User talk:Andyboorman

These are the archives of my talk page:
To the end 2013		Jan 2014 to the end of 2014
Jan 2015 to the end of 2015		Dec 2015 to Dec 2017
Dec 2017 to Oct 2020		Oct. 2020 to Dec 2023
The archives are searchable:

Pilosella

Yes, sometimes our hands are tied. Fagus (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

New Year Greeting

@Andyboorman: Dear Andy,
I would like to wish you all the best for the New Year 2024.
Let us hope, that the world becomes more peaceful again.
Best regards.
Orchi (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Delete pages

Hi there, Andyboorman, I need your help to delete some redirection pages that have errors, and I also don't know if you could help me put templates or something to notify them that they will be deleted. At the moment I have these 4:

• Saxifraga bernardensis, already exists as Saxifraga × bernardensis
• Saxifraga macropetala, already exists as Saxifraga × macropetala
  • Both of the above are registered with IPNI without the x symbol, due to differences in nomenclature compared to 2024.
• Ziziphus talanae, has a major spelling error, according to the species' publications, the correct epithet is "talanai", not "talanae"
  • I will check with IPNI and POWO and get back. Andyboorman (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Pterophylla (Asteraceae), this plant genus is not from Asteraceae family, but Cunoniaceae family only.

Greetings! AbeCK (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@AbeCK: I will delete these pages, if they need deleting. However, if you add {{Delete}} to a page it flags if for speedy deletion. See Ziziphus talanai as an example. You can see a list of pages for speedy deletion on your WatchList. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Meant to add that you have to be an Admin or Bureaucrat to actually delete pages. Andyboorman (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Guareeae

When I begin to create the tribe of Guareeae in Meliaceae, I notice that Wikispecies has genera from the tribe Aglaieae, I would appreciate it if you could inform me if the error is found in one or the other. Saludos--MILEPRI (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@MILEPRI: I have found a reference that merges Guareeae into Aglaieae and will deal with later. Andyboorman (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@MILEPRI: I have added a redirect to Guareeae as per Holzmeyer et al. (2021), but kept its page for now. The changes for the genera once of Guareeae have been made. Andyboorman (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Schmardaea

El género Schmardaea de ka familia Meliaceae' se encuentra sin subfamilia y sin tribu en wikispecies. En wikipedia en inglés aparece en la subfamilia Cedreloideae. ¿Podría ser un sinónimo?. Le agradeceria su opinión. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@MILEPRI: Schmardaea is in the Cedreloideae subfamily, as far I am aware and according to APW. However, it is not formally assigned to a tribe, but it is a basal clade with Chukrasia. I have made a partial edit. Saludos Andyboorman (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

OK. saludos. MILEPRI (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Rosmarinus officinalis and other of your questionable/doubtful edits in redirects

Hi, Andyboorman, hey I'm here to question your reversion of my edit to Rosmarinus officinalis, as well as some edits of yours in redirects with which I totally disagree, look:

• First, redirects should contain absolutely nothing except the page they redirect to
• Second, not only Rosmarinus officinalis, I've seen that you have made changes keeping old content in the redirects on other pages such as those of the genera Aloysia and Acantholippia, only with that you'll misinform and mislead those who visit Wikispecies, especially, whose corroborating the information on Wikispecies with other sources, besides in any case, the page with updated information can be better used, if there is a case for changing the name instead of the page with old, obsolete and half-baked information.
• Third, If you want to say something like "Rosmarinus officinalis is still used by important authors" or something like that, under better circumstances it would be better to put a template or a note (or something else to emphasize on it) something like what you did in pages like Backebergia militaris or Deamia chontalensis, by the way, I recommend you carefully compare the information offered by various databases with each other, not all of them are asymmetrical with respect to a species or genera, regardless of their regnum. AbeCK (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@AbeCK: I always cross compare/reference. There are a few, but significant number of names, where there is no consensus across expert sources and you highlighted just two. However, WS cannot take sides when there is differing taxonomic opinions. However, please do not patronise other editors and only delete their data with caution. Andyboorman (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

For now, I'm going to revert this reversion in Rosmarinus officinalis you made and if you agree, I'd like to put it up for discussion on some board to avoid conflicts with the editions and come up with something. Greetings. AbeCK (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@AbeCK: WS belongs to all and is not my or your personal project. Andyboorman (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Metaxyaceae

The family Metaxyaceae is listed in POWO as a synonym of Cyatheaceae, however it is accepted by Tropicos and Catalog of Life. I would be grateful if you could inform me if there has been any recent change that clarifies its location. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello {@MILEPRI: The differences depend on whether or not a broad or narrow description of Cyatheaceae is accepted. This is a taxonomic opinion. I am not an expert on ferns, but I will post a request on the Pump. WS seems to follow a narrow circumscription. Andyboorman (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

OK. Gracias MILEPRI (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Taxonav and contents

@Andyboorman: === Hi. Thanks for your reply to my question on village pump about the mysterious "contents" box appearing. If i rephrase your answer, then my understanding is essentially that some of taxonavigation templates had that extra wording "Taxonav" inserted, and it caused a clash/loop as that had been inserted into templates at two different but nested hierarchical levels (both on a superfamily template and any of the family templates). If so, that's great to know - enough for me to know the cause - so thankyou, without my needing to knowing why the heck it chose to present a 'contents' box from that! I decided to write here as my issue now is a direct query to you. I've been typically adding the extra wording of "Taxonav" into templates for the family level, hence into that for Cladonychiidae, etc. My impression from my notes (after rechecking about it) was that the extra "Taxonav" shouldn't be on the template for taxa above the family level (e.g. Superfamily, Infraorder etc). Hence, if this way, therefore i'd mistakenly added it to the new template for the superfamily Travunioidea. Your kind fixes i think removed "Taxonav" from each of the families (within Travunioidea), but kept in that for the superfamily Travunioidea. What i'm trying to say, i wonder if would be more consistent if the "Taxonav" is kept on the (several) family level templates, but removed from that of the superfamily etc?. Sjl197 (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sjl197: You are right in the sense that taxonav is better at the family level and that is where I add it, if required. My removal at the family level was just a quick, if dirty fix. Please feel free to reverse and get rid of its occurrence at the superfamily. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Roemeria

Hi Andy - just a heads-up that your note at Roemeria (Medikus) is out of date now; POWO now accept the genus, with an expanded number of species (many of which are still at Papaver here) - MPF (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@MPF: Thanks had a go at correcting, but probably need an additional reference. Andyboorman (talk) 07:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Think this is the one you want: A new genus for Papaver sect. Meconella and new combinations in Roemeria (Papaveraceae) in Europe and the Mediterranean area (2022). Also adds the new genus Oreomecon for Papaver alpinum and related species. - MPF (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Couple of additional refs for further Oreomecon combinations:

• Galasso G., Banfi E., Bartolucci F. 2023 (Jan). New combinations in Oreomecon. Pl. Rev. 5 (4): 58 (I can't find this one, not helped by nobody saying the full name of "Pl. Rev."!!)
• Krivenko, D. A. 2023 (Dec). New combinations in the genus Oreomecon (Papaveraceae). Novitates Systematicae Plantarum Vascularium 54: 97–100.

Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@MPF: Certainly helps. The new species are in IPNI, but not yet in POWO or Hassler. I will add them later today. It will leave Papaver with a rump group. Still no help with my Rosa request on the Pump. Andyboorman (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@MPF: Pl. Rv. = The Plant Review, formerly The Plantsman published by the RHS and not featured on Scholar, as well as being exclusively for RHS members. Grr! Andyboorman (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Aye, that's annoying! As far as I can tell from the listings on powo, it's just one page, so I doubt it's anything more than a simple list of comb. novae - MPF (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@MPF: I, hopefully, I will have a copy in a few days. It seems to be a couple of pages of the new names in an article about the nomenclature and classification changes in Papaver, There is a lot of interest in this genus amongst the RHS and members and there will be a need to explain these changes, which no doubt will appear in the latest Plant Finder. I will prompt Kew about the lack of movement regarding Krivenko's work, but I assume that it will involve the changes to less well known species and the raising of three subspecies to species, as well as the alteration of infraspecifics in the type species. Andyboorman (talk) 07:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I suspect POWO may want to take a while deciding over Krivenko: he looks to be making every Papaver sect. Meconella name ever published available in an Oreomecon combination, regardless of whether it is distinct or not, so POWO will probably want to consign many of the names to synonymy, rather than accept them uncritically. - MPF (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@MPF: You have made a very good spot. Kew advises going with POWO as it is for now. They also commented that the combinations have been made with a minimum of analysis and that the Russians are notorious for over-splitting. Andyboorman (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Abelia parvifolia

Hello Andy. Please have a look at this edit of the Abelia parvifolia page. Is it correct?

Also, some sources still say that it's a synonym of Linnaea parvifolia Graebn. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 29: 129 (1900) rather than a synonym of Abelia uniflora R.Br., in Wall. Pl. As. Rar. 1: 14. t. 15. (1830). All in all the synonymy is a bit messy in this case. :-) Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC).