User talk:Fagus/Archive 2010–2016

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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! Ark (talk page) 19:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


please don't forget in the template after genus etc. add


PeterR (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Image placement

As Help:Image Guidelines points out, the image should be on the first line (i.e. not inside the Taxonavigation section). If this norm has changed, then the Help page needs to be updated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


Please don't do this. Style standards place the image on the first line, above the Taxonavigation section. See Help:Image Guidelines#Use. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You are still putting images in the wrong place. They belong above the ==Taxonavigation== header. Please follow Wikispecies formatting. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The templare subspvar + subspvarlast

I can't get this template to work. Would you please have a look at it. I hope the get a similar result to templates subspplant and var Uleli (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


What are you doing? It is Otiorrhynchus ... Stho002 (talk) 06:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't do that

this edit of yours was vandalism, please don't do that (there are no restrictions on categories), thanks ... Stho002 (talk) 07:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


Hi, you just created some templates, like "Annual", etc. Shouldn't these be categories rather than templates? Stho002 (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi Fagus - saw you'd added an infrageneric classification for Acer. This isn't a good idea, as the phylogeny of the genus is still very uncertain, with recent genetic results not supporting the 'traditional' classification used in USDA GRIN and some other sites; see e.g. Ackerly & Donoghue, Am. Nat. 152: 767–791 (1998); Grimm et al., Evolutionary Bioinformatics Online 2: 279–294 (2006); Li et al., Harvard Papers Botany 11: 101–115 (2006). For the time being at least, the genus is best left without any subdivisions. As an aside, the species list in GRIN is also based on a text which uses a highly conservative species concept not much followed by other Acer authors, with several species widely accepted as distinct, reduced to subspecies without good justification. - MPF (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


As one of the more active users on Wikispecies, I wonder if you would accept to be nominated as one of its Wikispecies:Administrators? Dan Koehl (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Noia 64 apps help index.png

Dear, Fagus! Would you accept to be an Administrator on Wikispecies? Wikispecies need more Administrators and presently there is only 26 out of 216 active users.
Please see Administrators for information about Admins rights. If you are positive, I can nominate you on the requests for adminship on your behalf.

Dan Koehl (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi Fagus - all the species listed under Dahlia sect. Pseudodendron are also listed in Dahlia subsect. Dahlia ;-) Which is correct? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Distribution templates

You are making a big and complicated mess with distributions, I regret to have to say! You are clearly not going to be able to get very far with it, as it will take far too much time. If you do insist on doing this, please use Category:Myosotis (Syria) instead of Category:Myosotis, Syria. The reason is that the term 'Syria' in the former acts as a disambiguation term. This makes it easier to link to external databases which might have species information from Syria (though, in this case, I doubt that there are any). Stho002 (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you could have a look at the template nadi for consistency and ease? See genera and species in Orchidaceae for examples. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Why are you doing this?? It has not been properly thought through or discussed. You are free to create and use whatever categories you wish, and put whatever you wish on taxon talk pages, but you cannot just go ahead on a whim and do things which make big and complicated changes to main taxon pages. Also, don't you think that your time would be better spent adding new taxon pages and/or links to references? This is the core Wikispecies information. One problem with your "endemic" is that areas species may be endemic to change their names/boundaries and may be nested within one another (e.g. England/Great Britain/United Kingdom). It is way too complicated, and impossible to do on a large enough scale to be useful. Stho002 (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I have restored your Endemic Template, although I have some reservations about its use. Perhaps we could have some more discussion. I would like to encourage you to stay with WikiSpecies as a valued contributor. Accassidy (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back

Dear Fagus, several users were sad to found out about you leaving the Wikispecies project, due to activities from User:Stho002. They lead to discussions on the Village pump, and User:Stho002 has now been blocked for a week, and during this week, further improvements to secure a stabile working anvironment on Wikispecies will be discussed.

There is a hope that you return and contribute to Wikispecies as a valued contributor. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Great to see you contributing again, welcome back! Dan Koehl (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled rights


Dear Fagus, 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)

New Swedish title

I spotted your today's publication page, and it looked familiar. Is earlier alternative title to Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar. I went ahead and updated that page, with BHL link, and publisher information. Thus, ISSN page will be very good link for any citations. New page now may be redundant.

Journals before 1900 can be nightmares, particularly Swedish and German. They changed titles every few years. In addition, most citations are shown as abbreviations, which in this age can be very difficult to unravel. I have gotten quite good at puzzling out full titles and their various alternatives while on this project. If you find any of these, please feel free to put them on my talk page, and I can work them out for you. Neferkheperre (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Patrolling rights

Thanks a lof for using your patroller user right and doing some patrolling! Please inform me if you experienced any difficaulties, or if you have any questions.

Since you have made use of your patroller user rights, you will keep them, and I will remove your autopatrol user right, since there is no need for both.

Wikispecies Patroller.png This user has patrollers rights on Wikispecies. (verify)

Patrollers may use the Patroller user box on their user page. Copy and paste the following code to your user page:

{{User Patroller}}

Please consider carrying out daily patrols of new pages and edits made by users who are not autopatrolled.

Dan Koehl (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Translating the interface in your language, we need your help

Hello Fagus, thanks for working on this wiki in your language. We updated the list of priority translations and I write you to let you know. The language used by this wiki (or by you in your preferences) needs about 100 translations or less in the priority list. You're almost done!
To add or change translations for all wikis, please use, the MediaWiki localisation project.

Please register on if you didn't yet and then help complete priority translations (make sure to select your language in the language selector). With a couple hours' work or less, you can make sure that nearly all visitors see the wiki interface fully translated. Nemo 14:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


Do you have a reference(s) for the above genus so that I can check the validity of orphaned species. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Adonis wolgensis/volgensis

Hi, Fagus, In Commons I run into two different categories for the same species and I made a redirection putting the 4 photos into only one (A. wolgensis), because we are talking of only one species with two different spellings. After comments from Averater I came to Wikispecies to check what entry you have here and I found out that here also there are 2 entries for one species, both created by you with the same photo. So clearly we have to leave only one. I am not a specialist in Taxonomy, and it seems that you know much more than me in this field, so the question is: was it correct to keep A. wolgensis (and make a redirection in A. volgensis) or is it preferable to keep A. volgensis (and make a redirection in A. wolgensis)? Now we have to do a redirection in Wikispecies, lets say, in A. volgensis 'redirect Adonis wolgensis' but I want to make sure that this is correct or at least neutral. Best regards, --Roferbia (talk) 08:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Clinopodium maritimum

I have restored this species. WCSP holds it to be accepted - do you have a reference contradicting this authority? Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Generic limits in the subtribe Menthinae seem to be a bit of a mess and are being constantly worked on! Clinopodium seems to be paraphyletic, but different authors have proposed differing ways to resolve this, but their treatments still do not leave this genus monophyletic, probably down to small sample sizes and selective data sets. I feel that WS needs to reflect a conservative view hence my following of WCSP. In addition, Calamintha maritima the basionym of Clinopodium maritimum is not proposed as resurrected, neither is Calamintha as a genus, as far as I can see. Therefore we cannot just get rid of C. maritimum IMO. I have provided a few papers scattered around that seem to illustrate the ongoing "debate". Regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Malabaila and Leiotulus

Hi @Fagus: I think your changes to the above genera are a bit premature. There is no evidence as yet, that I can find, which show the necessary changes have been officially published in Taxon, Novon or similar. Have you a reference other than The Euro+Med treatment of Apiaceae (in Bione, 2011, Euro+Med is secondary)? Other secondary sources such as Tropicos and The Plant List (yuk) do not show the genera to be synonymous. Downie et al. (reference on the tribe page) published just one year earlier do not show your treatment. In addition, the data suggests that Leiotulus, Malabaila, Pastinaca and Trigonosciadium will all end up as Pastinaca s.l., but this is yet to materialise. However, if you have the required paper(s) and can add them to the taxa pages, then please forgive me for writing this, if not we need to revert, as WS has a very conservative policy (unfortunately). Andyboorman (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello I have restored Leiotulus until the necessary changes have been published and I have added a key reference. It looks like we have to wait for the research on Pastinaca and other related genera to be completed. I will work on the species of the three genera in due course as well to get rid of obvious synonyms and highlight unresolved species as well. Thanks for your patience. Andyboorman (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Patrol stats

Thanks to Cgt on danish Wp, we can now see statistics on patrolling: Dan Koehl (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Geum micropetalum

Hello Fagus. According to Catalogue of Life's 2016 Annual Checklist (direct link) the taxon Geum micropetalum is a synonym of Geum montanum. Do you have any reference or citation stating otherwise? Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC).

Look: Fagus, 18:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC).
Sorry to butt in here. Tropics has Geum micropetalum as a nom. utique rej. and G. montanum a syn. of Parageum montanum G. montanum. Tropics provides primary references as well. I would use this to start untangling the species rather than the other two secondary references. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
@Tommy Kronkvist:; @Andyboorman: I'm not a botanist but Geum micropetalum seems to be a heterotypic synonym of Geum urbanum - see here. Seems to be a very controversial species... Mariusm (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The paper is specific to Italy, but yes G. micropetalum is controversial a classic unresolved species and should be noted as such. Andyboorman (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether or not the paper is specific to Italy. It contains a synonym designation which is country-independent. What matters is whether subsequent authors (post 2013) disputed the designation. In case that no newer paper to that effect exists, it can be presumed a valid synonym. Mariusm (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I have yet to read the full paper, so can not comment on the validity or universality of the synonym designation nor have I searched extensively for its acceptance. Maybe when I get back home, anyway WS is incorrect and/or incomplete. Andyboorman (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mariusm: @Fagus: and @Tommy Kronkvist: I have read a bit around this subject and come up with some tentative observations and conclusions regarding Geum micropetalum Gasp. (1831).

  • The Italian populations, Geum micropetalum Gasp. Notis. Alc. Piante II (Date?) seem to be correctly synonymised as Geum urbanum L. Sp. Pl. 1: 501. (1753), sensu Bartolucci & Conti, (2013) in the paper here. This is the current WS taxon page, but seems to use Euro+Med as an unreferenced source.
  • However, Tela Botanica's Flore Electronique synonomise Geum micropetalum Gasp. ex Ten. Flora Napolitana 4: vii. (1830) as Geum heterocarpum Boiss. Biblioth. Universelle Genève n.s., 13: 408. (1838) in France. Hence, I assume, Bartolucci & Conti's research into this species in their paper, which they go on to describe separately in Italy thus excluding it from their synonymy.
  • In Brummitt, R.K. 2005. Report of the Committee for Spermatophyta: 57. Taxon 54(4): 1093–1103, G. micropetalum is retained as a "good species" pending further research, rather than being rejected, as a threat to G. heterocarpum. The opinions leading to this decision were based upon material from Italy.
  • Catalogue of Life get their synonymy from a 2005 version of Richard Pankhurst's Rosaceae database.
  • The secondary sources all add to the controversy, for example Parageum has been lumped with Geum since the 1930's I believe. Beware the Plant List as it is based upon the 2007 Richard Pankhurst's Rosaceae database
  • Circumscription in Geum is still fluid and somebody needs to go through the species list and check with multiple sources and primary references! For example are all the nothospecies natural?

However, simply for the discussion above, my conclusions are that WS accepts Bartolucci & Conti, 2013 and that the current G. micropetalum taxon page is redirected to Geum urbanum with the synonymy updated and the required Bartolucci & Conti, 2013 reference added. Clearly the Italy Endemic tag and the categories are meaningless and will need altering as well. I do not think a double redirect is appropriate based upon TELA alone. Thoughts and comments? Andyboorman (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: hats off for your meticulous research. I perfectly agree with your conclusion. Mariusm (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Fagus: I have made some changes in light of this discussion see Geum micropetalum and Geum urbanum. I hope you agree with what I have done. However, I have not made any changes to the categories - I am not a great user/editor of this part of WS. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

thanks.. --Fagus (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


Thanks and sorry I don't want you to feel like your hard work is not appreciated--it is. It's difficult to see the effort you put into this be undone. If you weren't familiar with the consensus against these geographic categories, then that is something we should probably outline more clearly so that we don't have this happen again. I hope you don't get discouraged from editing. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)