User talk:Epibase

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Wikispecies!

Hello, and welcome to Wikispecies! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

If you have named a taxon, then it is likely that there is (or will be) a Wikispecies page about you, and other pages about your published papers. Please see our advice and guidance for taxon authors.

If you have useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at Wikimedia Commons. This is also true for video or audio files containing bird songs, whale vocalization, etc.

Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) and the date. Please also read the Wikispecies policy What Wikispecies is not. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Again, welcome! OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hybrid names syntax[edit]

Hello, thanks for your valueable contributions!
I would like to know why are you writing the hybrid names as Genus ×species. The accepted taxonomic convention with most authorities is to add a space before the species, namely: Genus × species. Mariusm 17:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another point: You edited the Chionodoxa genus, and left out Chionodoxa forbesii, Chionodoxa luciliae and Chionodoxa sardensis. Can you please redirect these species, or else, add them back to the genus? Mariusm 17:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the hybrid syntax I'm following the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) APPENDIX I. NAMES OF HYBRIDS. Article H.5 [1]. I see no reason why not, but I'm not stubborn if Wikispecies agree to another convention. As for Chionodoxa I will have another look to correct things. Epibase 05:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've included most (or maybe all) Chionodoxa names under Scilla, with redirections.
The relevant reference for hybrid syntax is ICBN Art. H.3, Rec. H.3A: "The multiplication sign ×, indicating the hybrid nature of a taxon, should be placed so as to express that it belongs with the name or epithet but is not actually part of it. The exact amount of space, if any, between the multiplication sign and the initial letter of the name or epithet should depend on what best serves readability" [my emphasis] - this is a change in the Vienna Code from previous editions of the Code, where no spacing was previously specified. Spacing does very clearly serve readability; consider the species Rosa xanthina, and the hypothetical hybrid Rosa × anthina; with no spacing, the two would appear almost identical (would be identical, if an 'x' was used rather than a '×') and could be confused very easily. It is probably best to use a hard space (& nbsp;) between the × and the species name to avoid line breaks. - MPF 12:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe best to have an open discussion about this. In Wikispecies we can use "×" and therefor no space is needed in my opinion as confusion can be avoided easily. But I'm just one voice. 14:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References format[edit]

Hi, please take care with references format. Most importantly, for journal articles, the journal names goes in italics, but the article title doesn't (except for books). Otherwise, good stuff... Thanks, Stho002 08:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Epibase - GRIN is wrong here; the original spelling "Stewartia" is correctable under ICBN Art. 60, as the genus is named after John Stuart, Earl of Bute (1713-1792), not a "John Stewart", and 'stewart' is not an intentional Latinisation of 'stuart' (so 60.7 does not apply). Linnaeus was misled over the spelling of his name due to an earlier error in the caption to an illustration of S. malacodendron by Ehret. See discussion in e.g. Bean, Trees & Shrubs Hardy in the British Isles vol. 4. - MPF 12:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I have understood that the name is in dispute but I have not been able to find a clear answer to what should be the proper name, and thus followed and the wast majority of literature. Please feel free to make any changes you think is necessary. Epibase 16:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Epibase had it right, Stewartia is the correct spelling.

Good grief, there is no "dispute". If you have any doubt about it, just check any modern botanical reference--Tropicos, IPNI, ING, GRIN, Encyclopedia of Life, Kubitzki's Families and Genera of Vascular Plants, Flora of North America, Flora of China, Mabberley's Plant Book, and every revisionary treatment of the genus in the last 50 years. One obscure horticultural book from the popular press does not trump all the modern botanical literature.

Dispute or not, apparently I did the the correct thing in changing to Stewartia in Wikispecies. (ref. [2] Epibase 14:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Requested[edit]

Wider opinions and comments are requested on the village pump here regarding a proposed change in formatting of the taxonavigation section. Please read the and comment.--Kevmin 00:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Discussion closes 26 April 2009 Stho002 00:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I just noticed that you are handling synonyms in a highly non-standard way. We may need to discuss. The main reason why I create pages for synonyms is so someone who searches for the name gets redirected to the (page of the) currently valid name. This is not what you are doing... Stho002 08:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please explain as I not quite sure what you refer to. I have asked around regarding handling of synonyms and didn't get a standard answer. Epibase 08:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am talking about pages like Nivaria! You are the only person creating pages like this! I would have a page for Nivaria, but it would simply redirect to Leucojum Stho002 09:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC) For example, if you search (using the search box on the left) for Rhipidius, you get redirected to Ripidius, where you see (in the synonymy) that Rhipidius is a (common) unjustified emendation. Stho002 09:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now I follow. Well it started when I tried to get an answer if Wikipecies are a database for recognized taxa or for published taxa and there did't seems to be a consensus to this. So I made some of these pages hoping for a reaction and you did today. I can redirect instead. But what about homonyms, shall I create a... what it's name... a "fork-page"? In theory there could be lot's of Nivaria's. Epibase 09:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikispecies is a database for recognized taxa and for published taxa. Published taxa that are not recognised taxa get listed in the synonyms section of the relevant recognised taxon page, and get a page created for them which simply redirects to the relevant recognised taxon page. Clear? As for homonyms, they need to be disambiguated. See, for example, what happens when you type Edalus into the search box. Stho002 09:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will of course follow, I'm not here to be difficult, just contributing...and yes it's clear  :-). 09:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

User pages[edit]

Hi :) I found your user pages located in main namespace. They should be moved to user namespace, e.g.:

Epibase (user) edit pageUser:Epibase/edit page etc.

It is not good seen when other person makes changes in your namespace, so please, do it yourself. Of course, I can help, if you need it. Regards, Ark 06:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for this advice, I didn't know... UME 07:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I found this template, so they were deleted :-) Now, they are on place, I think, but you need to revert last edition. Regards, Ark 18:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It might not be you fault at all... it's more likely I made some mistake... thank you for your help UME 19:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


I'll better wait a while ;-) Ark 13:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{subfam}}, {{trib}}, {{subtrib}}...[edit]

Since these are all formatted the same way, why not just create a single template? Something like nice and short like {{t}} for "taxon" (the current template is unused and looks useless). Or do you have some other purpose for creating separate templates (I guess for semantic purposes)? Rocket000 17:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess you're right... it just felt easier as it's somehow tricky to remember which rank you dealing with... Epibase 23:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Template:image[edit]

 Done I tried to keep the same usability of the [[File:]] syntax, by allowing the parameters in any order. This way you can skip the width if you just want to change the description without having to explicitly type the parameter name (|3= in this case). You just can't make the caption a string of numbers or a mathematical equation, but I doubt that will be a problem here. ;)

About those formatting templates.. I'll just leave them for now. Who knows, maybe having different ones will come in handy one day. It makes it more machine friendly anyway. Rocket000 04:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Argemone or Prickly poppy[edit]

The correct name of Argemone for South America is A subfusiformis Probably, many amateurs are using A.mexicana sensu lato

regards --Penarc 02:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do one separate A. mexicana and A. subfusiformis? Epibase 08:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is difficult the fruit of A MEXICANA are oblong (more spheroid) than A.subfusiformis (so fusiform), the ratio of lobes of leaves are greater in A mexicana --Penarc (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alocasia amazonica[edit]

Hi :) Could you check this diff? Ark (talk page) 18:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have moved it to the talk page Stho002 22:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I'm not sure what you want me to do. Alocasia ×amazonica André might to be an invalid name, maybe better refered to as Alocasia 'Amazonica'. However, the fact that it is not listed in IPNI or Tropicos is not a guarantee that is hasn't been described to science. There are MANY names not listed there which still is indeed correctly published. In my opinion the name could deserve a place in Wikispecies even if it's not valid as it is in general use.... with a clear notation that this is an illegitme name. I have included Clematis ×fargesioides, a name in use, but probably without a formal publication.
I've contacted IPNI and GRIN for a comment on Alocasia amazonica. Epibase 01:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks. I didn't know what to do with this. Ark (talk page) 17:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for wasting your time, but I don't work in botany, and you do :) Could you look at this, please? Don't answer, if it is ok. Ark (talk page) 22:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've fixed the article, now at: Vachellia macracantha. Epibase 07:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Epibase - all of the new "species" you added described by Spjut should be deleted, Spjut is self-published, not peer-reviewed, and none of his taxa are accepted by any serious botanists ;-) - MPF 00:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for this info, I will review Taxus as son as possible. Epibase 09:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome! I've reviewed the genus, all that's needed is to delete the pages tagged with {{delete}} (see my contribs) - MPF 11:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll deal with it tonight Epibase 11:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reference about Echinopsis[edit]

Hello Epibase, I see you create a redirect from Echinopsis eyriesii to Echinopsis oxygona, but wikipedia articles of these species are different ones (CITES includes both in appendix II). I am looking for it, but I don't find a reference that justify your action, and A. oxygona only has the Anderson's book as literature. Please, review it, and tell me what your reference is, thanks. Regards.--Jatrobat 05:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again, Epibase. Thank you very much for your reference. I see your edition too. Regards.--Jatrobat 00:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

citation date of websites[edit]

Hi, There seems to be some inconsistency in your citation of websites. in Laelia albida you have :

"Govaerts, R. & al. 2006. World Checklist of selected plant families. The Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens. 2010 Jan 19 [1]

The International Plant Names Index 2009. Published on the Internet. 2010 Jan 19 "

I suspect the "2010 Jan 19" is when you accessed these websites. If so, the dates of the references themselves should also be "2010" This is what they advise themselves as they are continuously updated. Not sure were the 2006 and 2009 dates come from. So I suggest changing them to:

"Govaerts, R. & al. 2010. World Checklist of selected plant families. The Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, accessed 2010 Jan 19 [1]

The International Plant Names Index 2010. Published on the Internet, accessed 2010 Jan 19 " --Weepingraf 12:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What to do?[edit]

Hi. What to do with this and this pages? Ark (talk page) 19:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Autopatrolled rights[edit]


Dear Epibase, You have been granted autopatrolled user rights, which may be granted to experienced Wikispecies users who have demonstrated an understanding of Wikispecies policies and guidelines. In addition to what registered users can do, autopatrollers can have one's own edits automatically marked as patrolled (autopatrol). The autopatrol user right is intended to reduce the workload of new page patrollers and causes pages created by autopatrolled users to be automatically marked as patrolled. For more information, read Wikispecies:Autopatrollers.

Wikispecies-logo.svg This user has autopatrolled rights on Wikispecies. (verify)

You may as autpatroller use the autopatroller user box on your user page. Copy and paste the following code on your user page:

{{User Autopatroller}}

Dan Koehl (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]