This post was made automatically in response to a request for comment on the documentation form. There is more general info about such requests here.
Documented by oldnick on 5th June 2012.
Documented by oldnick on 5th June 2012.
Edit history
date | user | change |
---|
31/10/2013 | xmhcman | Deleted determiner's note: Crataegus oxyacantha c C monogyna |
31/10/2013 | xmhcman | Added determiner's note: Crataegus oxyacantha c C monogyna |
31/10/2013 | xmhcman | Deleted collector: Mrs H (Anne) Dixon |
31/10/2013 | xmhcman | Added collector: Harold Goodman Dixon |
31/10/2013 | xmhcman | Deleted determiner's note: Crataegus oxyacantha c C monogyna |
31/10/2013 | xmhcman | Deleted determiner's note: Crataegus oxyacantha c C monogyna |
31/10/2013 | xmhcman | Added determiner's note: Crataegus oxyacantha c C monogyna |
31/10/2013 | xmhcman | Added determiner's note: Crataegus oxyacantha c C monogyna |
N.B. reporting of the edit history is currently fairly unclear and misleading. Most edits made to specimens appear as a pair of 'add' and 'delete' entries, which may not be together in the list. There are also often 'minor' edits, which are made automatically (rather than due to user activity), for example to merge synonym names.
Log-in to edit this sheet.
User comments about this sheet
- oldnick wrote
- H@H is using the name Crataegus oxyacantha - not sure why as I know it as an archaic name for several different species - possibly because these specimens are not clearly assignable? Is not the l-h specimen Crataegus oxyacanthoides (= laevigata) as originally labelled? Admittedly it looks unusual with its serrated rather apiculate leaves, though there are 2 styles on at least 1 flower. The r-h specimen's leaves also look quite more like monogyna than the hybrid, and the flowers rather late-opening