User talk:MPF

From Wikispecies

I mainly hang out at English Wikipedia, but visit here occasionally. Please leave any notes at my Wikipedia talk page. MPF

Welcome to Wikispecies, MPF! We like having new people contributing to Wikispecies. Here are a few things that may be interesting: Have a look at Done and to do. See also Wikispecies PR Please ask further questions in the Village Pump. Please don't upload files to Wikispecies unless there's a special reason to do so; use the Wikimedia Commons instead. We hope you'll enjoy the time you spend on Wikispecies! You can sign your messages with ~~~~.

Open2universe 00:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Terns 2 Work in progress 3 Indicating lectotype species of genera 4 Bird families 5 Stewartia/Stuartia 6 Wollemi pine 7 "Stuartia"

[edit] Terns

Yes, it does look like a number of changes are needed. It can be tricky, but try to keep redirects from the older names and include them as synonyms and it should be okay. Thanks, Open2universe

[edit] Work in progress

Wikispecies is getting a new look, so it might look weird sometimes. But the colons ':' were left out intentionally, so please dont add them :) --Kempm 17:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example: Glomus_przelewicense. The community chose a straight list because that is easier to maintain. (Deleting or inserting taxa) --Kempm 17:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Few more small changes. __NOTOC__ is integrated in the topmost hierarchical level, so should be removed. And for vernacular names we now have the {{VN|en=english name|fr=french name|etc}} template. Have a look at my changes to you last contributions for formatting and syntax, or alternatively to the help files. Cheers Lycaon 12:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indicating lectotype species of genera

Anyone think this is a good idea? It would be quite easy to do by adding bold formatting to the lectotype species on the genus pages, e.g. {{sp|P|otentilla|recta}} {{sp|P|otentilla|rehderiana}} '''{{sp|P|otentilla|reptans}}''' {{sp|P|otentilla|robbinsiana}} - MPF 23:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

1. There is no such thing as "lectotype species of genera", just type species
2. We already state the type species (when known) of a genus in the name section of the genus page
3. The type species might be a synonym which therefore isn't on the species list for the genus, so it could get confusing if you do it your way

Stho002 23:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, botany - I forget about plants, sorry!

There are hundreds of examples in insects (and other groups) of pages with type species data. Here is just one simple one: Austrovelia

I still don't think there is a need to highlight type species in the species lists - it will just be confusing to many people.

Stho002 23:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bird families

scuila

please see my last comment on the Village Pump Stho002 23:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

and again Stho002 00:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Stewartia/Stuartia

There still appears to be doubt, eg. see:

http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom/2007-May/025671.html

I will do nothing, and leave it to those with an opinion to slog it out...

Stho002 20:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wollemi pine

I am not making this up out of thin air. I just don't understand why you keep removing the common name for this species, which is abundantly verifiable from the literature (including two of the three references already linked in the article!). You even presume to tell the French, Spanish, etc. what they should be calling this species in their own respective languages (I took the names directly from their language Wikipedias). You are not making sense.

Please stop removing verifiable and factual information from the Wollemia nobilis article. Nobody is trying to say it's a true pine but "Wollemi pine" is the common name according to all modern references, including the ones already linked in the article. "Wollemi pine" is the name used for this species by the Australian government in its official publications on the species.

[edit] "Stuartia"

That Taxacom discussion is quite wrong in assuming that an older, original name must needs be preserved by conservation over a later spelling of the same name--it is the other way around. Befaria (published by Linnaeus but named by Mutis in honour of a person named "Bejar") vs. Bejaria (the spelling Mutis intended) is actually a very different case in its details but are you aware that the corrected later spelling "Bejaria" has been CONSERVED over Linnaeus' original spelling "Befaria"? I'll allow that the cases are quite similar in one respect: it shows that the original Linnaean spelling is to be accepted unless a later spelling is conserved.

Meanwhile I'm afraid I still don't understand why you are dismissing IPNI, a modern and continuously updated database produced by Kew, in favor of a 1992 reference. It shows as clearly as anything possibly can that Kew have accepted "Stewartia" as the correct spelling of the genus name. 68.48.220.53 00:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)