![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
How bout create a "Rabbitbrush" article, with these Chrysothamnus species and those from Ericameria such as nauseosus that also go by "rabbitbrush". I think nauseosus is the thing most commonly thought of as rabbitbrush (at least by laymen like me), so the current situation with Rabbitbrush redirecting here is not so good. Toiyabe 21:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
We should stub E. nauseosus and C. viscidiflorus before too long. They really deserve their own articles, I think.
That is interesting about the unpalatabily of the folliage; I wonder if fire suppression plays a roll as well? My memory is that C. viscidiflorus has wider leaves that often have a longitudinal twist or curl. All this is more material for an article. Best wishes,
Walter Siegmund
(talk)
01:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
So, I've added Lorandersonia to the genera that include rabbitbrushes. The rabbitbrushes were all in Chrysothamnus earlier (or Haplopappus if we go -way- back), but have since been split among Chrysothamnus, Ericameria, and Lorandersonia. I've also added numbers of species (rather than, e.g., saying that Chrysothamnus includes "most" rabbitbrushes... which, so far as I can tell, it doesn't) based on the Flora of North America treatment for these genera. Those numbers -should- be correct for the U.S. and Canada; so far as I know, "rabbitbrush" is only used as a common name in these two countries (and they're pretty peripheral in Canada, probably just in the area of southeastern British Columbia through to southwestern Manitoba). Paalexan ( talk) 22:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
How bout create a "Rabbitbrush" article, with these Chrysothamnus species and those from Ericameria such as nauseosus that also go by "rabbitbrush". I think nauseosus is the thing most commonly thought of as rabbitbrush (at least by laymen like me), so the current situation with Rabbitbrush redirecting here is not so good. Toiyabe 21:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
We should stub E. nauseosus and C. viscidiflorus before too long. They really deserve their own articles, I think.
That is interesting about the unpalatabily of the folliage; I wonder if fire suppression plays a roll as well? My memory is that C. viscidiflorus has wider leaves that often have a longitudinal twist or curl. All this is more material for an article. Best wishes,
Walter Siegmund
(talk)
01:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
So, I've added Lorandersonia to the genera that include rabbitbrushes. The rabbitbrushes were all in Chrysothamnus earlier (or Haplopappus if we go -way- back), but have since been split among Chrysothamnus, Ericameria, and Lorandersonia. I've also added numbers of species (rather than, e.g., saying that Chrysothamnus includes "most" rabbitbrushes... which, so far as I can tell, it doesn't) based on the Flora of North America treatment for these genera. Those numbers -should- be correct for the U.S. and Canada; so far as I know, "rabbitbrush" is only used as a common name in these two countries (and they're pretty peripheral in Canada, probably just in the area of southeastern British Columbia through to southwestern Manitoba). Paalexan ( talk) 22:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)