User talk:PeterR/Archive 2011

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Happy New Year[edit]

Hello Peter,

Happy New Year to you too. My collection is not very big, but it does contain some interesting Lycaenids from SE Asia. I suspect the paper you have read was by Kurt Johnson. Unfortunately, more recent S. American specialists consider Rhamma cassidyi to be con-specific with R. hybla. Cheers, Accassidy (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


Dear Peter, I hope soon to be able to make some contributions to the rather cumbersome Genus Arhopala, which you have started some while ago. You have given a fairly comprehensive list of Species Groups etc, but I am not sure where you have adopted this from, as the only revision I have here is by Evans in 1957 and that is now somewhat out of date. Can you tell me which paper you derived the Species Groups from and the Synonymy of Panchala? Thanks, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. I'll look at Tolweb and see how it is based. Regards, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Peter, under Arhopala sakaguchii you have listed a taxon from Seki, 2005, called Arhopala sakaguchii monstrosa, but on the page for this subspecies you have spelled it also monstrosi with an "i" on the end. Can you consult the Seki paper, if you still have it, and see which is correct? Is this paper available on the web? Thanks, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Peter, Thanks for making the change. I am assembling a full Wiki-revision of Arhopala based on numerous source documents, now approaching 640 published names!! Do you have the Seki paper in e-form (PDF etc) that can be sent easily for me to keep a copy in my records? Cheers, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Very good. If you could email me the files of those relating to Arhopala I would be most grateful. My direct email is Many thanks, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Peter, no. Nothing received yet. Check again address Accassidy (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
What a puzzle. Then try sending to Thanks, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Peter, I'm sorry but I have not received any email from you on either of the addresses I gave. I do not understand the difficulty. It is very frustrating. My main address, if you would like to try again, is I can think of no reason why your computer should refuse this. I have had the address for about 15 years and it is very busy every day. Thanks, Alan Accassidy (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Peter, yes please go ahead and add the Museum locations where you discover them. That would be very helpful. Thanks, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Type Specimens and Synonyms[edit]

Dear Peter, I notice a few updates from you concerning the re-location of Lycaenid type specimens from Schroeder & Treadaway, now in Frankfurt rather than Twig Treadaway's own collection. This is useful information, thank you. However, I note that in 1 or 2 instances you have also removed some of the information about the type specimen, e.g. that it was collected by (C. G. Treadaway) or some such. I think that it helps to have as much information as possible about the type specimens and I will continue to include who actually caught it, if known. Removing such small details takes away some interesting facts. For example, again, specimens taken by A. R. Wallace, or the Pratt Brothers, may be of special interest historically.

You have also noted that I use Synonymy as a section heading in preference to Synonyms and you have reverted some of my headings to this second form. I use the term Synonymy as it has a wider meaning in English and can be held to include such things as mis-spellings and mis-identifications in the literature as well as true designated Synonyms. So I would be grateful if you could leave my use of Synonymy uhchanged when you find it in future. Thanks, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


I don't know what you mean, exactly. The tribes are correct as far as I know, but there are lots of changes recently. Please put anything you want to add on my talk page first, so I can advise you if it is good ... Stho002 (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


What is your source for ca. 350 species of Isoetes? The Flora of North America gives a figure of "ca. 150". --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


Peter, the pages of this genus Callophrys are not of a high standard and your improvement of them would be appreciated. By all means use the system of Lamas, for there is no better, more recent publication covering the higher taxonomy of these species groups. I suggest that you use Lamas' sub-genera and make suitable templates for them. Best of luck, Alan Accassidy (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Lepid Soc Japan[edit]

Peter, you have been kindly adding some external links to articles from Trans Lepid Soc Japan here but when I click on these I get an error page, not the pdf file. Can you investigate adding the link in a form that connects successfully? Thanks, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Peter, look at what I have added to Jamides elioti as a version of this may work. Even if you just link to the abstract page rather than the full article, people can then click once more for the download. Alan. Accassidy (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


Hi Peter, Mostly Mr Hayashi is adding small details to pages of the species he has named. For example, the location of Holotypes etc. There is also an issue over disambiguity of Hayashi so he is changing references to himself to "H. Hayashi". I have n problem with this. There is one taxon whose status I disagree with, but I will return to that when I have time. I will also fill in any gaps he leaves in the higher order pages when I find them I suggest you do the same. I'm not familiar with the Journal you mention, but I'm sure your contribution will be welcome. Best Wishes, Alan Accassidy (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


Dear Peter, you probably realise that I am currently revising the Genus Arhopala from the Arhopalini. In the sense currently generally accepted, since Eliot, 1992, in Corbet & Pendlebury, Edn. 4, Arhopala includes other genera such as Narathura, Nilasera, Aurea etc as synonyms of Arhopala. I removed some of these synonymous genera and those pages now include only redirect statements to Genus Arhopala, however, you have now relisted them under the Arhopala Section of the Arhopalini. Can you explain this? I don't think that these should be listed as valid genera when the page content is just a redirect. Have you a recent reference, since 1992, that re-establishes Aurea, Narathura, Nilasera, Panchala, Acesina, Darasana, Satadra as valid genera? Regards, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

In view of the redirects, I think it would be best to remove the synonymised genera from the list of genera on the Arhopalini page. If others try to add, for example a page for Narathura they will find it already exists as a redirect. Accassidy (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


Did you mean hide the upper portion? I have done that. Koumz (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


No. We would have to make each museum its own page, and I think others would disagree with that. I will try to think of some other way to help you, though. Koumz (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


I moved that template to Template:Calospilos. The name of the template page is easier to type that way. I just changed the name of the template page, not the template itself. The template itself still says: "Subgenus: Abraxas (Calospilos)". I should not have done anything to this at all. Koumz (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to do anything at all with subgenera of insects anymore, since there is a disagreement between you and others about how they should be. There will always be duplicate pages, and there is nothing I can do about that. I don't care which way it is, I was just trying to make it so there aren't two pages for the same species. Sorry for the trouble. Koumz (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Species of the week[edit]

The "species of the week" is intended to attract some interest to Wikispecies, so that the main page won't be just a dull boring "face".

By the way: many thanks for your persistent good work! Mariusm (talk) 04:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

IP edits[edit]

I was actually already working on this. Unfortunately, he edits while I am asleep like you do. There is reason to believe that IP (and several others like it) is Vladimir Dubatolov. His IP changes a lot within the same range. He adds a lot of good information, but he doesn't format correctly. He also is just beginning to understand how to use talk pages. He is editing a lot, and I don't have time to fix them all right away, so I'll work on it slowly. I will try to help him understand. Koumz (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help with this. If we work together, we can keep his formats correct until he learns the right way. I am tracking all his addresses. One thing to watch for: He puts == Synonyms == , which needs to be changed to === Synonyms === . Koumz (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I've figured out a way to fix all the mistakes quickly each day. The only problem is tracking the addresses. When you see him editing, you can add the address he uses to my list here if you want, and then I can fix all the edits from that address quickly later that day. Koumz (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Special characters[edit]

All Wikipedias have this problem right now, too, so it's a general wiki problem and not something I can fix. Sorry. Koumz (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Help Dubatolov[edit]

It is very hard to explain to Dubatolov how the wiki works! Meanwhile we must correct his work. We must first convince him to open a user name and register, but that will take a lot of effort... Mariusm (talk) 06:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


I'm sorry. I did them the way Dubatolov was already doing the others. I was trying to get him to make the pages with the templates the right way. I was concentrating on fixing the problems with his pages, and forgot about the subgenus thing. I won't create them anymore because it didn't work anyway. You will have to fix all of Dubatolov's bad pages yourself. I am tired of being caught between your way of doing things and Stephen's. I will probably just leave the site now.Koumz (talk) 04:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What you say may be right, but what happens to me is this: If I do the pages your way, Stephen is unhappy with me. If I do the pages Stephen's way, you are unhappy with me. Any way I do them, someone is unhappy with me. I want to help everyone, but there is no way, and someone is always unhappy with me. I have enjoyed helping you with Lepidoptera, but right now I don't want to do anything with any Lepidoptera pages ever again, even to fix bad pages like Dubatolov's. Sorry. Koumz (talk) 04:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I knew that it is normal for wiki for everyone to do things his own way. I didn't know it's also normal for wiki for people to try to make other people do it exactly the way they want. I don't like that part of wiki at all. I wish you the best with your butterfly and moth pages.Koumz (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:Stopping with additing species[edit]

On my computer everything works fine, including the special characters. Maybe the problem is with your computer? (some kind of virus or a bad installation of software). Can you please try to edit from another computer and see if it works there? Mariusm (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean these characters? : – — … ° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § ♀ ♂ † Mariusm (talk) 08:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand you: There are (1) The chars which I listed above. (2) The chars such as èéêë etc. These can be accessed (a) By opening the program C:\WINDOWS\System32\charmap.exe or by (b) using the <alt> key + the respective number on the keypad. For example to input <á> (0225), hold down the ALT key and type 0225 on the numeric keypad. Here is the table: Mariusm (talk) 09:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

0192 À
0200 È
0204 Ì
0210 Ò
0217 Ù

0224 à
0232 è
0236 ì
0242 ò
0249 ù

0193 Á
0201 É
0205 Í
0211 Ó
0218 Ú
0221 Ý

0225 á
0233 é
0237 í
0243 ó
0250 ú
0253 ý

0194 Â
0202 Ê
0206 Î
0212 Ô
0219 Û

0226 â
0234 ê
0238 î
0244 ô
0251 û

0195 Ã
0209 Ñ
0213 Õ

0227 ã
0241 ñ
0245 õ

0196 Ä
0203 Ë
0207 Ï
0214 Ö
0220 Ü
0159 Ÿ

0228 ä
0235 ë
0239 ï
0246 ö
0252 ü
0255 ÿ


Peter, we need to change the way we handle subgenera, to make it simpler and more logical. So, please avoid using subgenera for the moment ... there is plenty else to be done ... Stho002 (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

fine, but I won't be answering any questions relating to subgenera ... Stho002 (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Lepidoptera Biodiversity[edit]

  • 155,181 described species (Pogue, 2009: 334) [excluding fossil taxa?]


  • Pogue, M.G. 2009: Biodiversity of Lepidoptera. Pp. 325-355 in: Foottit, R.G.; Adler, P.H. (eds.) 2009: Insect biodiversity: science and society. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN 9781405151429

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stho002 (talkcontribs) 04:15, 1 November 2011‎.


Thank you for your comments. I added my larva photo to Antheraea polyphemus a few weeks ago. I noticed the nonstandard Photos head in the article and thought it was for links to external photos not available in Wikimedia Commons (normally, these would be linked under a Links head below References). It is true that the image guidelines specify 2 images only if there is sexual dimorphism, but differences between larva and imago are far greater than those between the sexes of adults and I would argue that a photo of each stage is desirable. Lack of room for text on the page is not an issue -- Antheraea polyphemus has a lot of white space even on the small netbook I am using at the moment (just 1024 x 600), and the image size can always be reduced if needed. Regards, -MKOliver (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Re ITIS[edit]

Thank you for the information. I made a mistake because I copied the template from an existing article, in which the ITIS treated as a reference rather than as links. Of course, comply with fair attention. I greet and wish you a pleasant afternoon. TMzander (talk) 12:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.