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)

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

Template:Nadi[edit]

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)

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

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)

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

Notice[edit]

@Andyboorman:
Dear Andy, please have a look here: User:207.162.135.210. Thanks and greetings. Orchi (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Inula and others[edit]

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

Greetings[edit]

@Andyboorman:
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)

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)

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

Chamaecytisus[edit]

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)

@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)
@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)
@MILEPRI: Great that is exactly what I would do. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Halimodendron[edit]

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)

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

Rustia[edit]

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)

@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)

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

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)

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)
{@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)

Genus Dracula[edit]

@Andyboorman:
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)

Dear @Orchi: I will contact Rafael and let you know. Stay safe and best regards Andyboorman (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
....thanks and greetings. Orchi (talk) 08:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@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)
@Andyboorman:
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)

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)

@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)

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)

  • 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)
Hi @MPF: I will look forward to reading it. - Andyboorman (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Aylostera[edit]

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)

@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)
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)
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.