User talk:エリック・キィ

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Wikispecies!

Hello, and a belated welcome to Wikispecies! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you are enjoying being here. Here are some pages you might not yet have found:

If you have named a taxon, then it is likely that there is (or will be) a Wikispecies page about you, and other pages about your published papers. Please see our advice and guidance for taxon authors.

If you have useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at the Wikimedia Commons. This is also true for video or audio files containing bird songs, whale vocalization, etc.

Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Again, welcome!

Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Reference templates[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your very welcome contributions! However, please note that Wikipedia type reference templates such as {{Cite book}} and {{Cite journal}} are not recommended here on Wikispecies. Instead we use reference templates as described in the Help:Reference section guideline (specifically the Help:Reference section#Reference Templates subsection on that same page).

The reason why we have chosen this method is that some publications are referred to on many, many of our pages. For example, some scientific works may describe a new genus together with perhaps 30 or more new species within that genus. Now consider that after a few years the nomenclature is revised: perhaps the genus is split into several subgenera, or some of the species are moved to entirely different genera. In that case we may have to update all of the 30 pages where that particular {{Cite book}} or {{Cite journal}} reference is used. That takes a lot of time – and more importantly it's easy to miss a few of them, which would then make those particular Wikispecies pages inaccurate, showing old data. Instead we have opted for a system where we make one specific page for each particular reference. We do this in the form of templates. For an example of such a template, please see the newly created Template:Lewis, 1966. That way, if we need to change a reference we only have to change that one page instead of 30, and the changes will automatically be shown on every page where that one reference template is used. (In this particular case it's only used on three pages, but you get the point, right? :-)

Thanks again for your contributions, and as always please do not hesitate to ask if you have any questions! I will be happy to assist you if I can. Best regards, and happy editing, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC).Reply[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist: Thank you very much for the instruction. I had no idea that two Wikipedia type templates are already deprecated.--Eryk Kij (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Links[edit]

Hello. You need to adjust most commonly used Links when adding them to pages such as Mansonia (Malvaceae). I have made the necessary adjustments, as you can se it is simple, just needed for the link to work. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman: I did not add them, but you did before (please see Special:Diff/6485820/next), then you have adjusted your own mistake. I know, however, that any untidy or deprecated elements should be improved by anyone who notices them. I usually check every whole page, but this time I failed to do so, concentrating only on the italicization of the title. At any rates, I think we could somewhat upgrade templates like Template:Mansonia (Malvaceae) and link templates like those you mentioned, but I have no idea so far. Do you have any good one? --Eryk Kij (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too true my original mistake, but thanks if you spot such an error and correct it. I am not a coder so cannot help correct the link template to add the necessary fix, if required. Perhaps somebody at the pump would be able to help. My contributions are still mostly turning red link plant genera blue rather than the the important format work. This is getting more complicated as the easy genera get dealt with, as I find more and more shifting taxonomic opinions in the secondary and primary sources, negating the one taxon one name principle! Regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Images on genera, families and so on.[edit]

Unlabelled images on genera are not to be used please see Ramosmania for how it should be done. Many thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 08:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Japanese localization[edit]

Hello, If you have a moment, might you be able to check the Japanese-language wikispecies "localizations", whether in their entirety as here - Wikispecies:Localization - or as implemented in practice on a taxon page or in particular eg at Isao Ijima, especially "Taxon names authored" and "[n] taxon names authored by" (would 命名 be better?) How would the "n] eponyms of [Isao Ijima" best be rendered? "[n]エポニムに影響を与えた[Isao Ijima"? (the order has to stay as in English: [number - eponyms of - name]). You can change your settings to Japanese via the drop-down menu next to your user name at the top of the page, if they are not set to Japanese already. The more technical terms come from the documents at the top of Wikispecies talk:Localization so should be fine; (there was brief discussion of "Name" on 23 June at the bottom of the Japanese-related section of Wikispecies talk:Localization), thank you very much, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: Thank you very much for letting me know about this issue. I have wondered where these kinds of settings are controlled. The following Japanese sound more fluent:
  • List may be incomplete: "リストは不完全である可能性がある。"
  • Taxon names authored: "命名" (lit. 'naming')
  • Taxon names authored by: "分類群の命名者"
  • Authored taxa: "命名された分類群"
  • [n] taxon names authored by [taxonomist]: "[taxonomist]が命名した[n]個の分類名"
  • Eponyms (and also Eponymy): "献名"
  • [n] eponyms of [taxonomist]: "[n]個の[taxonomist]への献名" (lit. '[n] eponyms for [taxonomist]')
Please note that Japanese classifier (counter) system is quite complicated. To be honest, I am not sure whether the counter 個 for 'taxa' is proper, but it is a compromise. More natural way would be avoidance of using counters, which, however, will result in superfluous cumbersomeness (e.g. "[taxonomist]が命名した分類名1つ", "[taxonomist]が命名した2つの分類名", (...) "[taxonomist]が命名した9つの分類名", "[taxonomist]が命名した10の分類名", "[taxonomist]が命名した11の分類名", (...)). --Eryk Kij (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I have added the more straightforward improvements to a request for changes, and at the same asked about the possibility of slightly "deeper" localization, involving changing the order of "[n] <localization> [taxonomist]", etc, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sapoteae[edit]

This tribe is accepted according to a bunch of papers published 2019-2921, so I do not know where you got your information from when making the note on Tieghemella. However, a new tribe Glueminae will be described soon and I will make the adjustments, as soon as there is effective publication later in 2021. I can add the references if required, but do not think it is urgent. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC):Reply[reply]

The link http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/APweb/orders/ericalesweb.htm#Sapotaceae is not helpful. I would be grateful if you made no edits to templates that remove this tribe. In addition, when making edits of this nature we require the reference to be placed on the taxon page and not as a comment on the edit history as they are major taxonomic changes. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Etymology[edit]

Hello. We do not place facts about etymology on taxon pages for WS, as it is not relevant to taxonomy and classification. If you wish to propose changes to this practice then please feel free to start a discussion on the Village Pump. In the meantime expect your edits to be reverted in good faith. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a hint[edit]

Plants of the World draws its data from World Checklist of Selected Plant Families where they exist, so you really only need one source. I always use WCSP in preference, as the data has gone through as complete a check as possible. PWO tends to be more of a work in progress, but still robust. In addition, if you feel there is an error or a query then please contact the databases - they are very helpful and will quickly change the entry if required. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman: > (...) so you really only need one source.
I once thought like you do, but I came to be aware of specimens displayed only in PWO entries. They sometimes contain possible type specimens and I think they deserve being known by readers.
> they are very helpful and will quickly change the entry if required.
I have concern on taxon authorities of Marquisia billardierei, Photinia glabra and Tieghemella heckelii, so I will contact them. Thank you for your helpful advice. --Eryk Kij (talk) 12:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see where you are coming from with the three taxa. All the best Andyboorman (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

synonyms[edit]

An autonym can not be a synonym of its base combination, as they are only automatically generated once a variety or subspecies, for example are accepted, as is found in Coprosma wollastonii. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman: OK, I had to do this beforehand, which is what I mean. I think it is better to show information of heterotypic synonyms (if they exist) in both base page and its infraspecific page, with one detailed and the other soft-redirecting. Please note that I have applied a similar structure to Psychotria eminiana and Psychotria eminiana var. eminiana. --Eryk Kij (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK good work just remember that an autonym is not a synonym of its parent taxon. Cheers. Andyboorman (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{splast|}}[edit]

Not a good idea to use templates {{splast|}} {{glast|}} or similar anywhere except for at the end of a species/genus list, as they add a hard line break. This results in poor page format and unnecessary work for another editor. See Aidia. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman: I know it and it is not my fault. This time I had energy only for removing the redundant name and failed to notice that the improper template had already been there (see Special:Diff/1026729/next). Please check page histories before you warn me or somebody else. If you are concerned about not who did it but what I did not do, I have to say that I cannot always be so keen. I resolve existant and sometimes lurking problems in my own pace. I always try to be in harmony with you and would like to keep it. Regards, Eryk Kij (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry if I have caused offense none intended. Apologies once again Andyboorman (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taxonomic opinions[edit]

Good day. You asked "to which taxon does this belong?" in relation to the taxon Pentaptera mollis. Clearly it is a synonym according to both COL and POWO, therefore, in my opinion we have an unresolved taxonomic opinion. Initial looking through the date indicates that dealing with this amounts to original research (OR) and belongs to a contribution in a scientific paper. WS frowns prohibits OR, as you know. In this case we can deal with this by notes on both Terminalia microcarpa subsp. microcarpa and Terminalia calamansanai, but ignoring one side of a taxonomic opinion over another without clear evidence presented in the references, is itself OR. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman: My words are within the scope and the policy of this site. I meant then that I would attempt to search for reviews on taxonomic treatment, but it is unclear whether I can obtain them. As for Rubiaceae, Ridsdale left us comprehensive works of such character and therefore I feel more or less easy, but when it comes to Combretaceae, I am not familiar with the family to the contrary. I found Merrill (1909) citing Pentaptera mollis C.Presl (p. 643) as a synonym of Terminalia edulis Blanco there. T. edulis Blanco is now placed under T. microcarpa subsp. microcarpa also by POWO. I assume some other author(s) may have linked P. mollis with T. calamansanai and I want to identify who did it. --Eryk Kij (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are doing very good taxonomical work - puts me to shame, as my work here is to largely fill the redlinks with basic information! Not sure I can help with the sort of information you are looking for, a good few months in the library at Royal Botanic Gardens Kew should do it! Sorry tongue in cheek, but it is a great experience to do work there. All the best Andyboorman (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anthospermum thymoides subsp. antsirabense[edit]

Hello. I noticed that when you created the above taxon you forgot to also create the species, which left the subspecies as an orphan. Just a gentle nudge to double check your work for similar orphans. Andyboorman (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman: They are intentional. I do not believe database records unless I check their original sources. Unfortunately, I have faced too many cases of citation errors in such databases (sometimes almost all available records are false!) through my activity, so I create pages only after I check its primary references. I have to be responsible for what I compile with highest discretion. --Eryk Kij (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure why you would accept a subspecies without also accepting its species - seems illogical. The trouble with creating orphans is that they can be summarily deleted in good faith by another editor. I double check when administrating orphans and only deal with taxa that I have some familiarity with - others do not always do so. I commend your thoroughness, as I also tend to double check with scientific papers as well. If I encounter possible problems, I tend to contact the database managers for their opinions and they will correct, which prevents future error propagation. However, occasionally experts, for example at RBG Kew, are actively reviewing entries as there can be taxonomic opinions and active debates, which question primary sources. Please note that I agree with the stand that books and flora are not primary sources, irrespective of who wrote them and in addition we must always be bound by relevant ICN acts. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman: As for this topic, you are right. I was a bit type-freak, putting more weight on type information than steps of ranks. I learned what you are concerned about. I promise I will never create orphans anymore. --Eryk Kij (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pavetta nbumbulensis[edit]

I thought this species had been validly published, as INPI lists it here. If IPNI is in error then I suggest you contact them with your concerns. Would it be better for WS to list the species rather than just disappear it with a note on the page history. That smacks of OR I feel. Andyboorman (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies I have now found it on the Pavetta capensis subsp. capensis taxon page. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 07:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman: Yes, this error is obvious when consulting the source. Together with other issues, I will report this one to compilers of WCSP and IPNI. I have reported numerous issues to them with proofs several times and they have responded quite kindly and accepted most of my opinions. This, however, means that these databases potentially contain still more issues and highest discretion is needed when we consult them. In January, I found even another non-existing name and requested the compiler of WCSP not to display it (result is here); and last month, I found an error which probably even dates back to Index Kewensis by B.D. Jackson. This user subpage is my memorandum for preparation of such reports and I send mails to them sporadically. --Eryk Kij (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
id=5053 has disappeared what ever name it referred to. Agreed that secondary databases need double checking, particularly when they do a form of circular citation. I do tend to trust the WCSP family, including IPNI now, more than most, but I do query apparent errors with positive results. It is worth noting that Kew hold more to a lumping rather than splitting philosophy, for example they maintain Aster s.l. rather than the dismantling favoured by Nesom (2020), note the enhanced synonymy on Aster on WCVP. You are far more systematic than me, as I am still concentrating on accepted plant genera and sorting out problems such as orphans, so many thanks for producing many exemplar taxon pages. Andyboorman (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Faramea gagnepainiana[edit]

Only you on WS holds to the synonymy of Faramea gagnepainiana with Faramea stenocalyx, as far as I can ascertain. Without references or citations it can be considered your unique opinion and moreover OR, which is forbidden in Wikis. Please consider this edit carefully as it could be edited back using the references on the pages. As an alternative. It could merit a disputed on the page for Faramea gagnepainiana with a note on its discussion page. Indeed it would be much better to write up your proposals for a peer reviewed journal such as Phytotaxa. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Andyboorman: A search result at JSTOR put me in shock. I just intended to create a page for F. stenocalyx, but the result and the primary references indicate that type collection of F. gagnepainiana and that of F. stenocalyx are the same thing. The former lacks diagnosis while the latter was validly published, that's why I judged that the former is nomen nudum per the ICN (Art. 38). What was more reinforcing are the fact that Coussarea speciosa and Faramea dichotoma, the taxa named by Glaziou at the same time with F. gagnepainiana (1909: 346–347), have been regarded as nomina nuda by IPNI staff ([1], [2]) and the annotation "nomen" in the IPNI entry of F. gagnepainiana ([3]). Later, I found that some botanists have placed both of them under Psychotria ulei. That's why I chose the phrase "at best" in this summary. I thought just providing the 'homotypic' indication and a link Psychotria ulei in the entry of Faramea stenocalyx was sufficient to notify readers about the issues, but your visit here reveals that my method is not user-friendly at all. I always try to comply with the ICN and, if correct, IPNI. I had no intention to conceal the sources, but am quite poor at grasping beforehand what people will really want. Of course, this case is one of the issues to be reported for the PWO administrator, but it will take much more time for compiling a report due to many other issues. Thank you very much for your feedback. --Eryk Kij (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added this to the Talk Page of Faramea stenocalyx. - Please also note: de Freitas Mansano, V. & Pederneiras, L.C. 2016. (25) Proposal to add Glaziou's "Plantae Brasiliae centralis a Glaziou lectae" to the list of suppressed works in Appendix VI. Taxon 65(5): 1181-1182. PDF and the acceptance of this proposal in 2017 PDF Andyboorman (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman: Thank you very much! Were it not for your effort, I would start to undertake Glaziou's individual rubiaceous names. I will mention that proposal and its result when I report to the PWO administrator. Now I agree that each Glaziou's name should be noted as opus utique oppr. unless no change is observed in external databases. --Eryk Kij (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A suggestion[edit]

Hi Eryk. See how I have handled the disputed circumscription for Gonzalagunia. What do you think? Andyboorman (talk) 11:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Andyboorman: Your way seems to be a good solution, so I will follow it. As for the genus, G. hirsuta sensu Govaerts et al. and G. spicata sensu Taylor are alternative, so I will add another tentative improvement. --Eryk Kij (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]