User talk:DenesFeri

From Wikispecies
Latest comment: 3 years ago by DenesFeri in topic Bullet points
Jump to navigation Jump to search



What sources are you using for your work on this genus? Parthenocissus inserta (A.Kern.) Fritsch is a synonym of Parthenocissus vitacea (Knerr) A.S.Hitchc. according to Hassler, but Govaerts et al notes that the correct name is Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.). Bizarrely Tropicos has both in its synonymy! Can both Hassler and Govaerts be be right? Thoughts? Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Andyboorman:, I used this one Accepted species Plants of the World Online, which you deleted. DenesFeri (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Look at this discussion with @MPF: - PWO is incorrect. P. inserta is the right combination, if you read Pringle's article.

"Hello I noticed your reverts on the above genus. Parthenocissus inserta is noted as a synonym by three secondary sources, but with different accepted names, one of which is Parthenocissus vitacea. In addition, all of these sources indicate that the later is an accepted combination not a synonym. Do you have a definitive source that clears up the contradictions, as GRIN is not a taxonomic database? If so please could you place it on the reference section. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

It has occurred to me that Pringle, J.S. 2010. Nomenclature of the Thicket Creeper, Parthenocissus inserta (Vitaceae) [1] is correct. We need to look at basionyms I guess otherwise priority still favours P. vitacea. Andyboorman (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Andyboorman: - I did the revert on the grounds that (as far as I know) Pringle is correct in assessing Vitis inserta A.Kern. [1887] to be the same taxon as Ampelopsis quinquefolia var. vitacea Knerr [1893, raised to species as Parthenocissus vitacea by Hitchcock in 1894]; I'm not aware that anyone has seriously contradicted his study. As an aside, curious, why do you say that GRIN is not a taxonomic database? It certainly performs as one. - MPF (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Great just as I thought. I will contact Hassler and Kew, particularly as the species are used as ornamentals. To my mind GRIN is very good in parts, but hopeless in others. I thought is is more to do with germplasm not taxonomy and like all secondary sources I check, but it is not my resource of first choice. Andyboorman (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)"Reply

Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: and @MPF: I'm not a botanist, so I don't know the true about this matter. And there are so many sources; which often doesn't agree. What the majority decides, I follow. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Generally PWO and Hassler are correct and agree, but there can be anomalies and this the case. I always try to check, but may have missed this one. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Andyboorman and DenesFeri: - I've found one source which goes against Pringle; FNA claim that Kerner's type material of Vitis inserta matches P. quinquefolia better than the other taxon (P. vitacea in their estimation), but they do not appear to be very strongly convinced and acknowledge Pringle's reasoning too. - MPF (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
@MPF: The description of the tendril discs and their method of attachment for Parthenocissus inserta, as noted by Pringle, is radically different when compared to Parthenocissus quinquefolia from all sources. FNA tends to gloss over this and I can not get hold of the original protologue of Vitis inserta. PWO follows FNA and Hassler Pringle, it appears. As WS can not do OR, I guess we will need thee taxon pages with notes about the problem. Andyboorman (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Bullet points


Hi Denes - you added a bullet in your edit at Quercus petraea; there shouldn't be one there under the ==Name== header. Only in the ===Synonyms=== list and ==References== list, where multiple entries necessitate it to generate a new line with each entry. ==Name== of course only has a single entry, so a bullet is not needed. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi @MPF:, OK, But I like to put them in. And in my opinion it looks better that way. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 09:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hi DenesFeri. Your personal opinion does not count here you have to follow consensus. Please do not treat WS as your personal space. Andyboorman (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Sorry that came out a bit blunt and rude! Andyboorman (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Andyboorman:, That's ok, I understand. I already undo many of my doings. Cheers. DenesFeri (talk) 08:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply