Talk:Wahlenbergia gloriosa

Plants Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Canberra / New South Wales / Victoria / Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Wahlenbergia gloriosa 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canberra (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria (assessed as Low-importance).
	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, or the State Library of New South Wales, or the State Library of Victoria.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

This edit from User:NathanHurst on 08:38, 6 December 2005 (AEDT) suggests the picture:

is not a Gloriosa but a Wahlenbergia stricta. For reference, we might have a gallery of images that are not gloriosa. As well as the above image to the left,

, this image (to the right) is also not a gloriosa but a W. stricta ([1]). because: a) the habit is wrong, W. gloriosa forms a mat with short flower stalks, W. stricta forms a mound with talk flower spikes. b) the colour is wrong. Yes, W. gloriosa is hard to photograph, but the colour should still be darker ([2]) c) I think the 'style' should be 1 or two lobes rather than 3. d) the vegetation is wrong, in all the places I've seen it in the wild it is growing with either alpine poas (such as fawcettae or heimata) or in shaded mountain forest on rock faces. e) the petals are flattened rather than tubular. and the killer: f) Red Hill is way to dry and hot for gloriosa :-( (comments by user:Nathan Hurst to user:A Y Arktos 20 November 2005) --A Y Arktos 22:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you put your photo on the stricta page. I've finally found a gloriosa photo (the colour is a little off, oh well) and linked it. njh 23:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]