Talk:Epacris impressa

message: I see you folks are doing more great editing work here.
I’d add the following recent scientific paper reference source (fully cited below, please copy), and i may follow up here with some more.:
* 
—--Macropneuma 02:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that!--Melburnian (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, just getting my head around it all....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone have access to the two papers by Stace & Fripp cited here that they could email to me?--Melburnian (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Crap - missed this. I can do this - send me an email and I can reply to it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it, thanks for that.--Melburnian (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Have looked at the 1996 Wark paper on regeneration of woodland and heath at anglesea - mentions E. impressa but nothing I can really add. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: With Epacris impressa the topic, i’d prefer to check the first three years post–1983–fire survey, published in 1987, digitised here … , not sure if there’s enough material written in that to use for adding—busy busy, running late here, not possible for me to read through it, just now. —--Macropneuma 12:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah found that one - a bit I can add...aaaand added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  More key source(s) 

message: I will try and get to library and look in FoA on thursday - surely there must be a better description of seed pods, seed and seedlings....? Anything else? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would be good, the only other thing that springs to mind right now is a range map.--Melburnian (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do that tonight. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.--Melburnian (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn - didn't get to library today :( Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I've been farting around on this article for eight years, so you won't get any criticism from me :-P--Melburnian (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that Flora of Australia, Volume 9: Ericales has not been published yet.--Melburnian (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Crap. No point looking for it then. I will adapt a map from one of the ANBG ones online then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the map. I think the ANBG map in their "Floral Emblems of Australia" (1985) article is a bit out of date. Their "Growing Native Plants"  article has a map that shows "Distribution from AVH 2013" that clicks through to the AVH map. I think the main differences that need to be shown is the presence on Kangaroo Island (see also ) and distribution throughout Tasmania including the Bass Strait islands. The only thing to watch with some individual AVH records (dots on the map) are occasional ones from cultivation (eg Botanic Gardens), those with uncertain or dubious ID, and those with incorrect coordinates.--Melburnian (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: aaah ok will fix soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking good, thanks.--Melburnian (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do now 

message: Sorry if I'm missing nuance here, but... isn't it obvious/redundant to note that heath grows in heathy woodland? Brutannica (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: hadn't thought of that..."heath" refers to heathland as well as many types of small plant. The adjective here means like the heathland...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: "Heathy woodland"

message: Section 6: Symbolism is mis-titled. There is no description about what the plant or flower symbolize, only an explanation of how and why it was chosen for the coat of arms. I suggest that either the section be re-titled to something more fitting (perhaps 'Significance'?), or the symbolism behind the plant/flower be added to the section.  Louie.dw (talk) 09:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, fair point - I have renamed the section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbolism is a misnomer 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Epacris impressa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091017221358/http://www.aff.org.au/Conomikes_Epacris_final.pdf to http://www.aff.org.au/Conomikes_Epacris_final.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified