are the native Bushman/African names for this plant? Do they have any legends or myths about it?
# What is the history of its unique status? That is, how did various scientists (such as Henry Harold Welch Pearson) idnetify its unusual qualities, & how did its taxonomy change or eveolve over the years? (The link to "Flowering plants: History of classification" provides no useful information; at this writing, it is a generalized account of the entire group of flowering plants, with no attention devoted to its exceptional members like W. miaribils.)
# A diagram labeling on its unparalleled structure would be helpful. For example, the top of the plant appears to be a woody disk resembling the center of a sunflower or common daisy; does this feature have a specific name?
# Is anything known about its ecological role in its environment? For example, does it have competitors or serve as food for any animals? In one of the images on commons, a vine-like plant can be seen growing around the base of a specimen; do the presence of one of these attract or discourage other plant growth? Do these grow in groups or in isolation?
Providing answers (from reliable sources, of course) to as many of these questions as possible in the article would doubtlessly result with a Featured Article. And we can't have too many quality articles. -- llywrch (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for improvements to this article 

message: Can we use this plant to extend the human life span perhaps?  Otherwise, I say lets dig them up and plant Marygolds!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.201.68 (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Its not very pretty 

message: JzG, you've recently deleted two citations to a suspected predatory open access journal. I'd like to ask - is there a WP policy that supports immediate deletion of such information? The deleted sentences did not seem to be contentious. Or do you have an alternative, more reliable source that contradicts the claims?Kyle MoJo (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources, obvious, need to go as they don't meet WP:RS. There are three ways to approach the content:
# Tag as 
# Remove
# Leave, just remove the cite.
I have tried all three (I have removed easily hundreds and probably thousands by now) and been told with equal confidence that each of them is right - and by other editors, even for the same article and content, wrong. The least contentious is 2. So that's what I do. If you think the text is genuinely uncontentious you're absolutely welcome to restore it just without the predatory journals. Guy (Help!) 14:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predatory citation deletions 

message: Intro states that the Welwitschia is endemic to the Namib desert. Under "Distribution and habitat" one reads that it is endemic to the Kaokoveld Centre. Namib is to the south of the Kaokoveld. Could very well be that the plant is endemic to both regions, I would not know, but this needs clarification, no? Mieliestronk (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There is confusion in sources, and in our articles, over the relationship between the Kaokoveld Desert and the Namib Desert. The WWF in discussing ecoregions says here "The Kaokoveld Desert represents the northern area of the vast Namib Desert". So both statements would be true under their definition: the species is endemic to the Kaokoveld Desert within the Namib Desert. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: One earth states that the southern border of the Kaokoveld desert is the Uniab River, 20.2015°S, or the Koigab River, 20°29′29″S. The Wikipedia article Kaokoveld states 21°S, although it does not cite a reference. Nature, see Table 1, states that there are native W. mirabilis as far south as the Kuiseb River, 23.64°S, roughly 290 km south of the southerm border of the Kaokoveld desert. So, it is incorrect to claim that W. mirabilis is endemic to to the Kaokoveld desert; it is only native there. W. mirabilis is usually described as endemic to the Namib desert, but this would result in repetition of the statement from the lead section. Maidenhair (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting info 

message: Is it necessary to have all the highly technical jargon?  E.g., "reticulate venation": I think I know what it means and there is plain English for this.  WP is not supposed to be an advanced bio text; it should be moderately readable to an educated person.  There is room for technical jargon but it should be explained, at least for the basic properties.  Zaslav (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jargon 

message: How frequently does Welwitschia  flower/produce its 'cones'? Annually, only after rainfall, every century, differently when in its native habitat vs cultivated, etc - this is the one question I was left with after reading the very informative wikipedia page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.124.152 (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Flowering' frequency 

message: In this article there are three claims for the size of the largest Welwitschia. The caption for the photograph in the taxobox claims "over 4 m in diameter", but no reference is cited. The two other claims are from the "Biology" section, and both cite the same book. The claim referring to the Husab Welwitschia does not explicitly state that it is the largest Welwitschia, but elsewhere the author of the cited book, Chris H Bornman, writes, as the caption for a photograph, “The Husab Welwitschia, the largest specimen known”.  Confusingly, both these two other claims use metres for circumference, but feet for diameter, so converting the diameters to metres gives 1.52 m (for five feet) and 2.77 m (for 9 ft 1 in).  With values of 1.52 m, 2.77 m and 4 m for the diameter, which value, if any, is correct? I have not seen the cited book.
Maidenhair (talk) 10:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Size of the largest ''Welwitschia''