Talk:Eremophila delisseri

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal 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

	Australia portal Eremophila delisseri 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 Librarian^{What'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.

Common name[edit]

This article originally included the common name "frontage poverty bush". None of the references listed appear to include this name. Eremophila malacoides is more usually called frontage poverty bush.^[1]^[2] I am unable to find the origin of "frontage". Strange that a species named in 1866 apparently has no common name whereas one described in 2007 does. There is a listing in FloraBase giving "frontage poverty bush" as a common name for E. delisseri but the listing is not current.^[3] Gderrin (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.The common name was obtained from a FloraBase reference in 2007[1], before they listed it as an excluded (misapplied) name based on Chinnock's 2007 work [2].--Melburnian (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

regardless of chinnocks work and what that may or not solve, there are too many eremophilas with poverty bush as part of an ascribed or mis-applied name, there is a good argument to have a separate page that lists emu and poverty bush separate from the list of eremohpilas (if it was a sortable table, that would be different). I also realise that Melburnian created the appropriate Emu and Poverty disambig articles in 2008 (a few weeks ago...) which were prescient and well placed items JarrahTree 00:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly - but maybe we shouldn't worry too much about common names. The problem also exists with other genera/species (eg. mountain ash, swamp gum, stringy gum, Tasmanian oak for Eucalyptus regnans). It would be good to have each eremophila with a different common name (or names) tho'. So far, so good (I think?). Gderrin (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Chinnock, R.J. (Bob) (2007). Eremophila and allied genera : a monograph of the plant family Myoporaceae (1st ed.). Dural, NSW: Rosenberg. pp. 461–462. ISBN 9781877058165.
^ Brown, Andrew; Buirchell, Bevan (2011). A field guide to the eremophilas of Western Australia (1st ed.). Hamilton Hill, W.A.: Simon Nevill Publications. p. 181. ISBN 9780980348156.
^ "Eremophila delisseri". FloraBase. Western Australian Government Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions.

[Chinnock-1] Chinnock, R.J. (Bob) (2007). Eremophila and allied genera : a monograph of the plant family Myoporaceae (1st ed.). Dural, NSW: Rosenberg. pp. 461–462. ISBN 9781877058165.

[Brown-2] Brown, Andrew; Buirchell, Bevan (2011). A field guide to the eremophilas of Western Australia (1st ed.). Hamilton Hill, W.A.: Simon Nevill Publications. p. 181. ISBN 9780980348156.

[FloraBase-3] "Eremophila delisseri". FloraBase. Western Australian Government Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions.

[1]

[2]

[3]