User talk:Fagus

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome back[edit]

It is so good to see you back contributing again. I am sorry to have caused offence, but my reverts were well meaning. As you may have noticed I am also contributing to Hesperis, but please do not think that I am trying to harass you. I am trying to be helpful by adding protologues, synonyms and so on. I notice that you are now using Brassibase. I have always chosen Brassibase over Plants of the World Online for the simple reason that the former database is constructed by specialists in Brassicaceae, whereas PWO is generalist. That is not to say Brassibase is infallible, but most certainly it is far less prone to errors compared to PWO. Indeed, if I think I have come across an error, or have a question then they are very quick to reply and correct, if required. However, there is a recent caveat and that is the specialists are undertaking a major review of the family. They were hoping to complete this by the end of the year, but in the meantime I would still go with Brassibase even though it is a year or so out of date. All the best. Andyboorman (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hesperis and IPNI and Brassibase[edit]

I have contacted both of these databases about inconsistencies. I have emailed IPNI about missing combinations, such as Hesperis bottae, but have yet to hear back from them. I am also waiting for editors in Brassibase to get back to me about their lack of updates. I will let you know when I get replies. In the mean time, if you send me details of missing IPNI combinations for Hesperis that you are aware of then I can compile a list to send to them. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 11:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

IPNI will update in a day or so. Andyboorman (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


Hello. You have made changes to the species list in Acer] that are not supported by the list of references, as an example Acer eucalyptoides. Will you be able to rectify this error in the very near future? Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the references on Acer oblongum var. oblongum, but this still leaves WS favouring one taxonomic opinion over another. Do you think this is correct, given that the references are all secondary? Will you have a problem if I reinstate Acer eucalyptoides? Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I think the China flora here should be considered. It is the joint decision of 5 botanists there. --Fagus (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Agreed that it carries a lot of weight, but for example PWO is based out of Kew Gardens and COL(World Plants) is a collaboration of a lot of botanists. Surely, us humble editors on WS can not say that one group is more prestigious than another? This lack of consensus is a reality that will no doubt get sorted out in due course, but not by editors on WS. Andyboorman (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Broken redirects[edit]

Why did you do edits like this one to Acer leptophyllum? —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

We have several hundreds here and you are responsible for several of them. E.g. Polygonum humilis. Are you going to fix all of them? —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


Hi are the sections sustainable? I cannot find any reference for them outside Russia. USA and Europe do not seem to use them and Nord in Columbines: Aquilegia, Paraquilegia, and Semaquilegia (2003) is pretty disparaging. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Aquilegia and apologies[edit]

Hello again. I have had to move reference template Ernst, 2017 to Ernst et al., 2017. I know it can be annoying to have to acknowledge multiple authors for a paper, but it is WS consensus and has been for a number of years. I do not know whether or not if any of the other authors have their own page. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)