A fact from Macrozamia riedlei appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 January 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Macrozamia riedlei(pictured), a favoured food plant of southwest Australians, was responsible for the accidental poisoning of some early European explorers?
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
Macrozamia riedlei 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
I have just modified one external link on Macrozamia riedlei. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
@Cygnis insignis: The map now excludes all records for which the field, establishmentMeans, was empty or equalled "cultivated" or "unknown". Hence it now properly represents the native range. Hence I have moved it back to the taxobox. MargaretRDonald (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to get a similar result, and noted that does not accord with what the sources state: the range at the south-coast extends to the east. cygnis insignis 02:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The most easterly results visible in the earlier map are probably now excluded, because valid collection data will now have been excluded, because the field indicating whether or not the specimen was cultivated is empty for those records. This does not invalidate the range map. These are the data - identified by professional botanists and held at the contributing herbaria. (I am not comfortable with excluding records on the basis of the state in which they were collected: I could have excluded data identified to state, but what would justify keeping WA records whose establishment means are unknown? I suppose we could work out some ridiculous criterion that when the data were collected early enough the failure to know establishment means is irrelevant, but who would try to justify a cutoff year?) MargaretRDonald (talk) 07:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Macrozamia riedlei occurrence data downloaded from Australasian Virtual Herbarium using https://doi.org/10.26197/5c23e4f3b2e43. This map excludes records where the establishment means are listed as "cultivated" Feel free to modify this and remove the NSW dot in Paintbox....... (But the far eastern WA records where we do not know anything about the establishment means, perhaps look a bit dodgy?) MargaretRDonald (talk) 08:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
