User talk:Andyboorman

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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  
The archives are searchable:

Borkhausenia (Maleae)[edit]

Hi Andy and @Fagus: - it turns out Borkhausenia Sennikov & Kurtto is invalid, as it is a later 'near-homonym' of Borckhausenia Roth (1800). The new replacement name is Scandosorbus Sennikov: Ann. Bot. Fennici 55 (4-6): 321-323 (2018) - MPF (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF: Thanks for the info. Andyboorman (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


A pesar de la protección que ha efectuado, estan vandalizando Template:Nadi. Ya lo he borrado. Saludos--MILEPRI (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MILEPRI: He bloqueado al editor durante un mes. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lotononis listii[edit]

Encuentro en commons la especie Lotononis listii que es aceptada por GRIN, Catalogue y Tropicos y no figura como aceptada en POWO e IPNI. ¿Tiene alguna referencia que aclare si es aceptada o un sinónimo? Saludos--MILEPRI (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MILEPRI: |It is likely to be a synonym of Listia heterophylla according to Boatwright. Andyboorman (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the type species of Listia by the way. Andyboorman (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Andy, please have a look here: User: Thanks and greetings. Orchi (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inula and others[edit]

I will add all later. Thank you. Fagus (talk) 09:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Andy,
I would like to wish you all the best for the new year 2021.
May the new year generally bring us more normality again.
I hope, we continue to enjoy our activities in the various Wikipedia areas.
Best regards. Orchi (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A vandal on the loose[edit]

There's a vandal by the name of DaveTheBarbarian2, who kept vandalizing the Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens sapiens pages by posting in a penis image, which is both disturbing and sickening. He should be banned from this site. PerxerDan98 (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for the alert. Andyboorman (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Le agradecería mi indicase si el género Chamaecytisus ha sido aceptado o es un sinónimo de Cytisus. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MILEPRI: Los dos géneros pueden o no ser sinónimos. Hay poca evidencia definitiva, pero algunos estudios sugieren una sinonimia. Por el momento es una opinión taxonómica. Hassler/Col y Euro+Med PlantBase dice que sí, PWO apoya la separación. A la política de WS no le gusta tomar partido, así que si desea crear una página para Chamaecytisus, puedo ayudarlo. Saludos... Andyboorman (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman:. Crearé el taxon Chamaecytisus con una nota indicando que Chamaecytisus lo consideran un sinónimo Hassler/Col y Euro+Med PlantBase. Las especies ya figuran como pertenecientes a Cytisus y las dejaré como están hasta que haya un acuedo para su ubicación. Gracias por su ayuda. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MILEPRI: Great that is exactly what I would do. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


He llegado al género Halimodendron que figura como sinónimo en POWO y como aceptado en Catalogue of Life. Le agradecería me indicase que opción es la aceptada. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MILEPRI: As for Chamaecytisus. Saludos.--Andyboorman (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


The edit you recently reverted for Rustia was an article describing two new species of cicadas. Is there another Rustia to be considered. Neferkheperre (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neferkheperre: Yes the page reverted is a plant. There is a red link cicada page which needs creating first.Andyboorman (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, a bit pre-occupied today. I shall adjust. Neferkheperre (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ottleya o Acmispon[edit]

I have serious doubts about the acceptance of the genus Ottleya as a taxon, since although POWO and Hassler recognize it, in the pages of their species it has been included as a reference to Brouillet who in 2008 included them in Acmispon . Since you have included this reference, please tell me if the authorship has been modified and it is considered a synonym or is still pending acceptance. Saludos. --MILEPRI (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No there is no consensus. The Legume Phylogeny Working Group (2013) keep them separate. I will get back to you in more detail. Meanwhile the pages for the two genera are unacceptable and are taking sides in a taxonomic opinion. We are not allowed to do this on WS, as it comes under the heading of original research. Andyboorman (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{@MILEPRI: Phylogenetically the two genera are probably synonymous with Acmispon having precedence. That is why PWO and Hassler transfer most of the species. However, the 10 left in Ottleya seem to have problem with their taxonomy, which I had not picked up and so might have created the relevant pages in Acmispon in error. The best I can do for now, sorry its a mess! Andyboorman (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Genus Dracula[edit]

Dear Andy, could you please ask Rafael to check the name here: [1].
In the book Thesaurus Dracularum this species is only designated with one "o" as Dracula navarrorum.
Thanks and best regards. Orchi (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Orchi: I will contact Rafael and let you know. Stay safe and best regards Andyboorman (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
....thanks and greetings. Orchi (talk) 08:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Orchi: The correct name is Dracula navarroorum. The species epithet is composed of surname for the discoverers (M. & F.) Navarro plus -orum an ending which by convention acknowledges their contribution. Govaerts confirms this and if IPNI does nor change their entry in the near future I will contact them. All the best Andyboorman (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Andy, many thanks for your effort. I will update the name (in my book also) and will built a redirect for MBG and others. Regards. Orchi (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PWO and WCSP[edit]

I already know this, but why are you writing this to me. I could not understand. generally, I use wcsp if available. I didn't use wcsp and wpo together.--Fagus (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fagus: I was doing a few small edits to Picea and noticed that WCSP has been replaced by PWO and through the Edit History assumed it was you. Apologies if this was not the case. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinus brutia subsp. eldarica[edit]

Hi Andy - those latest two refs are just clones of each other: why add both, other than just to try to prove a point that I'm always wrong and Farjon is God? What is their cited justification for reduction to varietal rank against the botanical evidence? Or is it just Farjon's personal prejudice and abuse of Kew's authority against others such as Businsky, who dare to disagree with him and maintain subspecies rank for it based on evidence? If they don't give their reasons for their choice of rank (which I can't see they do), I'm not sure they're valid references, just lists.

From the following (from Christensen 1987 Nordic J. Bot. 7: 384, based on Du Rietz 1930 and Rothmaler 1944), eldarica clearly fits in subspecies rank (clearly differing in both cone and foliage morphology), while pityusa and stankewickzii both fit varietal rank best (barely distinguishable in the field from nominate brutia, though distinct in genetic analysis and disjunct distribution).

  • Forma of a variety, subspecies or species occurs sporadically within the distribution area of the taxon of higher rank to which it is referred and differs from that taxon in a single character.
  • Varietas of a subspecies or species is to some extent allopatric and forms local, distinct populations as well as mixed, integrating populations within the distribution area of the subspecies or species. They differ from each other in usually more than a single, distinct character.
  • Subspecies of a species are both regionally and locally ±allopatric. They differ from each other in several, distinct characters, but intergrade in overlapping areas.
  • Species of a genus differ from each other in numerous, distinct characters and have a characteristic distribution area of their own. Where closely related species meet occasional hybridization and introgression may occur.

MPF (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi @MPF:. Hassler and Govaerts (WCSP) are not clones, as they often differ in circumscriptions and use different approaches to compilation, but fair point in this case and I have removed Hassler. Farjon (2010) is not a deity, just the most comprehensive series of volumes and used book. WCSP nearly always lists a few sources, but of course one of these is often Farjon when it comes to conifers, as well as local flora. Their database is most definitely not based upon secondary sources, such as books and flora but copious academic papers. Kew scientists will be very familiar with your definitions above, as I am. EMD probably has the best approach treating the species in its broadest sense! This is a relatively minor example of differences in circumscription, but WS can not take sides and editors must not favour one taxonomic opinion over another, as this would be original research. I always add a note and make sure that I add a balance of sources.
  • The subspecies is not in IPNI, by the way, but they will correct this if you email them and they are happy with the protologue in relation to ICN.
Hi Andy - thanks! Sending a fuller reply via email later - MPF (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MPF: I will look forward to reading it. - Andyboorman (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I have doubts for the update of this taxon, since for POWO it is a synonym and for wikispecies or Hassler it is an accepted taxon. As I do not have current references on the genre, I do not think I should venture into its preparation. Would you have any current information on the location of this genus? Saludos--MILEPRI (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MILEPRI: It can be readily found as a synonym of Rebutia, but there is some doubt whether Aylostera, Digitorebutia, Cylindrorebutia and Weingartia should be completely separated or stay as sections or subgenera. It is the classic lumping or splitting debate. However, if you accept Weingartia as a distinct genus then you must also accept Aylostera. Therefore it is a taxonomic opinion not a mistake to take one view over another. I have nothing later than Hernández-Ledesma et al. (2015). However, looking at the page for Rebutia it is far too dogmatic for a WS page. Andyboorman (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BTW @MILEPRI: the taxon pages are a complete mess. The primary source (Mosti et al. 2011) analysed many combinations which now turn out to be synonyms (Hassler, 2021), which of course calls in question their conclusions. In my understanding their analysis could be seen to be biased to polyphyly, as you keep adding the same "weights" to the scales unbalancing it (does this analogy make sense?). No wonder PWO maintains Rubetia s.l., as Kew look unfavourably on flawed science. To be fair Mosti et al. may not have realised that many so called species of Aylostera are actually horticultural combinations and not found growing in the wild. In addition, local flora use Rebutia comprising of only 9 species, but PWO 29, but Aylostera is most definitely not accepted and its species spread over a number of other genera. A different circumscription again, no wonder PWO goes for sensu lato. My advice is if PWO and Hassler agree then edit, if not avoid!!!! Andyboorman (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I will wait for an agreement for this taxon before editing it. I already observed that (Mosti et al. 2011) in POWO synonized this genus but that Hassler in World Plants changed the species back to "Aylostera". Saludos.


Dear Andy,
....this is in Wikispecies my edit 100000. I say: Thank you for the good cooperation over many years.
Best regards. Orchi (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Orchi: A milestone indeed! Likewise cooperation appreciated and indeed Orchid pages go from strength to strength. Ten years nearly for our cooperation as well. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hort. Dorpat.[edit]

Hi Andy! Seems that I should already know the answer to this—but I don't, so I ask you. Do you know what "Hort. Dorpat." means, in for example Cnicus pseudobenedictus Hort. Dorpat. ex Asch. (synonym of Centaurea benedicta). I've also seen it stylized as "Hort. Dorp." As far as I know it's not an author abbreviation, but I haven't been able to find any translation/explanation of what it actually means. Then again, I'm not a botanist. :-) Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hi @Tommy Kronkvist:. I am not 100% sure but it appears to be a reference to lists of specimens, seeds and plants indexed by the University of Tartu Botanical Gardens, which used to be called Horti Dorpatensis in Latin. Dorpat was an older name for Tartu, Estonia. Therefore, Cnicus pseudobenedictus Hort. Dorpat. ex Asch., Index Seminum [Berlin] 5 (1861) probably refers to a specimen from Horti Dorpatensis retrieved by Paul Ascherson and then described in Index Seminum in Horti Botanici Berolinensis, as part of their updates for 1861. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that helps a lot! Coming to think of it the name Dorpat is quite familiar to me, since Tartu and a big chunk of the Baltics (known as Swedish Livonia) used to be under Swedish rule. Actually, when established back in 1632 the University of Tartu was the second university ever founded in the Swedish Empire (after Uppsala University, est. 1477 in my present home town). But enough with the history lectures... :-) Thanks again, and happy editing. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Glad I can help. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for Wikispecies dictionary[edit]

Hello again. I see that you've been editing Wikispecies:Glossary now and then. That's good, since our glossary page is otherwise often somewhat forgotten and left in the backwaters, so to speak. I wonder if you might consider adding the word chresonym to it, preferably together with the related terms heterochresonym and orthochresonym (redirected in the same way as for example "floruit"). The word is currently only mentioned on nine of our taxon pages, but in seven of those it's used as a paragraph heading so I think it might be worthwhile to add it to the glossary. See for example Ameivula abalosi and the rather badly formatted "Chresonyms section" on Cyamon vickersii.

I suppose I could make the necessary edits myself, but quite frankly I'm not entirely sure I fully grasp the concept of "chresonymy" versus synonymy. If you're up to it you can use the Wikipedia page about Chresonyms as a starting point. And if you don't want to do it, that is of course okay too. :-) Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist:. OK I will havew a good look later. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 11:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist:. I have made a first attempt for chresonym and chresonymy. Thoughts please. Andyboorman (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me – it's a glossary after all, not an encyclopedia. I've added affinis, btw. Please make any corrections you may see fit. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: I was wondering whether or not to add the often used examples for heterochresonym and orthochresonym. What do you think? Andyboorman (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── If by that you mean the examples given at Wikipedia then yes, if it's possible to keep them short enough for the glossary. Otherwise it may be better to simply make links from the Wikispecies glossary items to the corresponding examples on the Wikipedia Chresonym page, i.e. [[Wikipedia-link|Example at Wikipedia]] where we replace "Wikipedia-link" with w:Chresonym#Example (heterochresonymy) and w:Chresonym#Example (orthochresonymy), respectively. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]


Encuentro la tribu Ingeae que se incluye en wikispecies en la subfamilia Mimosoideae que aparece como sinónimo de Caesalpinioideae y en esta subfamilia esta tribu no está incluida. Supongo que hay un error que deja todos los géneros de esta tribu huérfanos de categoría. Le agradecería su consejo. Gracias.--MILEPRI (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MILEPRI: No, todos los géneros no son huérfanos, pero se encuentran en el clado mimisoide en la página Caesalpinioideae. En estos momentos se están desmantelando Ingeae y formalizando el clado mimisoide ¿Podrías dejar las cosas como están por unas semanas? Gracias y un saludo. Andyboorman (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK.--MILEPRI (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


This has unbalanced italics. Perhaps you;d like to suggest where the missing closing for the italics should be so it's more obvious?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: No need for italics in the name section. Thanks for pointing out the lack of balance, my original error. Andyboorman (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I find the genus Cyrtandromoea that is accepted by POWO & Hassler, where it appears as a family of Gesneriaceae, while in wikispecies only appears Cyrtandromoea (not yet made) within the family Phrymaceae. It may be a homonym but the problem I find is that on wikipedia it appears in the family Scrophulariaceae. ¿?. Saludos.

Hi @MILEPRI:. It is now most definitely in Phrymaceae, see Luna et al. 2019 on the taxon page. Both INPI and POWO will be updating in a few days. They both have been slow to update due to Covid, furlough and staff moving on. The genus has bounced around different families for a number of years, but settling in Phrymaceae is now accepted. I was intending to create the page once IPNI and POWO have updated, which the curators have assured me will happen during their next cyclical update. Saludos. Andyboorman (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I'm editing the Bryophyta with the Catol-Hassler template. There is a Catalog of Life template for this Phylum?. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)--MILEPRI (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MILEPRI: Is {{Catol-WorldFerns}} any use? Probably not. Andyboorman (talk) 11:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acer orthocampestre[edit]

Hi Andy - any idea if this has been generally accepted or not? In Turkish J. Bot. 2014 (free access). Should it be added here? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF: Sure is accepted by both Plants of the World and Hassler at least and so should be added to WS. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll add it later tonight if I've got the time - MPF (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF: I notice that the species list is short of a few more combinations, but it seems to depend on the source. Good luck! Andyboorman (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The species list for Acer? That wouldn't be surprising! But more difficult, on looking at Acer campestre, there is Acer campestre subsp. leiocarpum, based on Acer leiocarpum Opiz, which, if it is (as suggested by the Flora of Turkey ref.) from the same general area as the new Acer orthocampestre, would presumably be an older name from the same taxon. Thoughts? - MPF (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF:. I also saw the report placing Acer orthocampestre in synonymy with Acer campestre subsp. leiocarpum and given the amount of natural variability in A. campestre it seems reasonable. However, I am not sure that having numerous infraspecific names under the species is the way to go and I do not think that a regional population or a minor appearance in leaf shape is a particularly good justification, as it seen in Acer campestre subsp. leiocarpum. Die Varietäten der Gattung Acer seems very over the top! Andyboorman (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The paper seems to suggest it is a cryptic species that can only be distinguished genetically, so the amount of morphological variation / overlap wouldn't be relevant. But synonymy with A. leiocarpum Opiz will depend on where Opiz described it from; unfortunately he doesn't say in the protologue . . . MPF (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF: Typical Unplaced Species? I am not specialised in genetics to be able to suggest that the distinguishability is enough to warrant species segregation. I do not know where the genetic variability occurs, for example and how significant it is in relation to the breeding system. Neither do I know if the overall genetic differences in Acer campestre in the trees down our lane in Essex, England is significant compared to that found in A. campestre/A. orthocampestre occurring in the degraded Euxine-Colchic broadleaf forests 2600/2700 km from here. I was going to suggest leaving it red linked pending further evidence or even delete as out of scope. but @Fagus: has stepped in. Both Hassler and PWO could be wrong - rare but not unknown! Andyboorman (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd decided not to add it, until we have any harder info as to where Opiz's name was described from and whether it applies to the same taxon or not. But now that Fagus has added it . . . perhaps he can comment on the question? Might be worth asking Hassler / PWO if any lectotype location has been selected for it. There are though plenty of other taxon pairs showing deep genetic divides between the western and eastern Mediterranean, so this one is very plausible on phytogeographic grounds. - MPF (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Observo que mantiene este género en activo. Según los datos de CACO es un sinónimo de Sclerocactus aquí--MILEPRI (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MILEPRI: PWO también está de acuerdo con la sinonimia. La especie y sus subespecies deberán moverse antes de que pueda realizar la redirección para Echinomastus. Puedo hacer esto más tarde si lo desea. Saludos... Andyboorman (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


There is something I do not understand in this genre. For example: Mammillaria salmiana that appears as not accepted in Cacti, and yet, when accessing the page, it appears as accepted. I think there is another list of species of this genus that has yet to be accepted as being included in the genus. I could, if it is not too much to ask you, check this fact and add the unresolved species to the end of the accepted list of Mammillaria. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added list to genre. Check them to see if their inclusion is correct. Saludos--MILEPRI (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MILEPRI: Personally I would have avoided creating pages for taxa on the unresolved list, that is list 3 on CACO. They are unresolved for many possible reasons, for example possible; homonyms, illegal combinations, unresolved synonyms, superfluous names, names from horticulture, and so on. This is historically a difficult genus and I have been concentrating only on the CACO currently accepted species on the left here, as this list is relevant to the scientific and taxonomic work published in the last few years. I would not have created your two lists at the moment. I am trying to tidy up the the subgenera/sections/subsections, which are also a bit of a mess with at least one needing to be redirected in its entirety. Andyboorman (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw your reply and I regret that I had already included the unsolved species lists. I hope they are not a problem, since I have put them below as species pending to be solved. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MILEPRI: Generalmente, los taxones no resueltos o no colocados están fuera del alcance del proyecto. Aunque, si los científicos están trabajando activamente en un txaon, entonces pueden permitirlo, ¡así que podemos perdonar sus adiciones! Comb. ined., híbridos artificiales y nombres de hortalizas no están permitidos en absoluto, como nombres de páginas de taxón. Espero que esto ayude. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Andy,
I wish you a Merry Christmas.
Let us hope and wish, that the new year 2022 brings us all a lot of good things.
Best regards for you. Orchi (talk) 17:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Andyboorman, you created a redirected page to Tradescantia for the entry Zebrina. However Zebrina is also a mollusk genus... So, I think, this redirected page is not totally correct... Have a nice day and a wonderful 2022 Year  :-) Givet (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Givet and Andy Boorman. For some helpful links at Wikidata, please use Q87172676 (plants genus) and Q3007158 (mollusks). Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]
OK a disambiguation page is required. Thanks and happy new year both. Andyboorman (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zebrina  Done Andyboorman (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Givet: & @Tommy Kronkvist: Sorry forgot pings! Andyboorman (talk) 11:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you. Andyboorman, it is perfect now  :-) King regards Givet (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users[edit]


You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


I am in this genus of Icacinaceae and I observe a difference in the number of species between World Plants and POWO, since the latter includes species from South Asia and in World only from America. I suspect that this is the correct version, but I do not have exact references to confirm it. I hope you can help me, as always. Greetings.--MILEPRI (talk) 10:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @MILEPRI:. Thanks for the formation. There seems to have been some recent changes in this family and other near relatives. I will look into it later. Cheers - Andyboorman (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Again. The differences are the result of a taxonomic opinion associated with the genus Nothapodytes. This genus is native to south-east Asia and is accepted by World Plants, whereas POWO prefer to see it as part of a wider Mappia, which is south American in distribution. I can find evidence supporting both views, so I would suggest that WS follows World Plants, as we can not take sides over a taxonomic opinion where evidence is so ambiguous. There ought to be a note on the genus taxa pages. All the best Andyboorman (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomic databases[edit]

Useful Vascular Plant Databases
Database Pros Cons Comments WS Template
IPNI Curated repository of all (ICN) validly published Names. Will not publish comb. ined. Use for names not accepted taxa. Few, but some older formats need editing out. More and more protologues available through BHL Rapid update. Contactable via email. {{IPNI}}
WCVP Uses IPNI to generate lists of accepted names and synonyms. Curated. Taxonomic scrutiny by Kew and partners. Occasional difference with other databases. Taxonomic opinions by Kew and partners. Replaces the printed Plants of the World. An illustrated encyclopaedia of vascular plants. {{WCVP}}
WCSP Now derives data from WCVP, but at a higher level of scrutiny. Restricted range of families. Contactable. Will justify taxonomic opinions. {{WCSP}}
PWO Now derives data from WCVP. Aim is to increase range and scope of data. Does some contain omissions and errors. Contactable. Will quickly edit out mistakes. {{PWO}}
COL (Plants) Gathers data from a range of collaborators, other databases inc. WCSP etc. Can contain illegal and comb. ined. as accepted names, which is taxonomically unacceptable. Some sources can be outdated or not longer updated. I tend not to use a list if it contains comb. ined., as I assume the taxonomic changes yet to be fully completed. {{Catol-Hassler}}
The Plant List In the past was many editors first choice. No longer updated post 2013. My advice is to not to use and update with POWO, if found on a taxon page. {{TPLF}}
Tropicos A very useful database on many levels with good link outs to specialist American and other sub-databases. Contains synonms as well as accepted taxa, as IPNI. Teasing out accepted taxa requires cross checking. Not always taxonomically sound, so I do not use as a prime taxonomy source. Limited references. Can be very useful for type and protologue links. {{MBG}} {{TROPICOS}}
Angiosperm Phylogeny Website Excellent for Orders to Genus. Comprehensive Reference Lists. More than taxonomy for sure. Difficult to navigate. Use browse. A searchable template is not possible. Genus lists are useful for subfamilies and tribes, but need a thorough cross check. {{APW}}
Cactaceae at (Other Families in development) Comprehensive and current synthesis of taxonomy and phylogeny in Cactaceae. Well referenced. Navigation takes a bit of getting used to, but intuitive. Essential resource for editors wishing to add data to Cactaceae pages. {{CACO}}
Brassibase Essential taxonomic tool for Brassicaeae. Very good source of literature as well. Not now as updated as frequently as we would like. Now used as a source by more generalist databases e.g. COL. {{BRBA}}
World Wide Wattle Essential taxonomic tool for Acacia s.l including segregates. Not many. Much more than a taxonomic database. {{WorldWideWattle}}
Neotropical Rubiaceae Good Tropicos project. Unfortunately neotropical only Up to date {{MBGRubiaceae}}
Euro+Med Plantbase Comprehensive source for pan-European vascular flora. Unfortunately has its own taxonomic opinions. Example {{EMD}}
African Plant Database Comprehensive source for African vascular flora. Treats Acacia s.s as a taxonomic opinion. Taxonomic opinions often at variance for the wider consensus. {{APD}}
Australian Plant Census Comprehensive source for Australian vascular flora. Contains introduced and invasive taxa. Does not always agree with WCVP etc. {{APC}}
Vascular Plants of the Americas Comprehensive source for the vascular flora of the Americas. Taxa need cross checking with other sources to assess names best used. Can be slow to update {{MBG-VPA}}
Catalogue of the Plants of Madagascar Very comprehensive using current literature. Differentiates types of endemism. Few Updated up to 2021. Taxonomic scrutiny is excellent. {{MBGMadagascar}}
Araliaceae Central: A Global Catalogue of Genera and Species Very comprehensive using current literature. Contains more detail than the taxonomy Still in development so species lists may not be available Taxonomic scrutiny is excellent. {{MBGAraliaceae}}
Example Example Example Example Example
Example Example Example Example Example
Example Example Example Example Example

All databases that I use rely heavily on the scientific literature and less on paper based sources, due to the rapid pace of continuing developments. In addition, I tend to favour the principles of monophyletic taxa cf. Euro+Med/Greuter et al. with a more relaxed morphological approach.

Specialist Databases:

Additional Templates:

Not used by myself:-

  • ILDIS Update stalled no template
  • NCBI No template
  • ITIS (2010 so not used)
  • GBIF No template
  • GRIN Slow to update and taxonomic opinions centred on the USA
  • ING can not link directly to a taxon, so not used

Where there are significant differences across the main databases, in my opinion, this is grounds for a {{disputed}} tag on taxon pages or producing two pages for the same name(s). Likewise where fellow editors are able to provide very good reasons for rejecting the wider consensus.

IP address[edit]

Why when not logged in users IP address show.Yahoot7 (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Yahoot7: Sorry to have not replied before, but I have been away from a secure internet connection until today. Wikispecies ignores users who are not logged in for security reasons. IP addresses can be used by multiple people, therefore your user ID is ignored if you use WS without logging in. Hope this makes sense. Andyboorman (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you @Andyboorman i am glad you replied i forgot what i said because it was so long thank you. Yahoot7 (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


@Andyboorman: Dear Andy,
I think, that after update by Tropicos the {{MBG}} seems to be out of order.
Can you help?
In {{taxonbar}} the Link is o.k. (example here: Paphiopedilum bellatulum.
Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Orchi: I use {{TROPICOS}} instead. --Eryk Kij (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eryk Kij: & @Orchi:. MGB is used on so many pages, but ID code was optional, unlike Tropicos. Just needs a coder or update, as I can get it work with the ID, but not without. Fingers crossed. Andyboorman (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
....thanks. Orchi (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clinopodium pamphylicum[edit]

you may be right. but how do we analyze the Clinopodium pamphylicum species? We will ignore this species. How do we resolve this mess? This species is found in the flora of Turkey. you say. How shall we do? --Fagus (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Fagus: Taxonomically the species and subspecies revert to Drymosiphon pamphylicus (Boiss. & Heldr. ex Benth.) Melnikov, Novosti Sist. Vyssh. Rast. 46: 181 (2015) and equivalents, until somebody formally publishes the required corrections. Flora of Turkey has no authority to overturn the rules of nomenclature and should be contacted pointing out the errors. I have removed those acceptable synonyms from Drymosiphon, which may help clarify the matter. WS can not do any more than reflect the messy reality! Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 10:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


¿What do we do with taxonbar, can it be included or has it been prohibited?. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry we need to set up a vote> I will do this in the next few days. Sorry. Andyboorman (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MILEPRI: The vote is now open [2]. Andyboorman (talk) 11:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting time is over. can it be used? Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MILEPRI: Thanks for reminding me. Vote has passed so go ahead!! Andyboorman (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Unplaced taxon"[edit]

I have two doubts about this recent addition.

  1. Is that really a term in common enough use? Because "unplaced name" is pretty much the exact definition of incertae sedis, leading to my second concern...
  2. The definition's formulation is highly misleading and it took me quite a bit of puzzling before I worked out what concept was being referred to in the first place. The problem being described—at least as far as I can figure it out!—is that the taxon is accepted (hence no need for synonymizing, to begin with) but the name in current use (a key factor of that situation!) is not acceptable to the relevant code (not valid/legitimate/available/validly published). I've never seen a standard term being used for it.
    • Well, Alain Dubois probably came up with one, but I find his nomenclatural writing to be essentially incomprehensible and I refuse to trawl them to check that.

Circeus (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I could rewrite, but it is a term I more or less lifted from RG Kew. It is used occasionally on WCSP and POWO, for example Leopoldia ghouschtchiensis. They, and others, synonymise Leopoldia with Muscari, but this combination has no equivalent, but is validly described and locally accepted, hence according to Kew is "unplaced". Andyboorman (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • What a strange terminological choice on their part. I would not have gone anywhere near there, as the name/taxon is quite obviously not "unplaced": according them it belongs in Muscari!. It's just... a typical unpublished combination. Circeus (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Circeus:. I disagree Leopoldia ghouschtchiensis is clearly published and so valid. I assume you mean its equivalent in Muscari is not published and in which case that name does not exist and can not be accepted or used. The taxon then is a floater, neither a synonym nor a accepted, which is what I understand Kew mean by an Unplaced Name. The plant can not just disappear because of an artificial taxonomical uncertainty and its presence prevents the full synonymy of Muscari and Leopoldia. I am coming a across a number of these situations as the vast majority of easier genera get blue linked, for example Pennisetum/Cenchrus. Andyboorman (talk) 08:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]