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  
The archives are searchable:

Thanks for the edits on Lagunaria patersonia[edit]

Very helpful MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you help me please?[edit]

Dear Andy,
a) I would like to divide the category Commons:Category:Unidentified Orchidaceae in commons.
What form would you suggest? e.g. "Unidentified Orchidaceae by genera" or "Unidentified Orchidaceae sorted by genera" or better suggest.
b) Where can I find the translations in Wikispecies e.g. of { {int:Synonyms}} etc.
Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Orchi: I would suggest a range, for example, "Unidentified Orchidaceae Genera", "Unidentified Orchidaceae Species" and so on. The later would of course be under their generic category.
I do not know about int:Synonyms could @Pigsonthewing: or @Tommy Kronkvist: help? All the best Andyboorman (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello Andy, thank you for your proposals. (English terms are better controlled by you). Greetings. Orchi (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Andy and @Orchi:
  1. I agree with Andy's suggestion of using "range names" but – even though it's only a formality – I suggest using lower case letters for the ranks, i.e. "Unidentified Orchidaceae genera", "Unidentified Orchidaceae species" etc.
  2. For translations of individual terms in our interface like {{int:Synonyms}} etc, please see Wikispecies:Localization. Feel free to add translations of the missing, red-linked items! Other pages that might be helpful include Special:LanguageStats and Special:SearchTranslations, as well as the templates {{Translatable template}} (a.k.a "TNT") and {{Dynamite}}.
Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist: and @Orchi: Thanks Tommy. Agreed lower case for ranks. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: and @Tommy Kronkvist:. ....thanks for your help. Done in Commons. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Tapinanthus globifer[edit]

Hello Andyboorman, you moved Tapinanthus globifer to Tapinanthus globiferus, because you think the name was unreferenced. But look at Tropicos where the name is corrected to globifer. This is according to Melbourne ICBN Art. 32.2.: the masculine form of the adjective is "globifer" (globifera, globiferum for feminine and neutral form). So I guess Tropicos is right, although most other databases are still citing the original but errorneous spelling. There were also two wikidata items, which I joined (and I hope this will be correct for wikidata, as they often prefer to store several items for the same thing...). Cheers, --Thiotrix (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Thiotrix: Tropicos is not always right or follows consensus and in this case does not cite the articles and seems to just make an auto-correct. I have had a good look at the Articles cited not sure I agree with an autocorrect. "Fer" can be a verb meaning bearing or carrying or an adjective meaning wild, as in "ferox". In this case I assume that the authors were alluding to the plant "bearing a globular" inflorescence or some other distinctive feature - need to read and translate the protologue. "Globifer" or indeed any of its forms, e.g. "globiferus" are not translations from Latin, but appear to be adjectival compound epithets (Art 60.8). "Fer" is a verb and has no gender just plurality. In this case it seems that original spelling holds unless there are compounding errors or other orthographic problems. Matching the masculine "us" for the genus is fine surely? Any way, this is only opinion and IPNI has not made the corrections for this and any similar epithets. I go with INPI over all other secondary sources of this nature, unless completely convinced of an error. I would suggest taking this to the pump for a wider set of opinions - there are some really good plant taxonomists here. Andyboorman (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Why do you think that globifer is not a latin word? I can find it in latin online dictionaries. IPNI knows several species ending globifer, named by taxonomists with good latin knowledge. But there are also several species ending globiferus. The protologue of Tapinanthus globiferus refers to A.Rich., which means it bases on Loranthus globiferus A.Rich., though not explicitely cited. Its protologe says: "Corolla tubulosa unciali, basi abrupte in globulum pisiformem inflata", these are the globular structures at the base of the flower corolla. --Thiotrix (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
@Thiotrix: Well I get no results from any online dictionaries except that it is likely to be compound word! IPNI indicates that they are OK with both options and also include "globifera" and "globiferum" on a species epithet search. It looks like as far as they are concerned the original publication or basionym is what counts and matched to the genus. I have had another incidence pointed out to me and that is Micropus globiferus basionym of Psilocarphus tenellus var. globiferus (Bertero ex DC.) Morefield, Madroño 39: 156. 1992 see Tropicos here. However, their article citation seems bizarre and they also go for another accepted species namely P. chilensis. In addition, a Google Scholar search shows a big fat zero for T. globifer - just a thought. I would still go with IPNI, but if you email them they will reply with a considered opinion in my experience. Andyboorman (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
In A Grammatical Dictionary of Botanical Latin, it seems that -fer,-era,-erum (adj. A suffix) is classical latin, but they note: "the ending -ferus in the nominative masculine singular is less often used than -fer" .Maybe this means it seems to be acceptable. I will follow your advice and email with IPNI about their opinion. --Thiotrix (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the link - interesting page and very clear. IPNI has more ferus than fer, but I guess that this is an historical preference by the taxon authors. I look forward to reading what IPNI have to say. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 08:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
That was fast! Thanks for your advice of asking IPNI. They have already answered and updated to Tapinanthus globifer. For other taxa named globiferus they will consider a possible change (if the name means "globe bearing" then globifer is correct, but meaning "wild", then -ferus is correct). By the way, they added the missing basionym author, too. They told me, that there are thousands of combinations without parenthetical authors in IPNI, because in the beginning they were not recorded, and the work of updating is still ongoing.

Excellent we will follow IPNI. Thanks for the below as well - I use it and just wanted to pass it around to a couple of editors who now need it due to their contributions. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

An addition to the topic below: for automatic redirects, you just need to add one single line to a User:Username/common.js page: importScript('User:Rillke/createRedirects.js');. It is not necessary to copy the complete code, and so you will always use the current version. Cheers, --Thiotrix (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixing E.Hossain[edit]

Hi Andy. Could you take a look at E.Hossain I think IPNI shows that this entry needs moving, needs a new default sort, and .... I was reluctant to touch it for fear of making a major mess. MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Margaret. I think you are right and will have a look later today. I am not a big creator of taxon authorities, but my main approach is to follow IPNI in order to keep consistency. Wikidata should also follow this as well - this whole set of categories seems to be designed to help out WD in my opinion. I tend to be a redlink filler for taxa and to get a lot more scientific papers and robust secondary sources onto WS. By the way I have a neat process for getting synonym redirects automatically created. I will try and figure how to get it over to you and a couple of other newbies active here. Cheers. Andyboorman (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Banksia or Dryandra[edit]

Hi Andy. On Australian endemic species I follow APNI, and thus you can see for Banksia acanthopoda (A.S.George) A.R.Mast & K.R.Thiele, this species was formerly accepted as Dryandra acanthopoda, but now has the APC (CHAH) tick of approval as Banksia acanthopoda, based on the Mast & Thiele publication. On Australian endemic species, IPNI usually follows APNI but has not always caught up (I think this is the reason for the difference), and similarly it is not always the case that the northern hemisphere sites are in sync with APNI. (I haven't touched this stuff, nor read up on it, so can't make a general comment. I am strictly an amateur here, with an interest in the history of botany and linking species to their publications.).... MargaretRDonald (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I also check Plants of the World online which always lists accepted species for a genus (and there is a third site, whose name is not to hand which I also check...) When POW and CHAH are in agreement, I am reasonably happy. MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks seems like a done deal then! I will do the work later today. Andyboorman (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


I suggest blocking spam-only accounts indefinitely. (Obviously, the underlying IP address should not be blocked that way.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Done thanks for the suggestion. Andyboorman (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Just wondering[edit]

(First post copied from User talk:Fagus#Just wondering.)

Hello Fagus. What is the reason for adding {{}} to various entities in templates, such as Template Salviinae? It does not appear to have a function. Andyboorman 10:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

It has a function. Taxonomic rank translates into local languages. --Fagus (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Fagus: I thought in science we all used the same scientific terms for taxon ranks. If that is not the case then I suggest you ask, via the pump, for someone to write a bot to automate the process. Otherwise it will become a massive undertaking. Cheers. Andyboorman 11:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Fagus: I advice against using templated entities for ranks in the Taxonavigation section, such as for example the {{Subtribus}} template in the {{Subtribus}}: [[Salviinae]] code string in the {{Salviinae}} template. A better way is to use "int:" for translations, like this: {{int:Subtribus}}:  Salviinae
We already use it for section headlines, as in for example =={{int:Publications}}== where it works well.
Please note that "int:" is a MediaWiki magic word and not a template, even though it is formatted in almost the same way. Using the magic word requires the taxon ranks (and their translations) to be added to Wikispecies:Localization, but that shouldn't pose a problem. There is also an extra bonus with using "Wikispecies:Localization", since we would then be able to see all of the translations on a single page, rather than in each and every separate "taxon rank template". –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist: I understand. Sensible. how will we do it. Could you help.-Fagus (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
@Fagus: Give me a day or two and I'll sort it out. :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC).
@Fagus: Is there any particular reason why you have chosen to specifically use anchor = fr within the {{TranslateThis}} string of the templates? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist: I saw a few examples. and I did it. I saw it was successful. there is no special reason. --Fagus (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


Hi Andy, I am struggling to get a template for such things as {{Trithecanthera}}. I can see that it has been done, but not how to do it. MargaretRDonald (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


/Archive 4 Hi, Andy. Oliverella is a legitimate Loranthaceae (Oliverellaː Govaerts et al.) but the page, Oliverella, redirects to Echeveria. Could you fix this (I think, improper) redirection? MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@MargaretRDonald: Oliverella sorted. Add a post later. Andyboorman (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Andy. (Looking forward to the how). Regards MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@MargaretRDonald: Lets give it a go. When I first clicked on Oliverella above I got this couple of lines right at the top of the Echeveria taxon page;

(Redirected from Oliverella)

Oliverella was in blue, a clickable link, so I clicked and saw;

#REDIRECT [[Echeveria]]

I got rid of this and - well have a look through the revision history here. Hope this is understandable. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Dealing with synonymy[edit]

Hi Andy. I can see that others have dealt with synonymy by using redirects, but I have no idea how to go about this. In particular, I would like to delete the current page for Muellerina eucalyptifolia and redirect this page to Muellerina eucalyptoides. I was hoping that you might both do this and indicate to me how you achieved it. (That would be fantastic.) MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@MargaretRDonald:. I have made the redirect as asked. Firstly I opened both pages, went to edit then blanked Muellerina eucalyptifolia and used the #REDIRECT [[]] wikimarkup, which you find at the bottom. I finally copied Muellerina eucalyptoides into the square brackets in the redirect code. On the Muellerina eucalyptoides I checked that Muellerina eucalyptifolia was in the list of synonyms. I have also made some additional edits before checking that the redirects had been made using the redirect tool that I mentioned to you a week or so ago. Then it was publish changes. Big tip use the edit history tool. Hope this helps Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
@Andyboorman:. Thanks, Andy. Very helpful & kind of you. (I will get there - eventually) MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
@MargaretRDonald: You are very welcome and you are very much getting there! Andyboorman (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

disambiguation / redirection and associated wikidata...[edit]

Hi Andy. I moved the page Thyridia to Thyridia (Nymphalidae) and then wrote a disambiguation page, because of Thyridia (Phrymaceae) ... However, the wikidata page for the new Thyridia (Nymphalidae) page is named Thyridia and refers to the butterflies... I am not sure what needs to be done with respect to the wikidata item associated with Thyridia (Nymphalidae) MargaretRDonald (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You do not have to do anything about the WD items. WD has two entries differentiated by their Q numbers - see here and here. The WD links on the left hand side of the taxon pages automatically pull up the correct WD pages. Good work with the disambigs and creation of the new page for the butterflies. It is what I would have done as well. Andyboorman (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Issue no[edit]

Hi Andy! You partially reverted one of my edits. I will leave it now as it is. Anyway, generally I only use issue numbers in reference templates, when each issue has its own pagination, starting again with page 1. If the issues are bound into one volume, the issue numbers would not help anything to locate a certain publication in a library – page number is sufficient in any case. One the other hand, issue number would be distracting in reference templates like Bentham (1851), where one publication is continued through several issues within one volume. Such kind of serialised publications is rather common in the older literature. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Franz Xaver:. I take your points and pun. I guess I usually follow the format as used in the paper itself, assuming that is how the publisher and author(s) wish to see it displayed. No big deal I guess. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Chamaeleon (Asteraceae)[edit]

Me agradaría que revisase Chamaeleon (Asteraceae), que he revisado según CatalogueofLife pero que otro compañero lo mantiene como Carlina según EuroMed, anulando lo que he realizado. Lo dejo pendiente hasta conocer sus comentarios. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

He contribuido mis pensamientos sobre este asunto en la página de discusión de RJL. Está en inglés así que si necesita aclaración, envíeme un mensaje aquí. Saludos. Andyboorman (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


Can you source me. Why should be included in the genus Centaurea? Recent academic studies show Cyanus genus. I think genus Cyanus should stay. --Fagus (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fagus: Most of the handful of the recent academic studies that show Cyanus as a separate genus come from Bulgaria, Turkey and Iran, but there are many botanists in this area who maintain the synonymy. The majority of others in Europe, USA etc prefer to subsume into Centaurea as one of the three subgenera. The only reliable secondary source that maintains the separation is Euro+Med and even Global Compositae Checklist notes "Usually included in Centaurea L.".

There are numerous academic studies that prefer the synonymy for example;

  • Hilpold, A., Garcia-Jacas, N., Vilatersana, R. & Susanna, A. 2014. Taxonomical and nomenclatural notes on Centaurea: A proposal of classification, a description of new sections and subsections, and a species list of the redefined section Centaurea. Collectanea Botanica 33: e001, pp. 1–29. doi: Full text PDF from ResearchGate. Reference page.  and of course since the publication of the definitive
  • Susanna, A. & Garcia-Jacas, N. 2009. Cardueae (Carduoideae). In Systematics, Evolution, and Biogeography of Compositae. Vienna: International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT). ISBN 978-3-9501754-3-1. pp.293-313. Reference page.  it has been difficult to maintain the separation. See their reference lists for more information. I can source more for example Hilpold et al., 2014. Phylogeny of the Centaurea group (Centaurea, Compositae)–geography is a better predictor than morphology. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 77: 195-215, but I have not made the templates!

I appreciate that synonymy or separation are taxonomic opinions, but it seems to me that the consensus is for the synonymy, but I am open to persuasion that is why I included you in the discussion. By the way @MILEPRI: has been making relevant redirects in Cyanus, please refrain from an edit war. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

OK. I was convinced. do you need help ? --Fagus (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Fagus: @MILEPRI: Any help appreciated, cheers. Next problem is going to be Hieracium and Pilosella and this one has very little consensus as far as I can see! Andyboorman (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


Recién comienzo a editar la familia Aizoaceae, observo mucha controversia entre editores y no deseo crear taxones que luego debo rectificar, le agradecería me indicase una referencia actual válida que me sirva de guía. Como siempre agradecido. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi @MILEPRI: Prueba esta lista Es del sitio web Angiosperm Phylogeny y a menudo voy allí cuando comienzo un grupo contraversial. Mesembryanthemoideae tiene un solo género Mesembryanthemum y Hassler sigue esto también! APW tiene muchos papeles si estás interesado. Espero que esto ayude. Saludos. Andy


Dear Andy,
Kew has changed "Emonocot" total.
All links by the "template:Emonocot" to Emonocot to the genera or species in Wikispecies (and Commons) are no longer functional.
Today I asked User:Liné1 (expert!!!) to find a way to use the templates furthermore:

"Salu Liné1,
First of all thank you very much for your very kind words!!
I'll try to explain the theme in short sentences:

  • KEW has changed „Emonocot“ total.
  • in the past the link for e.g. Anacamptis was: Anacamptis
  • now the first page is: [1]
  • the next following link is: [2]
  • in the past was used the id number of KEW by Emonocot.
  • now is the id number of IPNI in use.
  • Therefore the "Templates:EMonocot" in Commons and Wikispecies are not in function more.

Can you find a way to connect the names of a genus or a species by ignoring the old ID number of KEW in the tempates? e.g. ({Emocotdir|2013|May|20|8565})

I hope, you understand my explanations. Cheers. "

Another major change concerns the presentation of the distribution of the plants:
Emonocot shows no longer as „WCSP“ the botanical regions by: „References: Brummitt, R.K. (2001) TDGW – World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions, 2nd Edition“,
but only in an alphabetical list by countries.
Please could you ask Rafaël Govaerts, if this simplification remains? Cheers. Orchi (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear Andy,
...with the very good knowledge of User:Liné1 could the links to EMonocot be restored in Commons. I copied the changes in Wikispecies and now the old links are in function furthermore. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 10:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Dear Orchi thanks for dealing with this. I will ask about the distribution data in due course. Cheers. Andyboorman (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Dear Andy,
although I am not an expert, you see, I have written a small program to translate the abbreviations and numbers on the pages of KEW into the "nadi-form"; only for "Native to:" and not for "Introduced into:"
Cheers. Orchi (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Drepanocarpus lunatus[edit]

Dear Andyboorman. Thanks a lot for adding 'Drepanocarpus lunatus' and the other synonyms! Best regards. Sommerluk (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


Le informo que he incluido la especie Conopodium brevifolium en el género Conopodium, ya que figura en CatalogueofLife como válida provisionalmente. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Tenga en cuenta que en la PUMP acordamos que WS no debería tener una página de taxón para taxones provionally aceptados, ya que aún no han sido formalmente validados. A menos que el nombre esté en uso fuera de WS, COL u otras fuentes secundarias, excepto tal vez Flora local. Debe agregar una nota y una referencia, no solo un enlace a la página COL. Andyboorman (talk) 09:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

E.Z. Tron[edit]

Hi Andy. Do you happen to know whether the (Russian?) botanist E.Z. Tron was (is?) male or female? It's not overly important in terms of taxonomy, however knowing the author's gender would help sort out a few quirks at Wikidata. Knowing the author's given name would of course be even better, since in most cases that also gives a good hint about the gender.

As a reminder you and I have come across that author name before, in regards to Muscari dolichanthum (syn. Muscari steupii) and categories for endemism (see your talk page archives and User talk:SKas). Thankfully all of that stuff has been taken care of a long time ago, and in a good way.

–Cheers, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC).

Sorry I can not help here. I have also had a look around, but very little evidence on the net. Probably need to go to Kew or similar and ask a specialist archivist. Cheers. Andyboorman (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I sort of guessed it, but thank you very much for your efforts! I too had a very hard time finding any useful information about him/her, even i Russian. I figured I might ask you anyway, since you have a lot more knowledge, experience and are better updated than me about all things botanical. I wont be heading over to Kew anytime soon, but I guess I might have a go at the University of Uppsala Botanical Garden, since after all I live in Uppsala... Many, many years ago I knew their current garden director fairly well, but back then we mostly discussed limnology and ichthyology rather than botany (also, he didn't get employed by the botanical garden until years later). We haven't met for quite a while so I think I'll pop in and say hello. I might persuade him to give me the grand tour of their library, and with some luck perhaps I can find some data about our elusive E.Z. Tron there. Also, the Botanical Garden is right next-door to the (very understaffed...) UPS Herbarium, and perhaps they have some information as well. Not very probable, I know, but we'll see. Cheers, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC).


Note: This discussion was started here.
Show species and genera italic. --Fagus (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Now I know where that comes from thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


Observo que el género Mackinlaya figura en wikispecies en la familia Apiceacea y en Kew y Catalogueif Life como Araliaceae. Agradecería me indicase el actual taxón que tiene validez. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

COL sigue WCSP para que sean lo mismo. El consenso de la mayoría es que Mackinlaya y sus parientes pertenecen a la subfamilia Mackinlayoideae de las Apiaceae. Vea las referencias que tengo y proporcionaré en las páginas de los taxones Apiales, Apiaceae y Mackinlayoideae. Voy a enviar un correo electrónico a Kew para preguntarles la razón por la cual aún mantienen su punto de vista más antiguo y, si es necesario, investigar más. Debemos mantener las cosas como están, pero tal vez escriba una nota explicando que Kew y Col mantienen la visión anterior de Apiales en este caso. Saludos. Andyboorman (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@MILEPRI: Rafaël Govaerts ha corregido la circunscripción familiar. Fue un descuido, que nos sucede a todos! Atentamente Andyboorman (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Me pondré en contacto con Michael Hassler sobre este y algunos otros asuntos. Andyboorman (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


Hi Andy! Do you happen to know which specific scientific journal named Calyx that is referred to in Curio repens (L.) P.V.Heath, Calyx 5(4): 136. (1997)? I know of two magazines going by the name of Calyx, but one of them is a Canadian medical journal specialized in paediatrics and the other is a U.S. magazine exclusively publishing literary works written by women. None of them seems particularly prominent within the field of botany... –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC).

Hi Tommy. The botany Calyx was a shorted lived rather obscure privately published journal in Brighton via Sutton under Whitestone Cliffe, North Yorkshire, UK. It was dedicated to some aspects of African succulents and cacti, as far as I am aware it never had an ISSN. It was primarily the vehicle for English botanist Paul Heath who according to IPNI authored many plants names, including artificial nothospecies and varieties, during the early to mid 1990s. Not many of these combinations have stood the test of time, particularly as the journal was obscure and of course the taxonomy of Cactaceae is rather difficult and is still emerging. He really came to academic prominence when he was the first to advocate the segregation of succulent Senecio, particularly describing Curio P.V.Heath (1997) and under the rule of precedence his gen. nov. was accepted. His work on this was some 15/20 years ahead of mainstream academia. That is pretty well all I know without more extensive digging. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC):

Apocynum venetum[edit]

Apocynum venetum aparece como válido en Kew y como sinónimo de Poacynum venetum en CatalogueofLife. ¿?.--MILEPRI (talk) 08:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@MILEPRI: Lo consultaré con Kew. Sin embargo, han puesto todo Poacynum en sinonimia con Apocynum. Sugeriría que Kew no está convencido por la evidencia presentada por Mavrodiev, Laktionov y Yu.E.Alexeev prefiriendo mantener una posición conservadora. WS hace lo mismo y Kew es más autoritario en comparación con COL, en mi opinión. No haría cambios en Apocynum que implique cambiar la sinonimia. No puedo leer ruso pero algunos de los expertos en Kew do! No utilice el término Type specimen, ya que no tiene sentido en el contexto en que lo usa, por lo tanto, utilice las Type species aceptadas. Usted tiene un error molesto aquí. Olvídate de que Tropicos ha introducido esto, por favor. Atentamente Andyboorman (talk) 10:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


Fernaldia aparece en Kew y Catalogue of Life como sinónimo de Echites y en wikispecies aún continúa como taxón válido. ¿Hay alguna modificación actual, o debo redirigirlo?. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

La propuesta de Morales et al. (2017) ahora ha sido aceptado. Entonces transferiré datos y haré los redireccionamientos. Gracias por la información. Andyboorman (talk) 10:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hydnoroideae + references = Aristolochiaceae?[edit]

Hello my friend. I saw that you're the creator of Hydnoroideae and its related Wikispecies pages, and want to give you a heads up on this discussion at Wikidata: 互助客棧#請求合併 Q132628 到 Q25414198. That's the Chinese headline, which in plain English reads "Request to merge Hydnoraceae with Hydnoroideae [at Wikidata]". Then the Wikidata thread continues with one (1!) sentence in Chinese, claiming that "According to APG IV, Hydnoroideae is now placed in the Aristolochiaceae family", citing data from this external page.

I see that our Wikispecies' page Aristolochiaceae (also edited by you) seems to agree with most the above. What's your take on all of this, from a botanical standpoint? So far mainly User:Brya and myself has contributed to the talks at Wikidata, and of course also the Taiwanese (i.e. not Chinese) user who made the request. The user has contributed with well over 1,500 solid Wikimedia edits since 2011, but unfortunately doesn't supply any "Babel" information about other language capabilities. Do you have any good references to add to the discussion at Wikidata? Preferably some very hands-on and straightforward ones, since obviously language differences might be an issue (although I really don't know if that's the case). As far as I can see the external link presented by the user is good enough, but in my opinion it's rather cramped with data and not very legible.

–All the best, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC).

It is a bit late tonight , but this is the reference we tend to use as a starting point PDF. Botanists will now use Hydnoroideae as a sub-family of Aristolochiaceae and any reference to Hydnoraceae is as a synonym or replaced name. APG IV is just following consensus not leading it. I have now removed Hydnoraceae from the family list of Piperales, as its inclusion is confusing, but I will now need to add Nickrent et al. (2002) to the reference list to complement Naumann et al. (2013), in due course. Wikidate is a different kettle of fish if they wish to include all possibilities or concepts, as Brya points out, then Hydnoraceae is a legitimate concept, as a validly published name with a history of acceptance. Not sure this helps, particularly as I can not read the contributions as I need to log in tomorrow. Also have a look through Parasitic Plants Connection Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
@Tommy Kronkvist: I have had time to reflect and do a bit more research. Using Hydnoroideae or Hydnoraceae seems to be more of a taxonomic opinion than a done deal, so to speak, but this plant group is definitely in Piperales and close to Aristolochia. However, APGIV and APW seem to reflect an attempt to close consensus, but the use of Hydnoraceae is still common see here [3]. Given that, a search for Hydnora on Scholar finds a predominant use of Aristolochiaceae as the family name example here for the later research articles, i.e. post APGIV (2016). For WS my advice is to follow APGIV, but WD can adopt a more relaxed approach I guess, as Brya seems to advocate. Does this help? Feel free to post my reasoning on WD if requiured. Andyboorman (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your help Andy! I'm rather tired today, since "yesterday" I made my last edit to Wikispecies at 6:01 this morning... However I will soon be fit for fight again and will make good use of your thoughts and references. I like the PDFs you refer to a lot, and not only for this particular Wikidata issue. I'm sure they will prove very useful in many other cases as well, when checking other sources, updating or creating new WS pages, and such. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC).

Replacing a template[edit]

Hello, can you please explain why?--Rosičák (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Rosičák: I'll take the opportunity to answer while we're waiting for Andy Boorman and his reply. I hope you don't mind? :-) For quite some time now there has been a community consensus not to use the {{Tysp}} template, together with a whole row of similar templates such as for example {{Holotype}}, {{Lectyp}}, {{LETS}}, {{Moty}}, {{Nomen}}, {{TG}}, {{TGN}}, {{TS}}, {{TSL}}, {{TSN}}, {{TSNO}} and {{Type}}. This issue has been discussed several times over the past few years on different talk pages, noticeboards and other Wikispecies fora. Unfortunately the outcome of those discussions hasn't very often trickled down to the actual template pages, and the help pages for those templates often does not mention that the templates are unrecommended. This is of course bad and should be corrected, but there are a lot of template help pages to update... There are some templates that has been updated to state that they are "formula non grata", such as the above mentioned {{Type}} template but also for example {{Syn}} and {{Zfg}}, however in most cases that information is missing. We really should try to take care of all this and do a major "cleanup" of the help pages for almost all of our templates, but sadly no one seems interested in taking on the task... At some point we should take this matter to the Pump again, but I fear not many users will show a great deal of enthusiasm when it comes to doing the actual work...
I know that my explanation doesn't cover the whole scope of the issue, but I'm sure Andy will have some useful information as well. Best wishes, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC).
@Rosičák: and @Tommy Kronkvist:. I can only add a little to the great explanations offered by Tommy. These templates were seen to be useful as they linked to the glossary. However, it was pointed out that this was not really required in a taxonomic database that assumes some basic knowledge. In addition, the codes can cause problems, but this is not my expertise, so can not comment further. As Tommy pointed out we decided to dispense with them wherever possible and I guess now is the time for a clean up, as they seem to be creeping back as well meaning newer contributors come across them and think that they are a good idea. I was a fairly big user of {{Tysp}}, but now edit them out as I come across them. So my edit you mention was well meaning and following consensus, apologies if I offended. Finally there can be a problem with less taxonomically experienced editors when it comes to handling the differences between {{Holotype}}, {{Lectyp}}, {{LETS}}, {{Type}} and the like. Basically it was advised to stick to a simple Type species: and Type genus: with no template. The {{Syn}} and {{Zfg}} were introducing unwanted formats and also prevented the use of bots and some useful updating codes, again they should not be used.
As Tommy said we need to go back to the pump and revisit the help pages. @Rosičák: Feel free to initiate a Pump Discussion Hope this helps. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


  • Of course. I can help. --Fagus (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@Fagus: Brilliant and thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


Me encuentro con Leucocasia que no aparece en wikispecies. ¿Debo editarlo como perteneciente a la tribu Colocasieae? Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@MILEPRI: Sí, está estrechamente relacionado con Alocasia, por lo que estará en la misma tribu. WCSP lo acepta también con un poco de vacilación. Aclamaciones Andyboorman (talk) 12:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


Me encuentro con Thaumatophyllum que no aparece en wikispecies y en Catalogue of Life aparece como sinónimo de Philodendron goeldii. ¿Debo editarlo como perteneciente a la tribu Philodendreae? Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@MILEPRI: Sí, esta es una propuesta reciente por lo que puedo ver. Pertenecerá a Philodendreae hasta que se muestre lo contrario. Deberá obtener los datos de este documento si desea continuar con la propuesta de los autores. WCSP tiene solo la especie tipo aceptada. Sakuragui et al. 2018. Recognition of the genus Thaumatophyllum Schott− formerly Philodendron subg. Meconostigma (Araceae)− based on molecular and morphological evidence. PhytoKeys (98): 51-71. doi: 10.3897/phytokeys.98.25044. Philodendron también tendrá que ser editado con los 29 redireccionamientos necesarios creados. Buena suerte y saludos cordiales. Andyboorman (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


Me encuentro con Adelonema que no aparece en wikispecies. ¿Debo editarlo como perteneciente a la tribu Homalomeneae? Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

That is correct see here Homalomeneae. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


Good day Andy,
I wish you festive holidays and for the year 2019 all the best for you.
May bring us all the new year a peaceful coexistence.
Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


Gethyum merece una clasificación de no estándar, Vd sabe que el nombre de Melica Muñoz schick no está aceptado en este wiki--Penarc (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Penarc: La categoría no estándar se refiere al diseño de la página, no al taxón. Parece que hay dos opiniones con respecto a todo el clado, incluyendo Gethyum. El consenus mantiene su sinonimia con Solaria sensu Ravenna. Algunos botánicos chilenos prefieren segregar al menos una especie. WS suele ir con la visión conservadora, pero puede acomodar ambas vistas con notas apropiadas y referencias a artículos científicos. Voy a ver esto pronto. Atentamente Andyboorman (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)