User talk:MILEPRI

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search


thanks for adding all the images!
You may use the template {{Image|...}}, best on top of the page. See example. --Murma174 (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Another example at Genus level. --Murma174 (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Un ejemplo más. Por esto, el código se convierte en algo más corto. Saludos --Franz Xaver (talk) 07:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Autopatrolled rights[edit]

Wikispecies Autopatrolled.png

Dear MILEPRI, 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 Autopatrolled.png This user has autopatrolled rights on Wikispecies. (verify)

You may as autopatroller use the autopatroller user box on your user page. Copy and paste the following code on your user page: {{User Autopatroller}}

If you have a Meta-Wiki user page, you can put the user box for Meta on your Meta-Wiki user page.

Theres always a need of patrolling files edited by unregistered users, and if you think you have a good understanding of Wikispecies policies and guidelines and want to help out with patrolling, you can request patrol rights at Patroller.

–Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC).

Use of template IPNI[edit]

Hello please note that you are incorrectly using the above template - this is the correct syntax {{IPNI|332083-2|2017|Aug. 16}} for Carex lachenalii. Would it be possible for you to correct those edits that you have already made? As a point of information it is not obligatory to use the ID code for straight forward taxa. In addition, if you use WCSP as opposed to Wikimedia or Wikidata as your source, you also get a lot more additional and precise data. The syntax for its template is {{WCSP|2017|Aug.|16}}. Forget the nowiki stuff of course. It picks up the taxon name page automatically creating the link. It will also allow you check synonymy preventing errors such as Carex gynocrates and if you feel like it you can add the synonyms yourself - see Carex nardina as an example. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


Hello, I would like to bring the following reference to your attention. I have not made all the changes required, as I was waiting for wider acceptance - this is now in place, but see Carex brevicaulis as an example. I am off for a week or so, but will concentrate on sorting this out in a week or two. But here is the reference and also note WCSP has also made the required changes, so WS should now do so and it could be of use to you as well.

Regards Andyboorman (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


Hello. I noticed your edit on Boechera nuttallii. Unfortunately for you this combination is still accepeted as a synonym of Arabis nuttallii after some confusion! See this Boechera source for all things Brassicaceae it is the best one around with the world's foremost experts contributing. I have updated the -list for Boechera and added the relevant reference to Brassibase, but I have left Boechera nuttallii at the end for you to deal with it. All the best and regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

References for synonyms needed[edit]

Hello MILEPRI, and thank you for your botanical edits. In Eryngium amethystinum and other species, you list synonyms but without a reference. Synonyms should always be referenced, especially heterotypic synonyms. If you use The Plant List, then add template:TPLF, for Tropicos you can use template:TROPICOS. An example, how to use these templates, you can see at Bassia hyssopifolia. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. It seems to me that you may have used Hassler and so use this template:catol-Hassler. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


Hi you really can not have a genus taxon page Chaetosciadium that refers to another genus Caucalis, particularly as the species combination is accepted as Torilis trichosperma. The references are not that sound and need backing up by more solid evidence. The Plant List is out of date and Tropicos contains many unresolved combinations and synonyms - both of these need cross checking with other sources. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

ISSN as lemma[edit]

Hi, MILEPRI, it is a convention here at WikiSpecies that the journals have their ISSN as title and that the titles are listed in Category:ISSN, see also Help:Reference section. Best wishes, -RLJ (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

To conclude, there are several reasons for this. One reason is that there are quite a lot of scientific journals that share the same name as a taxon and/or author, for example Austrobaileya and ISSN 0155-4131, as well as Sydowia and ISSN 0082-0598. –Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC).
Observarás que desde la primera observación estoy editando las páginas de revistas y libros por su ISSN, excepto de aquellos nombres de los que no tengo su referencia, los cuales quedan realizados en espera de poder cambiarlos al ISSN cuando lo consiga. ¿Conoces alguna herramienta para poder localizar su ISSN de forma segura?. Saludos---MILEPRI (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
No, unfortunately I don't now of any good and/or secure way of finding ISSN's. There is some information on but I'm afraid it is not very useful. Also, since the ISSN system was introduced in 1976, publications older than that simply do not have an ISSN. – Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC).
OK, gracias.--MILEPRI (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Author names with diacritics[edit]

Hello MILEPRI. Just to let you know, several taxon names you copied from the Plant List had typos in the abbreviation of the author, see e.g. [1], [2]. I have corrected the ones I found. Regards, Korg (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Korg: & @MILEPRI: It is always better to use IPNI for plants, authors and publications for the full scientific names, abbreviations and so on. They are 99.9% correct in my experience and are indeed the repository of first resort, but beware just because plant names are published there it does not mean they are accepted for usage by the botanical community! Regards Andyboorman (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Distribution and taxon page layout[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your edits much appreciated. However, with Native Distribution you are erring on the side of non-standard page layout. Please see here for an example of how we would like Distribution to be handled for plants. It prevents all sorts of individual page formats appearing all over the site and more importantly is more or less WS consensus at the moment. Another method is to use a map. If you do not want to use these preferred methodologies then do not add details of distribution. Also please do not leave Vernacular Names blank. It there are none then leave the section out completely. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Spelling of the word "title"[edit]

Please see this edit for a correct spelling of the word "title" :-)
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC).

The Plant List[edit]

Hi Please use this source with extreme caution!!!! It is at least 5 years out of date and although is a good starting point and the CSV files are great for automatically creating lists. I no longer recommend it as a robust secondary source. In fact I no longer add it to my list of references. However, given that I did use it on many of my earlier contributions, but no longer and as I go back to these I change to catol-Hassler or other sources. GRIN is also very out of date as well and should be more or less avoided completely these days. In consequence your edits on Viola tricolor do contain errors. In addition, so are those for Potentilla/Dasiphora. Finally, do you know about autonyms? Kind regards Andyboorman (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not saying do not use the Plant List, just please check carefully with scientific papers and other sources. Otherwise errors accumulate, which will need to fixed or WS will lose credibility. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


Hello. Sorry this will have to be in English! I have made some updates in both Potentilla and Potentillinae. These include editing the species and adding additional genera. These edits have made a number of your species in Potentilla a problem. I have left them there for now, but they will need to be dealt with in due course as they may become duplicates. I have added a brief justification in Potentillinae Talk. To be brief, this is one of those cases where two opinions are both valid for the moment, but I have made a decision to go for one opinion based upon what local flora have decided and also using catol-Hassler. This may change of course as much evidence clearly favours an expanded Potentilla, but whatever happens we must be consistent for now. I will keep an eye on this add references, changes etc. when more clarity emerges. But I need to complete another project here first. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Standard Formats[edit]

Hello again. Thanks for your valuable edits. Please see Help Section for standard formats for reference section and others. A few points. You absolutely do not need the Plant List if you are using WCSP. The protologue is treated as a reference so it will be Author Date. Source as any other reference. The source should be in full not standard abbreviation. Always put the protologue at the top with a link to the original text if possible see Tropicos for a quick BHL source of these. Afterwards the list is in alphabetical order. There is no need to separate links and references unless the links are additional to material used to construct the taxon page. USDA/GRIN is a link by the way and of not much use these days. Another oddity is that taxonomist prefer the list of synonyms in date order with the earliest first - see WCSP for examples. Hope this helps. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Important! it is Betula fruticosa var. cuneifolia Regel, Nouv. Mém. Soc. Imp. Naturalistes Moscou 13(2): 93 (1861) not Betula fruticosa var. cuneifolia Regel, Nouv. Mém. Soc. Imp. Naturalistes Moscou 13(2): 93 (1861). The subsp. var. f. and so on are not in italics and it is only the Latin parts of the name that are in italics. This is very important. Please correct your mistakes. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

References for botanical combinations[edit]

Hello MILEPRI, for botanical combinations (e.g. Penstemon rupicola (Piper) Howell): Please do not write the author of the basionym in the reference of the author making the combination. (NOT: (Piper) Howell, T.J. 1901. A Flora of Northwest America 5: 510.) These are 2 different references:

  • Howell, T.J. 1901. A Flora of Northwest America 5: 510.
  • Piper 1900. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 27: 397.

This error occurs on several pages that you edited.
See Ochna serrulata for the correct formatting of plant name pages. Thank you, kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@MILEPRI: Todavía estás haciendo esto de forma rutinaria. Por favor desiste. El formato correcto para una referencia es - Tzvelev, N.N. 1961.

Flora Unionis Rerumpublicarum Sovieticarum Socialisticarum 26: 348. Usando tu estilo de enlaces. Estaremos agradecidos si pudieras usar estos formatos. Gracias y saludos. Andyboorman (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Entiendo que en references debo poner solo al último autor del taxón con referencia publicada.
Correcto. Esa es la persona que realmente describió la combinación que ahora usamos. El primer nombre entre paréntesis es el autor del basiónimo más antiguo. Andyboorman (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Me gustaría que me indicara si en Native distribution debo poner solo los países nativos de dicha planta y eliminar los (introduced). Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Sí distribución nativa solo gracias. No tenemos una política para las especies introducidas. Saludos.--Andyboorman (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

LSP1 and LSP2[edit]

Hello MILEPRI, can you please stop replacing Template:LSP1 by Template:LSP2 ? Template LSP1 is for the first edition of Species Plantarum (both volumes), Template LSP2 is for the second edition (1762/63) (again both volumes) and not for the second volume of the first edition. See here:

Best wishes, --RLJ (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Please keep every specific discussion together, in one place only[edit]

When adding replies to a discussion (as for example in this and this edit) please always instead add your replies on the same page as where the discussion started (in the above examples here and here). Otherwise it can be very difficult for all participating users to follow the entire discussion. Thank you. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC).

OK.--MILEPRI (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Another plea[edit]

Hi You really must not use the Plant List for species of Arenaria. It does not take in account all the recent work on this genus and its relatives. For example Arenaria bryophylla is now accepted as a synonym of Eremogone bryophylla. I have made the redirect, but will leave it to you to transfer the data. Hassler has incorporated the necessary changes if you do not want to read the references! Regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Format of "Native distribution" template[edit]

Please consider this edit regarding the {{Nadi}} template you use. Note that I have reverted how the asterisks (*) are used. The asterisks should be used like this:

*** (etc)

but not like this:


The reason is of course that the information should be listed for example like this:

Display the range areas:
  • Continental: Asia-Temperate
    • Regional: China
      • China Southeast, Guangdong Province
  • Continental: Asia-Tropical
    • Regional: Indo-China
      • Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam

but not like this:

Red XN
Display the range areas:
      • Continental: Asia-Temperate
    • Regional: China
  • China Southeast, Guangdong Province           
      • Continental: Asia-Tropical
    • Regional: Indo-China
  • Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam

Please correct your earlier "Nadi" template formatting, if you can find the time for it. Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC).

I would like to add that TDWG terminology should be used in the nadi template, see this pdf and User:Orchi/sandbox 1. Best wishes, --RLJ (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
OK. --MILEPRI (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Author of Pteronia incana synonyms[edit]

Hello. Do you happen to know which "Berg." is the author of Athanasia rigida (Berg.) Scop. and Pteronia rigida Berg., all claimed to be synonyms of Pteronia incana? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: By my reckoning "Berg." is P.J. Bergius and also according to IPNI. Also I do wish @MILEPRI: would use the correct Reference and Name formats. Augustin P.C. de 1836. Prodromus systematis naturalis regni vegetabilis (DC.) 5: 358. for the Reference and Pteronia incana DC., Prodr. [A. P. de Candolle] 5: 358 (1836) for the Name. In botany it is not sufficient just to use the author for a scientific name- for many reasons! In addition, we have Reference guidelines for formats. I appreciate there are many older edits that do not conform. regards Andyboorman (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: Indeed you are correct – thanks! Btw I’ve updated the Peter Jonas Bergius page so that it mentions the alternative abbreviation, and I’ve also created Berg. as a new redirect page. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC).

more hints[edit]

Hi Only ranks from genera through species down are in Italics. Please do some corrections. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


Hello Welwitschiella is not in Anisopappinae unless you have a later reference than Brouillet et al., 2009 to prove otherwise so I have reverted your edits pending your reply. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Como observaras por el historial, Welwitschiella no fue editada por mí, la encontré ya editada y no la eliminé por no tener datos sobre la misma. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: According to the Welwitschiella page history the subtribus has always been Grangeinae. Never Anisopappinae. Despite this MILEPRI added Welwitschiella as a genus when he created the Anisopappinae subtribus page, and then again re-entered it after Andyboorman had removed it. Hence there seems to be some sort of misunderstanding here. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist: No hay problemas solo un error bien intencionado, supongo. Saludos. Andyboorman (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia like.png  Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC).

"Taxa by author"- categories for botanical combinations[edit]

Hello MILEPRI, for botanical combinations like Picradeniopsis absinthifolia (Benth.) B.G.Baldwin, the author of the name is only Bruce G. Baldwin. You can add "Category:George Bentham taxa" on the redirect page Bahia absinthifolia, as George Bentham is the author of the basionym. See my corrections.

Some examples of correct use of taxon author:

  • Speciesname (AuthorA) AuthorB = "Category:AuthorB taxa"
  • Speciesname AuthorC & AuthorD = "Category:AuthorC taxa" and "Category:AuthorD taxa"
  • Speciesname AuthorE ex AuthorF = "Category:AuthorF taxa" (AuthorE created the name, but AuthorF published it validly)
  • Speciesname AuthorG in AuthorH = "Category:AuthorG taxa" (AuthorG published the name in a work of AuthorH)

Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

OK. Gracias --MILEPRI (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Author templates[edit]

Aloha. Please start to use proper author templates when adding author names, as described in the section named "Author templates" on this page. It can also help to read the information on the two actual author template pages: {{A}} and {{Aut}}. A working example of how to use both types of author templates can be found in this edit to the Eupatorium cannabinum page. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask! Best wishes, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC).

See Gyptis[edit]

Hola. Ver arriba y también esta página Gyptis. Template tysp no es recomendado. También mire los enlaces que necesitan corrección. Haga una pausa y eche un vistazo a las páginas de ayuda en español. Saludos. Andyboorman (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Species lists[edit]

Hola. No sé de dónde sacas tus listas de especies para los géneros Eupatorieae. No siguen completamente a Hassler ni a The Plant List. Tengo que hacer muchas actualizaciones. Hassler es el mejor, así que por favor úsala! No deberías usar WP. Espero que el español sea comprensible - Saludos Andyboorman (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

OK--MILEPRI (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


Hola. Si hay subespecies o variedades, automáticamente hay un autónimo - ver Chrysocephalum semipapposum subsp. semipapposum tiene lo mismo como la especie. No es lo mismo que la especie, particularmente para sinónimos. No tiene autor ni fecha. Tu redirigir es incorrecto. Por favor, podría verificar otras instancias donde haya cometido este error. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Nombre científico en la sección Nombre[edit]

Hola. La sección Nombre es principalmente para el nombre científico. El nombre científico correcto para una planta no es el nombre latino más el autor. Idealmente es el nombre como se ve en IPNI o si eres perezoso, entonces es nombre, autor (año de publicación). Hay muy buenas razones para esto, que solo entraré si tú quieres! Helichrysum confertum N.E.Br., Bull. Misc. Inform. Kew 1895 (98): 25. (1895) es un ejemplo de tu última edición. Sé que las ediciones anteriores no siguen esta praxis, pero no hay ninguna razón por la que ahora no podamos mejorar las cosas. En botánica esto es realmente muy importante! No seguir esta convención devalúa nuestras ediciones en el mundo botánico. Saludos de buena fe Andyboorman (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Micropus globifer[edit]

Is Micropus globiferus so Micropus globifer page deleted as taxon does not exist. Andyboorman (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Micropus globifer lo he copiado de Tropicos, donde figura como especie tipo de Psilocarphus y sinónimo de Psilocarphus chilensis A. Gray. Saludos---MILEPRI (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Gracias por el enlace, que he analizado usando ICBN (2006). Sin embargo, en la medida en que puedo encontrar ninguno de los artículos y ejemplos se aplican a este taxón. No conozco a Stern, así que no puedo comentar. No puedo encontrar Micropus globifer en IPNI ni en ningún otro lado. Además, la única otra llamada corrección de globiferus que he encontrado ha estado aquí en WS como una investigación original de un editor - ver Tapinanthus globifer. Nada en IPNI, etc. En mi experiencia y limitado el latín botánico, tanto globiferus como globifer son aceptables, por lo que el nombre original publicado debe mantenerse. Esto detiene los cambios innecesarios en los nombres. Espero que esto ayude. Saludos Andyboorman (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


I had redirected Wollastonia to Wollastonia (Plantae) to make room for disambiguation page. I went to bed just after, so did not finish my project. Wollastonia is genus of plants, and 2 of animals, resulting in homonymy there. I am going back to redirect to finish it up. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Eriophyllum ambrosiodes[edit]

Hola. This is too complicated for me to write in poor Spanish. The above combination is not not an accepted combination and is in fact is the type species of Bahia as Bahia ambrosioides. The now monotypic genus Bahia is the type genus of the tribe Bahieae. If you maintain Eriophyllum ambrosiodes as the correct combination then this affects a whole range of taxon pages in two tribes! Fortunately Baldwin and Wood (2016), when they dismantled Bahia, kept B. ambrosioides, but allocated the other species to Picradeniopsis and Hymenothrix, as well as confirming some previously transferred species to Eriophyllum. Hassler is incorrect in keeping Eriophyllum ambrosiodes as an accepted species and he has informed me that he will be making corrections sometime soon, by the way he is the only one to keep this as an accepted species. I have kept the taxon page for Eriophyllum ambrosiodes but have added notes and will make it a redirect page once all sources agree with Baldwin and Wood. Unfortunately you have carried these error over to Wikicommons and I think it would also be best if you corrected this as soon as possible as it is very confusing. I am not an expert on Commons! All the best Andyboorman (talk) 11:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, gracias por su información. Saludos--MILEPRI (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


Please do not add {{moty}} to a species page. It is unnecessary. Great edits by the way just trying to be helpful. Andyboorman (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

OK. Saludos--MILEPRI (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Creating redirects[edit]

Hi. This one will have to be in English. It is a way of automatically creating redirects in a list of synonyms. It is fairly straight forward to use and install, but needs a bit of a procedure. It is best installed on your main user page. I started by adding a handful of --- to give a line across the bottom of the page. Then you need to add [[User:yourusername/common.js]] which creates a redlink to a new page. Click on the redlink to create the page and just add to it importScript('User:Rillke/createRedirects.js') where the cursor is. It will create a page of script and save this new page and now you should have User:MILEPRI./common.js showing on your user page. It will now work with your edits. It will display Create Redirects in the Tools on the left of the page. You use the Synonym Wikispecies tool and make sure the synonyms are on different lines with a * or double ** and only the plant names are assumed to be italicised. For example, Poa humilis Lej., Fl. Spa 1: 49 (1811), nom. illeg. and Poa annua var. crispa Gray, Nat. Arr. Brit. Pl. 2: 105 (1822). No [[]] around the names please. Once you have created the list hit Preview and look to the left and hit Create Redirects tool. It is a two stage process, so once you are happy with the first stage then hit the create redirects. The new redirects will show in green and any existing redirects or taxon pages will show red. These you ought to note to sort out. The tool works with genera and species, but for names that are not usually in italics I italicise them then reverse this before saving. Hope it works if not let me know and I will try to figure out where I went wrong. Andyboorman (talk) 13:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Lo he instalado y solo consigo que aparezca Wikispecies tools: [[|]] --MILEPRI (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
OK He podido instalarlo correctamente. Gracias por su ayuda. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
El script funciona bien? Saludos. Andyboorman (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Please do not use "Cite" templates[edit]

Hello MILEPRI. Please note that it is not recommended to use any of the {{Cite book}}, {{Cite journal}}, or {{Cite web}} templates on Wikispecies. They are only kept at Wikispecies in order to maintain compatibility with Wikipedia. For author pages and publications, please instead use the format described in Help:Author Names and Help:Reference section. Thank you. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC).

Indeed. I started out on en:Wikipedia, and found {{Cite journal}} as major impediment. I could not use them as templates are used here, and had to re-create them for each article I wrote. Nothing but trouble. Neferkheperre (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Using Type species[edit]

The above term should only be used in the same genus as the taxon page. If you wish to use the basionym of a type species the correct terms are either Typus or Type. However, it probably is best to use the basionym of the type on the species taxon page not the genus, in my opinion. See Chiliotrichum as an example of using Amellus diffusus as its type/typus. Andyboorman (talk) 10:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Why this page?[edit]

Sorry to say that this taxon page is not at all clear! Erechtites quadridentatus. If this combination is a synonym, which I believe it is, then it must not have its own taxon page. It is taxonomic nonsense, confusing and against policy. Please let me know what you are trying to do and I will help if needed. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Problema resuelto. El motivo es que en Catalogue y PlantList aceptan Erechtites quadridentata y en IPNI y Tropicos figura Erechtites quadridentatus. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem with this combination as the Australians, where the plant is native, still prefer to use Senecio quadridentatus! I will investigate further. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
If it stays within Erechtites, note that according to Art 62.4 ICN generic names ending in "-ites" are masculine – Erechtites as well as Odontites, Galactites etc. The correct name is Erechtites quadridentatus. Cheers --RLJ (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@RLJ: is right unless some thing unusual is going on and for this combination I cannot see it. As the original description is for Erechtites quadridentata then this is an auto-correct under Art 62.4. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Es lo que yo pensaba. Existe una opinión taxonómica o botánica que difiere entre las autoridades. Teóricamente solo hay un nombre, una planta, ¡pero el mundo real suplica diferente! Australiano y muchos otros botánicos prefieren restringir Erechtites a sólo la especie norteamericana. El Hasser toma la opinión que diferencia. Voy a poner un documento en la página de Senecioninae taxón y han colocado el enlace APC en la página de Erechtites quadridentatus. Personalmente estoy feliz de tener dos páginas de taxón para una planta, siempre y cuando hay algún tipo de explicación, pero otros en WS odio esto! ¿Qué te parece? Saludos. Andyboorman (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Siempre he sido partidario de solo un nombre, lo contrario siempre trae discusiones. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
¡Díselo a los australianos y al mundo real de los botánicos que trabajan! Difficult, but Saludos. Andyboorman (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Estoy esperando una vista de Martin Hassler. Sin embargo, parece que esta es una opinión taxonómica sin una respuesta defintiva. Te mantendré informado. En un asunto diferente, eres bueno con las imágenes. ¿Puedes conseguir fotos de Haastia? La oveja vegetal distintiva de Nueva Zelanda. Saludos. Andyboorman (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

La única imagen encontrada Haastia recurva --- File:Haastia recurva wallii Hook.f. (AM AK32195).jpg ---, Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


Hello. I have heard back from Michael Hassler regarding the above genus. He has said that World Plants will change to reflect Katinas. This means that Calorezia will become am synonym of Perezia. In addition, Perezia purpurata will becomes a synonym of Perezia pungens. There are other changes, but her paper is in Spanish so you should have no problems reading it! Hope this helps Andyboorman (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


Hello Solo para confirmar que Hassler seguirá a Powell et al. en su próxima actualización. Haré los cambios necesarios pronto. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


Use WCSP where available it is the best secondary source. See Allium angulosum - you do not need all the others! Andyboorman (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

OK--MILEPRI (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

errores de hecho[edit]

No elimine los taxa sin una doble verificación y una búsqueda en Google Scholar. Ver Eithea para un error de hecho eso fue muy fácil de resolver. No hay una fuente que pueda encontrar que te permita eliminar la nueva especie. Hassler necesita una actualización simplemente envíeles un correo electrónico para actualizar su base de datos. Espero que no haya cometido muchos de estos tipos de errores. Puede ser una muy buena idea revisar sus ediciones, ya que no puedo estar allí todo el tiempo. Atentamente et saludos. Andyboorman (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Hassler, M.[edit]

I have renamed this template to Template:Catol-WorldFerns introducing a fourth parameter for the version of the COL database, as this version is changing several times a year. As this part of COL does not treat bryophytes, I have created another template for these: Template:Catol-ELPT. --RLJ (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted the {{Hassler, M.}} template, per RLJ's request. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC).


... es un error ortográfico per la palabra española "titulo". Para la palabra inglesa "Tittle" que se encontra actualmente 472 veces en Wikispecies es lo mismo, la versión correcta es "Title". Gracias y saludos, --RLJ (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC) also mentioned above... 🙂 Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC).
Ha sido corregido error gramatical en title. --MILEPRI (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
¡Muchas gracias! --RLJ (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


Hello. No seleccione referencias que se ajusten a sus preferencias de edición. Enicosanthum es un sinónimo de Monoon según tp ANWE, pero descuidas esta fuente a diferencia de otras páginas de taxones. Sin embargo, creó una página completa de taxones para Enicosanthum. TPLF es anterior a los cambios y Hassler cambiará en la próxima ronda de ediciones. Tenga cuidado de depender únicamente de fuentes secundarias. Agregué los artículos científicos, por lo que podría haber sido mejor haberlos leído antes de crear Enicosanthum. Tal vez el problema es que quieres decir que deseas agregar imágenes de WC. Sin embargo, agrego documentos científicos para ayudar a otros editores. He agregado disputa por el momento, pero es probable que sea más drástico y redirija nuevamente. Espero que esto haga que Google traduzca sentido - ¡disculpas! Saludos cordiales Andyboorman (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

¿Cree que debo abandonar la edición de Annaceae hasta que sea revisada, o continúar con esta familia?--MILEPRI (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Mi consejo sería seguir adelante. Annaceae viene a consenso, pero dentro de uno o dos años. Saludos cordiales Andyboorman (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
OK--MILEPRI (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


Hello Laser rechingeri has gone to another genus. Andyboorman (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC) Humildes disculpas, tengo este mal! Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Comb. ined.[edit]

Hello. Por favor, no hagas páginas de taxon basadas en comb. ined. como Siler ochridanum. Por favor vea la discusión en Village Pump. ¿Has hecho otros? Atentamente. Andyboorman (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Es la primera página que edito con comb. ined. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you no worries, I will sort out the page once consensus has been made. Andyboorman (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Do not delete pages[edit]

I have reverted your redirect on Pseudocymopterus Hassler may be wrong - see the references on the page. I will check and make the appropriate edits. Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 11:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

He cambiado la página porque en [3] de mayo 2018 aparece como sinónimo. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Sé que es confuso, pero Cymopterus es salvajemente polifilético, por lo que la sensación es mantener los géneros de segmentación pequeños por ahora. Me pondré en contacto con Hassler cuando haya terminado de cavar en la literatura. Lomatium tiene el mismo problema. Hope this helps Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Do not use and a few tips[edit]

No use el término tipo de muestra porque no tiene sentido en una página de taxón. Por favor, podría ir sobre sus ediciones y corregir para escribir especies. Además, no utilizaría TPLF si está claramente desactualizado. Finalmente, parte del trabajo en Apiaceae es muy complejo y aún no se ha resuelto, por lo tanto, mis ediciones en algunos lugares. Hassler tiene una opinión que puede diferir de las demás. Estoy tratando de ir con lo más actualizado. ¡No es facil! Gracias y un saludo. Andyboorman (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Be Very Careful[edit]

Tordylium carmeli is only an ambiguous synonym for Synelcosciadium carmeli and until this synonymy is accepted it deserves its own taxon page. Además, Tordylieae es complejo taxonómicamente. No todos los cambios propuestos son aceptados. Es mucho un trabajo en progreso. No puedes confiar en Hassler. Sinónimos ambiguos y comb. ined, no debe hacerse en WS. Sugiero que edites un área que sea más simple. Ver Malabaila para algunos problemas! Tengo que pasar por sus ediciones en esta tribu. OK, agregue una imagen o dos, pero este tipo de situaciones es mejor dejarlas a taxonomistas y botánicos experimentados. Lo siento y saludos cordiales Andyboorman (talk) 10:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

No es una buena idea editar páginas de enlaces azules de modo que se eliminen los datos. Esta información ha sido puesta allí por otro editor por una buena razón. Eliminar los datos en una única fuente secundaria no es una buena práctica. Puede crear un trabajo innecesario, un mal presentimiento en una posible guerra de edición. Tordylium carmeli, Malabaila y Pseudocymopterus son ejemplos recientes de los casos en que actuó incorrectamente, todo de buena fe. Aclamaciones. Hopefully this makes sense. Andyboorman (talk) 12:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, cuando un taxón esté en discusión, pasaré sin confeccionarlo. Saludos y gracias por la advertencia.--MILEPRI (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Format of References[edit]

Pease see here Help Section. Aprecio que alguna referencia más antigua al protolgue (descripción original) se presentara com * Delaroche, D., Eryngiorum nec non Generis Novi Alepideae Historia 19. 1808., pero ahora usamos * C. F. P. von Martius 1879. Flora Brasiliensis, 11(1): 287, t. 78. Tenga en cuenta dónde se encuentra el año, ya que se ajusta a la sección de ayuda y se ajusta con las otras referencias. También vea cómo me vinculé a la descripción original. Atentamente Andyboorman (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Eryngium billardierei[edit]

Creo que COL está equivocado con su ortografía del eipithet de la especie. No debería ser Eryngium billardieri, pero E. billardierei, el epíteto es un honorífico para Jacques Labillardière, creo. Esto afectará la página de la subespecie, no la página del taxón principal. He enviado un correo electrónico y espero su respuesta. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

OK.--MILEPRI (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Curio (Asteraceae)[edit]

Hola. Los cambios requeridos para el género anterior han llegado a un consenso más o menos. Curio (Asteraceae) Mira aquí. Realicé todos los cambios necesarios en WS, incluidos los redireccionamientos. Sin embargo, noto que Commons ya no está actualizado. Usted ha trabajado en Commons, ¿estaría preparado para realizar los cambios? Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

OK--MILEPRI (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


Mi versión de la utilidad de redirección no aparece en la sección Herramientas. ¿Es tuyo? Andyboorman (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Creating redirects me lo envió Vd. el 08-03-2018, usándolo desde entonces. No fue creado por mi.Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Entonces, ¿funciona K ahora? El mío no, muy extraño. Saludos Andyboorman (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Si desea volver a instalarlo, el proceso de instalación lo tiene en la fecha señalada.--MILEPRI (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Works OK Saludos Andyboorman (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


I would not do too much work on this genus, as it mat be merged with Vincetoxicum in the very near future - see reference list and comments. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Likewise with Stapeliinae, maybe leave it for a few more months Andyboorman (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

OK.--MILEPRI (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


Hola MILEPRI, "Commonscat" por favor solo una vez en cada página de Wikispecies (columna ya izquierda automáticamente). Orchi (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


Hello. I have contacted WCSP and COL about Philodendron subg. Meconostigma and if WCSP replies that they will implement the changes, I will make the changes; placing the species into Thaumatophyllum s.l., transfering data, making the redirects and so on. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Acabo de escuchar que WCSP aceptará los cambios en su próxima importación de datos. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


Hi your redirect of Manfreda has created a number of orphan taxon pages, for example Manfreda virginica. I do hope you plan dealing with these by the appropriate data transfers and redirects. I made the same mistake early on in my engagement here and had to go back and correct and it is best done now rather rather later, whilst things are fresh in your mind! Andyboorman (talk) 09:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Efectivamente dejé huerfano el taxón de Manfreda virginica (ya está resuelto). Si observa, verá que cambié todos los taxones de Manfreda antes de redireccionarlo, excepto este porque ya había sido cambiado anteriormente y ya figuraba como Agave y dí, sin comprobarlo, que había sido efectuado el cambio. Agradezco su información. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


Hi MILEPRI, the independence of Leopoldia from Muscari is highly disputed, it is based on a work of the 1970's, but not on recent investigations, it has a weak morphological and karyological basis and it is not accepted in a majority of recent floras except WCSP, see Talk:Muscari. There are a lot of taxa of Muscari subg. Leopoldia without names in Leopoldia and vice versa. I agree with parallel treatments of the taxa involved as Muscari and as Leopoldia for the moment, but I disagree with a transfer of these taxa from Muscari to Leopoldia by creating redirects in the Muscari species articles, and by changing the species list in the Muscari genus article. Best wishes. --RLJ (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


Existe conflicto de edición en Xanthorrhoeaceae que edita wikispecies y Asphodelaceae que reconoce commons. Espero me comunique cual de ellas debo dar por válida. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Estas páginas en WS necesitan edición Saludos.-Andyboorman (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Do not use[edit]

We do not use BASEPAGENAME on taxon pages. Please edit where you have used this template. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I have removed it from a number of pages, but have not replaced it with the correct data! See Asplenium sagittatum. Andyboorman (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

variedad / variedades[edit]

un poco de informacion:

  • Singular: Varietas
  • Plural: Varietates

Saludos. Orchi (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Singular: Tribus
Plural: Tribus Botanic Latin nearly as odd as English| Andyboorman (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


You would have been better to leave the pages as Crocodilium, but leave it for now - see notes on Crocodylium. I have a feeling that IPNI may do an autocorrect and we will have to revert your changes! It was OK when the genus was a synonym of Centaurea! Regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

IPNI have got back to me and made the required changes. I have edited the pages accordingly Crocodilium. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
OK. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Species template[edit]

Hi I have a species level template for Hieracium murorum and see how it works for Hieracium murorum subsp. bithynicum. It it appropriate where there are multiple subspecies, varieties etc.. Please make the changes to the other subspecies you have created. I suggest that you go over your other page creations and follow this praxis where appropriate. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


Hola usuario legendario MILEPRI, lamento mucho tu expulsión de Wikipedia en español, solo quería saber cuál es tu nacionalidad ¿por favor dímelo para añadirlo en el ranking? muchas gracias. Saludos cordiales desde Lima, Perú --Globalphilosophy (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

    • Español. Gracias por su interés.--MILEPRI (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


No puedo ver cómo Mayodendron puede pertenecer a Bignonieae. A veces es sinónimo de Radermachera, que pertenece a Tecomeae en WS. ¡Aunque esto realmente pertenece al "clado paleotropical no asignado a una tribu" hasta que se produce una nueva clasificación tribal de Bignoniaceae! WS seguirá la clasificación tribal más antigua hasta que se publique la nueva. ¿Es usted una referencia que no conozco? Regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

He tomado la referencia de Kew Mayodendron. La he conectado a Bignoniaceae en tribu Incertae sedis. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


Observo que este género figura como sinónimo de Alyssun en wikispecies, pero según Brassicaceae aquí e IPNI es un género aceptado en 2015. Le ruego me confirme la aceptación para continuar la modificación de este género y evitar el cambio de numerosas especies. Agradecido le saluda.--MILEPRI (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Se acepta corregir el género. Ignorar la lista de plantas ahora está desactualizada. Brassibase es preferible como una fuente confiable. Aclamaciones Andyboorman (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Unassigned Genera (Brassicaceae)[edit]

Hello I have some changes to the above and relevant genera based upon references on the page. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Required formats.[edit]

See consensus re {{DC.}} and so on. Type species MUST be of the genus, Tropicos uses the term "Type specimen", which is NOT the same as Type species. Please review all your edits and correct them in order to maintain consistency with other editors. See Diplotaxis as an example. Tenga en cuenta que Especie tipo, Tipo de muestra, Tipo/Typus NO son términos mutuamente intercambiables. Son conceptos diferentes. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)