Talk:Hakea

message: "In early summer new flowers can be seen which turn pointed by autumn and covered in ornamental scales which are coloured by small white hairs."
- sorry, removed this. Many species are notable for flowering in winter and spring. This may be applicable to one species but I can't figure out which and dosn't give me an image of what it is supposed to look like (happy to debate though :). 
cheers Cas Liber 20:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: earlier comment

message: Have changed some and also applied common names as found in JA Young Hakeas of Western Australia 2006 - welcome any possible corrections or ideas of where some appear to get the same name ascribed SatuSuro 06:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: recent change

message: I've uploaded two new Hakea photos, below. Dcoetzee 04:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New photos

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Hakea epiglottis.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 21, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-02-21. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng  {chat} 00:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Hakea epiglottis.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: Hi All, According to florabase Hakea crassifolia is not a current name. Should the link be removed from the list or is there another form of action that would normally be taken? Regards Hughesdarren (talk) 23:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Hakea crassifolia

message: IPNI says both 1796 and 1797, but gives 1797 with the page details,See: IPNI Hakea) while APNI gives the same page details with 1798. The book itself says 1797, so I have opted for 1797. MargaretRDonald (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Florabase says 1796, possibly for the first publication date of the volume, but the third fascicle [book] is dated 1797 as you say. Perhaps the year of issue was actually 1798, or it is an error at IPNI (cit. APNI), but appeared in the prepub or Ms. in 1796. I don't know what the rule for publication dates is, if there is one, but I have the idea that citations to botanical works don't need to specify the date with the number [sequence] of the relevant issue (note that the numbering continues across the volume, fascicule III begins at p.21, so the FloraBase citation Sertum Hannoveranum p27, t. 17. (1796) is correct in one sense). I do know that an author's citation doesn't need a year in botanical descriptions, if that is relevant, please let me know if you find out differently. — cygnis insignis 19:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input.  The two reasons I cared were 1) for the accuracy of the text, and 2) for the accuracy of the reference.  (I felt that 1797 was the best justified of the dates.) MargaretRDonald (talk) 06:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry - I didn't read this before editing. I have given "1798" - hoping that's okay. Feel free to change. Also intend to move H. exul and H. gillivrayi to Grevillea exul and Grevillea gillivrayi respectively. (They are New Caledonia endemics.)Gderrin (talk) 10:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is fine with me, I would choose APNI because I think it is more likely to be revised if needed. There is some bibliographic convention on citing works issued in parts, and I need to look this up, but this the date of the final issue seems logical. cygnis insignis 12:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of publication of Hakea 

message: How is a plant identified as a Hakea and not anything else? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Family Proteaceae, leaves alternate, undivided, flowers sessile, solitary or in loose panicles in axils of leaves or bracts, fruit a woody follicle. (Simpler - like grevilleas but fruit a woody follicle.) Gderrin (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks . Would it not be appropriate and useful to the reader to mention that in the description section? (with the less obvious terms linked) · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you! Yep. Possibly...probably, even definitely. But so many other tasks. Eucalyptus for example, is a huge mess but many more pageviews than Hakea. Could you have a go? Wouldn't want to get too technical though.  Gderrin (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . I know the feeling. So much more to be done, and so little time to do it. Botany is outside my skill set, but I will have a go if I can find a suitable reference online. Cheers · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Do I understand correctly that in hakeas flat leaves are always undivided, but needle leaves may be divided? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identification as Hakea