User talk:Junglenut

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:

• Help:Contents provides a good introduction to editing Wikispecies.
• Templates are there to help you following syntax and formatting rules.
• Have a look at Done and to do.

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! -- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Vernacular names

Hello Junglenut, and thank you for your contributions! Please note that when adding lists of vernacular names (as you did for example here in the Syzygium forte page) you shouldn't add more than one vernacular name per language, and that the entire "Vernacular names" section should be the very last section on the page, i.e. below the Reference section. This praxis is described in Wikispecies' Vernacular names section guideline (see the very first sentence on that page and the "Usage" paragraph a bit further down.)

I've edited the Syzygium forte page and you can use the new version as an example if you like. Please don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions or ideas for improvements, etc. Again: thank you for your contributions! Happy editing, and kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC).

Hi Tommy, I saw your edit summary for that earlier, and I followed the link you provided to the help pages, so thanks for that. I've just been using existing pages as templates up to now, so it's good to know there are guidelines I can follow. Many thanks Junglenut (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, for some reason I have never seen the welcome message at the top of this page until now. Could have saved myself a lot of frowning ! Junglenut (talk) 08:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Just to add that if there are multiple vernacular names in a single language, you can add them as values for "taxon common name" (P1843) and also as aliases, to the corresponding item on Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Andy, I'll keep that in mind. Junglenut (talk) 11:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Glad we got all of this sorted then. :-) As a side order I extend my thanks to Andy as well: I had forgotten about the Wikidata P1843 property, but of course it can be rather handy. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC).

Protologue of Fagraea cambagei

Hi Steve, and thank you for creating the Fagraea cambagei taxon page! One question though. In the "Name" section you claim that the publication is "Biblioth. Bot. 22(89): 517" (per the protologue) but as primary reference in the "References" section you entered "Bibliotheca Botanica 22(89): 1071–1072". That doesn't really add up, since page 517 isn't within the same span as pages 1071–1072. Could you sort that out, please? Also, I understand that it may be difficult to find one but if you are able to provide an online link to the protologue, that would be a great bonus.

Thanks again for creating the page. We have a lot of red-linked Fagraea daughter taxa, so its much appreciated! Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC).

Hi Tommy, yes you're right! One was a C&P from POWO] and the other was a C&P from APNI – obviously one of them will be wrong. I've searched BHL for the relevant issue and page, but haven't had any luck so far. How should we deal with this for Wikispecies? Junglenut (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Also - does the term protologue refer to the Taxonavigation section? Cheers, Steve Junglenut (talk) 08:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I checked the taxon identifiers in the corresponding Wikidata item Q65938663, and they're also a bit… ambiguous. For example IPNI and Kew says "page 517" while APNI and some other Australian sources say "pages 1071–1072"; then again, some of the other sources doesn't even seem to cite the same journal. It's all rather erratic and peculiar. I extend a ping to @Andy Boorman who made several edits to the Fagraea genus page a few years back. Perhaps he can help out with more information? For the sake of completeness I'll also include @Uleli who has made even more edits to it, but unfortunately he hasn't been active in Wikispecies since 2016.

I referred to Kew/IPNI when I mentioned the protologue; as noted they both say page 517. The term "protologue" itself doesn't refer to any particular section or place in Wikispecies. A protologue is simply the first valid, formal description of a taxon, usually in the form of a scientific paper or an article in a journal. In this particular case I guess I shouldn't have used the term at all, since for all we know either one (but not both) of the two publications may include the correct protologue; not necessarily the "page 517" one which I somewhat haphazardly opted for. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC).

Perhaps we should remove all mention of the page numbers for now, until we get some clarification. Would you agree? Junglenut (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to remove them if you want to, but personally I don't think it's all that urgent. Andy is usually rather quick to respond: he makes a whole bunch of edits here every day, so in my opinion we might just as well hear his opinion first. I'm sure we'll have this whole matter sorted out (one way or another!) later today or at least tomorrow. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk),11:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC).

OK, I won't make any changes to it. I'm currently working on the wikipedia article for this species but that wont be ready for a day or two. Keen to see what Andy has to say. Junglenut (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I have had a brief search, but can not find a copy of Bibliotheca Botanica (1928) easily available. I would go with IPNI, but perhaps drop them an email seeking clarification. They are very helpful. Andyboorman (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I've received a reply from IPNI:

Dear Steve,

Yes, the work is in many parts and can be cited as a whole:

volume 22 page 1071 of the entire work

or from the particular part which is 89: 517 as in IPNI

So, yes, each page has two numberings. Either is correct and refers to the same.

Junglenut (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I've also managed to find Domin's protologue at BHL. I think we should unify the two citations so that they both use the standard format "volume(issue): page(s)" Junglenut (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

An excellent idea and well found! Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────┘ Great work Steve, and good input from you, @Andy! I've created the reference template {{Domin, 1928}} and added it to the Fagraea cambagei page. So case closed, I guess. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC).

Actephila foetida

Hello again. You recently created the taxon page for Actephila foetida stating "Domin Biblioth. Bot. 22(89): 869 (1927)" for the protologue, however the WFO Plantlist, Kew Gardens POWO and IPNI says "Domin Biblioth. Bot. 22(89): 315 (1927)". Do you perhaps have the page number wrong? Kind gregards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC).

Hi Tommy. That's how it is listed at the Australian Plant Names Index. I think this is a case where the page numbers vary depending on whether you start counting again at page 1 with each Heft or continue sequentially. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find a copy of the particular publication online. Earlier and later issues are available but not this one. Cheers, Steve Junglenut (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

If APNI is the odd one out, it's probably best to change it... Junglenut (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps @Andy Boorman have more information: he did some work on the Actephila page back in 2020 and earlier this year. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC).

IPNI contains a separate entry for both paginations [1] [2].I will keep digging. Andyboorman (talk) 08:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Piper image

Why use images just because they are there? The botanical illustration may be poor but the pic is worse. Maybe we ought to use only images that illustrate the taxon rather than just because they are on commons/WD? Just a thought. Andyboorman (talk) 09:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Andy, as I mentioned in my edit summary, the illustration is inaccurate. I've seen this plant first hand and I can vouch for the accuracy of the photo, even though it is less than perfect. I know of other pix of the species that are much better and I am planning to approach the copyright owners to allow us to use them. Cheers, Steve Junglenut (talk) 09:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I have also seen the plant in botanical, culture and habitat. A better pic would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.