User talk:RLJ

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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!


Please cite references for your changes to this genus and other as without them they are meaningless. Particularly as your changes are contradicted by the existing references. For example, Scilla nana subsp. nana is not mentioned by IPNI, WCSP eMonocot and Tropicos. I will leave you to deal with this, but please note other contributors are free to reverse your edits if they do not stand up to scrutiny. Andyboorman (talk) 08:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I have added references now. Lots of articles here are unreferenced or incompletely referenced. Scilla, as it is presented in WCSP as well as here, is highly polyphyletic and with too much taxa sunk into synonymy. Towards IPNI, WCSP eMonocot and Tropicos, a critical attitude is necessary. It cannot be sense of this project to include the errors. --RLJ (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree a critical attitude is crucial! I thought you would be adding Franz Speta, I had avoided using him even though he was the guru back in the day, but I am no expert on the genus. However, I thought the "lumpers" had gained ground over the "splitters", in line with current monophyletic approaches. Splitting of course gets rid of polyphyly and paraphyly, but is lazy and I assumed that Kew etc had thought that Speta had taken splitting too far and has simplified the genus. Too many articles here are referenced or badly referenced for sure, which is one of my projects on WS. However, I tend to head for journals and avoid older books unless they are substantiated by more up to date sources. I will tinker with your references just to bring the format in line with the way we are heading on WS - see the Village Pump for a discussion we are having. Just on another point IPNI is nothing more than the gold standard repository of plant names and in general if a name is not there then it is difficult to "prove" that it has been legitimately published and accepted without deep digging into literature. If you feel they are missing Scilla nana subsp. nana or other taxa, let them know with the publication details and they will quickly add it, or let you know if you are wrong. Finally, as somebody pointed out to me, WS is not the place for making new combinations that is why we try to encourage new contributors to place the full scientific name of a taxon on its name section. Hope this helps. Regards and good luck with your contributions. Andyboorman (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled rights[edit]


Dear RLJ, 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)

Thank you very much! --RLJ (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Patrolling rights[edit]

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) 12:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Patrol stats[edit]

Thanks to Cgt on danish Wp, we can now see statistics on patrolling: Dan Koehl (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Anchusa / Lycopsis[edit]

Hi RLJ - a tricky one this; the paper you cite (Hilger et al.) is odd in that their own data doesn't support their separation of these genera – from their Figs. 1 & 3, Lycopsis arvensis (type of Lycopsis) is more closely related to Anchusa officinalis, than it is to Lycopsis orientalis, leaving Lycopsis a paraphyletic grade. True that an argument could be made (though a weak one) for treating orientalis in a different genus to Anchusa, but if it was, it would need a new genus name. What is clear from the paper is that the old Anchusa subgenera Buglossum and Buglossoides are not part of Anchusa, and need to be split off; I've no problem with that. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@RLJ: & @MPF: I ought to join in by quoting from Cohen, 2013 "Anchusa is also resolved as non-monophyletic due to species of Anchusella Bigazzi, E.Nardi & Selvi, Cynoglottis (Gusul) Vural & Kit Tan, Hormuzakia Gusul., Lycopsis L., Phyllocara Gusul., and Gastrocotyle (except in analyses of the combined matrix) scattered among its members. The clade composed of all of these genera receives > 81% jk in analyses." They make no recommendations. The reference is on the Boraginaceae taxon page. It is a tricky one, but IMO it is premature for WS to endorse the synonymy whilst it is in dispute, unless the disputed flag is used. See also Hilger et al., 2005 c.f. Valdes, 2004 on Boragineae. I guess Stagina decided to muddy the waters in his inimitable style. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Sounds a typical taxonomic mess :-)) . . . hard to know what to do, other than perhaps stay with 'traditional' circumscriptions until things become clearer? MPF (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I would agree and perhaps a note on the Discussion Page, but not a disputed tag. Thoughts both of you? Regards Andyboorman (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Yep, good idea - MPF (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your contributions. Valdés followed the taxonomic concept of Hilger et al. 2005 in subsequent publications, e.g. in Euro+Med and in Flora Iberica. I accept the changes for the current state of knowledge. Regards --RLJ (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

External links to scans[edit]

I'm curious why you think having multiple external links is a bad thing? Redundancy is a desirable feature for linking external resources. Circeus (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

That's your opinion, not mine. RLJ (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Template: BHL[edit]

Your addition of "/page" to template {{BHL}} made hudreds of links unusable. Please, please, please don't make such changes without consulting the pump first! The parameter of this template is the partial url address which follows "" Mariusm (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your advice! Currently there is a minority of at least 388 articles and templates using BHL's Page-IDs as parameter which result in unusable links with the current version of the template. Is it possible to fix this item in the BHL-template or is it preferable to correct the parameters in the articles and/or to create a new template BHLPAGE containing my version? -RLJ (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


Hello If you find that World Checklist of Selected Plant Families and IPNI seem to be incorrect then Please contact them. If you are right and they are wrong then they very quickly correct their information and are grateful for the input. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Mark F. Watson[edit]

Thank you for your note regarding de:WP stating 1963 as Mark F. Watson's year of birth. I have asked Olaf Studt where he got the information from, so perhaps we can soon upgrade your note from hidden to visible... :-) All the best, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC).

It turns out Herr Studt have the commendable habit of answering questions on his User talk page very quickly, so now it's already sorted out. Anyway, thanks again for pointing it out, since nowadays I only check the German Wikipedia rather sporadically. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC).
thank you for informing me about your activities! It was the only information I found on Google. Best wishes, --RLJ (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


Hi why do you change the format of "-" on publication templates. No problems but just seems a waste of effort. I tend to use the format used on the citation recommendation. Another point I would counsel against using Euro+Med as a definitive secondary source. IMO they often take one opinion a bit like GRIN, but from the other side of the pond. Andyboorman (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Andy, see en:dash (Alt+0150) and en:hyphen. In the example given in Help:Reference section a dash is used to separate start and end pages, as it is the standard in most if not all academic journals. I regard the use of a hyphen there as a typographical error.
Hello @RLJ: I must be getting a copy error from the journal citation to Word. But as I am really a red link and data addition editor rather than a format improver so I do not screen for it.
All those taxonomic databases have their pros and cons and should be handled with a critical attitude. In Scaligeria species inventory and distributions seem to reflect current knowledge. -RLJ (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely, a critical attitude is required. I have developed a hierarchy of trust, which I find helps. WCSP is about 99% right, updates regularly and will correct quickly, but are not fully comprehensive for non-monocots. Grin is often very out of date and I often delete it out of reference lists, if it is too confusing. Euro+Med is getting a lot better and are now working with WCSP giving commonality, but is restricted of course. African Plant Database is excellent but when it comes to Acacia s.l. and related genera they take a position that holds African species to be Acacia and segregates, such as Vachellia, are treated as equivalents. Australian Plant Census is very good, but like Euro+Med restricted. Tropicos needs really working through, but is an excellent resources on the whole. IPNI are about 99.9% right and will correct quickly if required, but of course they are usually simply a comprehensive repository. Sometimes I have had to go back to protologues and consult ICN, but not making new combinations on WS. When it comes to the Plant List, comprehensive with great CSV downloads, but relatively out of date and needs a thorough work through all in all. Then there are the specialist sites, such as; eMonocot, GrassWorld, GrassBase, BrassiBase and so on. All have there place for my work as a red-linker, data adder and working with the more controversial taxa. I really do not like and will not undertake the sort of taxon page, for example Amaranthaceae and Suaeda, where the synonyms seem more important than the "accepted" names, classification and the main taxonomy. If I was a casual less expert user it would be extremely confusing. But I will not interfere even though it comes very close to breaking consensus even though I laid out the basics and added a lot of references. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]


  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Join discussions[edit]

At the water pump is presently discussed two topics;

1.) is to follow a previous consensus and change all [[BASEPAGENAME]] into [[susbt:BASEPAGENAME]], something which already has started.

2.) is what to do with the Category: <<taxon name>> (<<any country>>) files created by Stephen Thorpe. Some 5 000 have so far been moved together at Candidates for speedy deletion, but concearn has been objected, that some of those files may be useful, in all, or that parts should be transfered somewhere, before a major mass delete. Please join the discussion at pump and take part in shaping a consensus.

Best regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Application for Checkuser[edit]

Referring to earlier discussions regarding a local Checkuser policy, I herebye apply to get Checkuser user rights, although we havnt reached a consensus reg Checkuser policy, but I want to give it a try if I can get the required votes. For a request to succeed a minimum of 25 support votes and an 80% positive vote are required (subject to the normal bureaucrat discretion). Requests for checkuser run for two weeks, and I ask kindly that somone starts the poll, like we do for adminship applications.

Please also note that CheckUser actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Checkusers. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two checkusers, for mutual accountability. I dont want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for checkuser.

My request to the Wikispecies community is here

Dan Koehl (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Another application for Check User[edit]

As pointed out above by User:Dan Koehl, we need at least two Check Users for this wiki. I am nominating myself and would be happy to receive any feedback that you have to give (positive, negative, or neutral). Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Koavf. Thanks. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional Checkuser Application[edit]

I also have added my name to those willing to be a checkuser. Please see my application here Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Faendalimas. I listed this yeasterday but have been encouraged to do a mass mail. I would also take the opportunity to make sure everyone knows that any editor can vote but that it is imperative that as many do as possible, for all 4 of the current applicants, please have your say. Checkuser voting has strict policy rules regarding number of votes. You will have other messages from the other Users concerned you can also read about it in the discussion on the Village Pump - Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Application_for_Checkuser. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Standing for role of checkUser[edit]

Like some of our colleagues (who I support), I am offering to serve as a checkuser, not least to ensure adequate coverage in case one of the others is unavailable.

Please comment at Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Pigsonthewing.

[Apologies if you receive a duplicate notification; I wasn't aware of Wikispecies:Mail list/active users, and sent my original notification to the list of administrators instead.] MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC on Checkusers[edit]

With one week to go I wanted to remind everyone of the importance of voting on the current CheckUser applications. They can all be found together on a single RFC: Wikispecies:Requests_for_Comment#Checkusers.

It is extremely important with votes such as this for everyone to be involved. There are strict rules in the Wikimedia Foundation Policy guidelines on these votes. I would urge people to have a good understanding of what a CheckUser does. This can be read up on here on the page discussing CheckUser's Wikispecies:Checkusers. Links on this page will take you to other policy information on Meta, HowTo for our site etc.

I would also urge people to look at our own policy development and some past discussion on this can be found here: Wikispecies_talk:Local_policies#Local_CU_Policy.

Wikispecies has in the past had issues that has required the intervention that is supported by the ability to do a CheckUser. Many of us are aware of this. The capacity to do this ourselves greatly speeds up this process. Although SockPuppetry can sometimes be identified without using a CheckUser in order to do the necessary steps to stop it or even prevent it requires evidence. We all know that sockpupets can do significant damage.

This is an important step for Wikispecies. It is a clear demonstration we can run ourselves as a Wiki Project part of Wiki Media Foundation. When I and several others first discussed this we knew it would be difficult at the time to meet all the criteria. We have only now decided to try and get this feature included in Wikispecies. By doing this it can lead to other areas where Wikispecies can further develop its own policies. In some areas we have unique needs, different to the other Wiki's. It is timely we were able to develop all these policies.

Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for vote reg use of BASEPAGENAME[edit]

The previous discussions regarding if we should subst:ing BASEPAGENAME and change all [[BASEPAGENAME]] into [[susbt:BASEPAGENAME]] did not really reach a consensus.

Please vote here on the Village pump!

If you are not sure on your opinion, you can read and join the discussion about the claimed advantages and disadvantages of using BASEPAGENAME

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Varietas etc[edit]

Pedantically you are correct of course, but often one is an autonym automatically generated and so is not a "true" variety, which means there is only one variety. Anyway conventionally the singular is used. See also species and genera, which are plural, but the terms are still used for monogeneric and monospecific taxa. You can make the corrections if you want, but how about concentrating on the needed red links? Regards Andyboorman (talk) 07:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

See Help:General Wikispecies and Help:Taxonavigation section. "Varietas" is not the convention if several taxa including autonyms are listed. Anyway, 524 species and subspecies articles use the correct "Varietates", 613 of them use "Varietas", 90 use "Variety", 1335 use "Varieties". 98 articles treating one variety use "Varieties". RLJ (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @RLJ: Happy correcting - I will join in as well when I meet the mistakes, including mine! Apologies not confrontational just my focus is generic red links and out dated classifications for orders down to genera, including species lists. For now I do not tend to go into sub-generic classifications, as most of these now have been dispensed with. However, I do go there when synonymy requires it. Kind regards Andyboorman (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikispecies Oversighter[edit]

Wikispecies has no local Oversighter. Since I had the communitys confidence regarding the previous application for Checkusers rights, as per local Oversight policy on META, I hereby apply to get Oversighters user rights, as a request to the Wikispecies community.

Application is located at Requests for Comment.

Please also note that Oversighter actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Oversighters. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two oversighters, for mutual accountability. I don't want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for oversighters rights.

Dan Koehl through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Oversight nomination[edit]

Please refer to Wikispecies:Oversighters/Requests/Koavf for a second Oversight nomination. Note that we must have at least two Oversigthers in order for anyone to have these user rights. All feedback is welcome. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Juniperus, Juniperus communis[edit]

Hi @RLJ:, @Fagus:, @Andyboorman: - I'd like to restore some older versions in Juniperus, particularly in Juniperus communis, but wanted your thoughts first. R. P. Adams' work on the genus, though it contains a lot of good work, also has to be viewed with caution, due to two major faults in it:

  • First, he follows the now-discredited "old style American" view that the rank of subspecies should not be used at all in botany, based largely on E. L. Little's influential Check List Of Native And Naturalized Trees Of The United States (see p. 12) and his followers.
  • Second, Adams gives strong emphasis to results based solely on DNA and/or chemical analysis. This has - in conifers at least - proved a very poor guide to relationships between infraspecific and closely related specific taxa, with numerous instances of DNA hierarchies not matching morphology, with apparent lateral transfer of DNA between taxa, and also extensive apparent reticulate evolution. For an insight into some of the unexpected results, see e.g. Syring et al. (2007), Widespread Genealogical Nonmonophyly in Species of Pinus Subgenus Strobus, Systematic Botany 56: 163-181.

I'd like therefore to return to the previous classification of Juniperus communis in particular, based around the subspecific divisions used by Flora Europaea, the Euro+Med PlantBase, and others, where morphology and ecology play a much larger part in delimitation (substantially, an arctic-alpine subspecies distinguished by short leaves and relatively large cones, versus a temperate subspecies distinguished by longer leaves and relatively small cones). My own personal experience in Juniperus communis at many locations strongly supports this major ecological division used by Flora Europaea, and not Adams' breakdown. The other significant change I'd like to make is to restore Juniperus conferta to its traditional species rank, as morphologically, it is very distinct from Juniperus rigida.

I'll wait a few days for any thoughts you have before going ahead. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@MPF:, @RLJ: and @Fagus: I will start this discussion with words of caution concerning your proposed changes. Firstly, J. communis. Clearly whether to use sub-species or varieties is as much a matter of opinion and acceptance, as it of taxonomic evidence. The traits that you allude to can apply both to subspecies or variety. As to secondary sources, forgetting Adams and off-shoots like Gymnosperm Database for now, you prefer Flora Europaea and the Euro+Med PlantBase and I can counter-cite WCSP, Catalogue of Life and Farjon. However, as Adams (2014) does note in his Junipers of the World "The varieties of J. communis are not well resolved, which indicates the closeness of this group..", which I agree with from my own experience and it surely is a statement that applies to variety rather than sub-species or are we splitting hairs? Secondly, your circumspection regarding genetic and molecular evidence is correct and also applies equally, if not more so, for morphological, ecological and geographic data. In addition, I have just scan re-read some of the 2012/2013 work by Adams and Schwarzbach in order to confirm that they do include discussions involving morphology and other non-molecular data. Finally, the scientific literature sloppily uses both sub-species and variety, so not much help here! My advice would not to revert back to the older use of sub-species, but to add notes on their uses on the taxon discussion page.

Please do not restore Juniperus conferta based upon your judgement of its morphological differences from Juniperus rigida. Even Euro+Med PlantBase does not agree with you on this one. It is likely to be reversed and let us not have an edit war. It would be best if you gathered your evidence and went for publication in a peer reviewed journal rather than trying to make original contributions here on WS contrary to policy.

A few thoughts. Sorry I can not be supportive. Andyboorman (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Native distribution[edit]

Hi RLJ - the header specifies Native distribution - and therefore, must contain only the native distribution, and not mislead by inclusion of human-created artefacts. Why do you say "Deletion of non-native distribution regarded as destructive and not accepted. Converting these to a comment preliminarily accepted.", when that text is in explicit contravention of the header? - MPF (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello MPF, if the header is the problem, let's write templates for distribution in general or for non-native distribution, or subst the nadi templates and change the header. I am not aware of any recent flora or checklist neglecting non-native taxa. To avoid misleading I have commented these entries as non-native, and I have only included established, but no ephemeral occurrences. I think invasive species are a relevant item. What to do with archeophytes and human-created artefacts like homeless species?
Anyway the nadi template is a provisional, disputed and in its limitation to native occurrences misconcepted item, and likely to become obsolete when a structure for distribution data will be finally available in Wikidata. I would not expect that non-native occurrences will be excluded there. For transfer to wikidata it would be useful to have the whole distribution.
As it can be seen in the reference sections, these distribution data have been compiled from various sources which means that a larger amount of work is involved. It is no motivation for my involvement in Wikispecies to see this work wiped out. Furthermore your edits have been incomplete in not removing the sources of the distribution data and in one article in removing only a part of the non-native entries. As a preliminary compromise I have converted the non-native entries to hidden text. --RLJ (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Is it OK to contribute here on this discussion? Well here goes. VN has been discussed a number of times on the VP, but with little real consensus except to get rid of the category approach, for example see here. However, it is an accepted practice not to delete information provided by an earlier editor, as long as this more or less conforms with WS practice and guidelines. As @MPF: points out NADI was developed for "native" distributions for plants, but as @RLJ: notes it can be adapted for locations where a plant has escaped from cultivation or through a natural agency and has now established self-sustaining populations outside its now so-called native distribution. MPF's edits are in a grey area of unwanted deletion, so must be careful not to cause offense. One solution could be to migrate the non-native information to the taxon discussion page. Another would be to restore the information and open the debate on the pump once again using it as an example of an approach. Hope this helps Andyboorman (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @RLJ: and @Andyboorman: - yep, I think Andy's suggestion of putting non-native distribution on the discussion page is a good one. For me, the main point differentiating native and non-native distributions is that native distribution is taxonomically relevant, as it is a direct consequence of the history of the evolution of the taxon, whereas human introduction is not related to taxonomy, and is thus outside of Wikispecies' primary scope of taxonomy. To RLJ's points above, archeophytes I'd say are again a consequence of human 'interference' and so (where they can be reliably distinguished) don't count. I'm not sure what you mean by "homeless species"; if it means species in IUCN classification Extinct in the Wild (or near to it), then the distribution given would best include (as far as is known) what it was before humanity adversely impacted on the taxon (though where one would place a cut-off date is tricky for species adversely affected over a long period, such as Panthera leo). - MPF (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


Hello I am not really online for the next few days, but I do agree that homonyms are not always synonyms in the convention of general English usage and so perhaps cannot always be considered in a list. However, the use of Notes is only used in exceptional circumstances here on WS and not as part of the taxonomy. Hence my earlier suggestion of adding this homonym below the type species. In general I have made this point before that there is a problem here on WS and so my suggestion that you initiate a discussion on the pump. Other sources and editors here are more liberal in their interpretation of homonym as long as it is clarified in the rubric. Their argument is that we are taxonomic entities with our own nuances as regards English and the term synonymy should be used. I am not engaging in edit wars by the way, so have not changed the section header for this genus, which I was going to do when I was back actively editing. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

If the junior homonym relates to a different taxon it is not part of the taxonomy of the treated taxon. Possible solutions seen on other pages: 1) Omit the junior homonyms (see Aspalathus, of which junior homonyms exist in Caragana). 2) Add a comment in the relevant paragraph, see Ouratea ferruginea <-> Brackenridgea arenaria, 3) add a comment on the whole article, as "Notes" or whatever (Rosa sempervirens). 4) working with disambiguation pages, see Atriplex axillaris and linked pages. -RLJ (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
It is not a good idea to have multiple solutions IMO. I do prefer the one used in Ouratea ferruginea <-> Brackenridgea arenaria as part of the Synonymy, but that is an opinion. Obviously the type of homonym under discussion is not directly part of the taxonomy, but it is of interest and of relevance to searches, for example and is required to complete the page. Disambigs may be needed, but this is a separate process. I will start a VP discussion when back if you are not comfortable doing so. By the way junior homonym only have formal relevance to ICZN, do they not? Regards Andyboorman (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

COL and Primula edits[edit]

I suggest you check your names with here for the most up to date information. I have used Primula vernalis as an example. Your edit may be wrong as there is no reference to check it with and we now have a double redirect. In addition, the list of synonyms does not correspond to your edits. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Current state of taxonomy is given to my knowledge in the paper of Brummitt & Meikle (1993), which proposes heavy doubts if the nomenclatural act was really the intention of Linnaeus and proposes Primula vulgaris as the valid name. Catalogue of Life does not follow this concept, by any reason they do not explain, Euro+Med and the Turkish Database ([1]) accepts P. acaulis with reference to the outdated publication of Greuter, GBIF accepts both names, Plant List accepts P. vulgaris, and so do the BSBI taxon database, the German taxonomy database (Buttler, FloraWeb), the French database [2], the Italian database (IPFI), etc. Except for minor improvements, all I did was to reset the articles to the state before they were moved to Primula acaulis, restoring a considerable loss of quality by deletion of all synonyms. No reason had been given for these edits, and it had not been discussed with the user. --RLJ (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The key is that not all authorities agree, but the majority do. I have read Brummit & Meilke and it could be argued that it is mainly supposition and opinion, hence I guess the differing opinion for Hassler and the linked Euro+Med PlantBase. This is where I would use a Note, which can help, plus more complete references all round, of course. I do admit I use P. vulgaris, but it is not about my opinion and if I have an inkling of a doubt I do a little more digging and produce an extended ref list, if required. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The paper by Greuter 1989 supporting Primula acaulis is written with similar arguments. --RLJ (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Of course, so yet again, we do not have a definitive answer only two differing opinions reflected by a number of secondary sources . Consensus rules I guess, but a note or use of the discussion page is appropriate to help the user. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


Gracias por la información, desconocía ese acuerdo. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

LSP1 and LSP2[edit]

Gracias por la informacion. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Redirects von Synonymen[edit]

Hallo RLJ, für die Redirects von Synonymlisten gibt es übrigens ein zeitsparendes Werkzeug, welches hier auf wikispecies bereits viele Autoren verwenden. Dafür brauchst du nur in deine "User:RLJ/commons.js"-Seite eine Zeile eintragen, entsprechend wie bei User:Thiotrix/common.js. Einmal Anklicken von "Create Redirects" in der linken Menüleiste markiert die möglichen Redirects, dann lässt sich im Text noch eventuell Unerwünschtes wieder rausnehmen. Beim zweiten Klick werden sämtliche Weiterleitungen erstellt.
Da das Tool alles Kursive unterhalb der H3-Überschrift Synonyms markiert, klappt das für Arten und Gattungen prima, (bei Unterarten und Varietäten nur, solange subsp. oder var. noch im kursiven Schriftzug mit drin sind). Grüße von --Thiotrix (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Thiotrix, vielen Dank für die Hinweise! Dieses Werkzeug benütze ich schon seit 2015 (ich habe nur den ganzen Quelltext in meine commmons.js reinkopiert). Meine Fehler kamen dadurch zustande, weil ich jeweils die abschließende Kursivmarkierung ('') vergessen habe, und nach dem ersten Klick die Markierungen nicht überprüft habe. Viele Grüße, --RLJ (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of redirect link[edit]

Hallo RLJ, wie geht es Ihnen? Is there any particular reason why you made this edit and removed the redirect command there? We have many such "placeholder" pages with automatic redirects to author pages. They can make editing easier (since the links are shorter), but they are useless if the redirects gets broken. As an example, please consider the Acacia pyrifolia page. When clicking the "DC." link at that page the user expects to immediately end up on the Augustin Pyrame de Candolle author page with a single click (via auto-redirect), not on the DC. page where he/she will have to click again. However there can be a few instances when an auto-redirect is bad – hence my question. :-) Freundliche Grüße, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Tommy Kronqvist, thank you very much for pointing to this item. I had confused it with {{Template:DC}}, so I reverted my edit. Best wishes, -RLJ (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Chrysanthemoides monilifera[edit]

Why have you made this page in favour of Osteospermum moniliferum subsp. moniliferum (autonym)? You have left the Name etc as the original. This is confusing, surely, well I can not get my head around it and I am a botanist and a bit of a taxonomist? I can sort of understand following CJB rather than Hassler, but....? Have you got some peer reviewed references that can help us? Having a taxon page referring to another name strikes me as weird, or at least an explanation is needed. Andyboorman (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Please have patience. I have moved the species and its subspecies, now I am updating. This does not happen in a second. -RLJ (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Cheers sorry to be a worry wort! I am sure in the end that Osteospermum s.l. will win out, but Chrysanthemoides monilifera is such an important world wide weed known by that combination it will be difficult to change acceptance in the southern hemisphere. Andyboorman (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Maybe you are right. My main reason is that Chrysanthemoides is currently accepted in Calenduleae, accordingly subordinate taxa should follow. If it is seen as necessary, the articles can be moved back to Osteospermum. -RLJ (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
The circumscription of the tribe and some genera seems to have stalled for now. I wonder if it is down to the fact that there could be problem with precedence vis-a-vis Calendula and Osteospermum. I have made some alterations for now and I guess we pencil it in as a work in progress. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


The above template is not working. Are you able to help? Andyboorman (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it was a copy error seems OK now - Adenophyllum. Can the generic/species name be in Italics? Andyboorman (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • The core design has been by user:Uleli, I only updated the format. I had to learn that the correct ID is essential :-) --RLJ (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Work by Andrés-Sánchez on Gnaphalieae[edit]

Hello. I am sure you are aware of the work by the above. It does not seem to have full acceptance - see Logfia and Filago and their continued synonymy in Hassler (2018). Have you any other information that helps to brin g light on this? I have put a key reference on Gnaphalieae, but more can be added, however, they all have the same lineage (Andrés-Sánchez). Any thoughts appreciated before I try to contact Martin Hassler, who I know is very busy with other projects. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Andyboorman, I am aware of this work and others of this working group. I don't know of any publication on Filago and related genera since 2010 by another working group, at least not with "Filago" in the title. Floras and checklists not accepting the separation do normally not discuss the matter. Hassler list the four Logfia species of Andrés-Sánchez et al. as subgen. Logfia (in the field "Additional data"), but also Filago arvensis which is placed into Filago subgen. Oglifa by Andrés-Sánchez et al. I think the results of the Andrés-Sánchez working group reflect current state of knowledge, but I am in no hurry to change nomenclature in the relevant species articles. At least the literature should be cited there including a note on the taxonomic opinion of these authors. -RLJ (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 00:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Chamaeleon gummifer[edit]

He observado que ha cambiado el taxón de Chamaeleon gummifer por Carlina gummifera. Estoy revisando las Asteraceas y este taxón ha sido modificado en Dic.2017 en CatalogueofLife. Agradecería su comentario. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Carlina gummifera is the currently accepted name, and the genus Chamaeleon is a synonym of Carlina, see Euro+Med, Flora Iberica, PlantList, Global Compositae Checklist etc. --RLJ (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@MILEPRI:. I am discussing here on request and to try and prevent an edit conflict. IMHO the synonymy between Carlina and Chamaeleon has now become a taxonomic opinion. Of course the balance of secondary sources holds to the synonymy and with only Hassler (2018) maintaining segregation. However, I must point out that Global Compositae Checklist dates to 2007, the Plant list to 2012 and 2006 for this group of plants in Euro+Med. TPL still accepted one species Chamaeleon macrophyllus (Desf.) D.P.Petit. GCC is unclear when it comes to Chamaeleon cuneatus (Boiss.) Dittrich - see here and here. Euro+Med does not deal with this combination as it is not native to the area covered by their database. In addition, this combination has no published synonymy with a species of Carlina, as can be seen here in Hassler. OK let us very briefly look at the scientific literature. The synonymy, as far as I can see, came from this paper Greuter, W., 2003. The Euro+ Med treatment of Cardueae (Compositae)—generic concepts and required new names. Willdenowia 33(1): 49-61 and see particularly page 51. Now I have located this paper, Wahrmund, U., Heklau, H., Röser, M., Kästner, A., Vitek, E., Ehrendorfer, F. & Hagen, K., 2010. A molecular phylogeny reveals frequent changes of growth form in Carlina (Asteraceae). Taxon 59(2): 367-378 Pre-publication DOC file. The authors here prefer to keep the two genera segregated as originally suggested in Petit, D.P., 1997. Generic interrelationships of the Cardueae (Compositae): A cladistic analysis of morphological data. Plant Systematics and Evolution 207(3-4): 173-203. I have not contacted Martin Hassler on this matter, as he seems to be very busy on other projects, so can only assume that he is going with Wahrmund et al., (2010). Finally, I can not yet find a published rebuttal of the findings of Wahrmund et al.. So what to do? Given WS does not make decisions or take sides! If it was me I would create Chamaeleon taxon pages sensu Hassler with synonymy and complete references. The taxonomic opinion should then be highlighted on the discussion page or through notes. Cross links between this taxon page and Carlina would be needed as well. Messy, but that is the current reality I am afraid. On name one plant is a desirable not an absolute. Thoughts? Regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
PS I am aware of Kadereit, J.W., Jeffrey, C. (Eds.). 2007. The Families and Genera of Vascular Plants. Vol. VIII - Asterales in Kubitzki, K. (series ed.) The Families and genera of vascular plants. Springer: Heidelberg and also Susanna, A. & Garcia-Jacas, N. Cardueae (Carduoideae) in Funk et al.(Eds), 2009. Systematics, Evolution, and Biogeography of Compositae pp. 293-311. IAPT: Vienna. Andyboorman (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Given the intransparency of Michael Hassler's World Plants Checklist who does not cite any sources for his taxonomic concepts, and the almost exclusive placement into Carlina in contemporary floras and checklists, I would prefer for the moment leaving the Chamaeleon species in Carlina, with notes on diverging opinions of taxonomy. --RLJ (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
See here for the transparency of World Plants and its methodology. It looks pretty academic and robust to me. Andyboorman (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Under intransparency I understand the complete lack of information on the scientific basis of these compiled checklists. --RLJ (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
No more or no less than most secondary sources. I keep feeding them papers which they implement if appropriate, but if they cited all of these and others then the list of scientific papers would span a chunk of a deposit library! Given that other wide spanning sources, such as The Plant List, Euro+Med and Tropicos are equally limited! I am happy to "trust" all of these sources and understand their limitations, hence the need for cross checking. Unresolved and disputed taxa, as well as taxonomic opinions are relatively rare, but not unknown, as you know. It is how the resolve these issues in WS, which is based on the false premise of one name one plant. Andyboorman (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Cyanus - another possible problem[edit]

@MILEPRI: @Fagus: as well. Euro+Med and the Plant List are the main secondary sources that hold to the segregation of Cyanus Mill. from Centaurea s.l.. Kadereit & Jeffrey (2007), Susanna & Garcia-Jacas (2009) and Hassler (2018) follow the synonymy and even the synonym prone Tropicos is with this view, but GCC is ambiguous. However, it does also seem that also workers from Slovakia,Turkey, Iran and their local flora are also with segregation, if a Google Scholar search is to be believed, but internationally many others do not. I notice that Fagus has made the Cyanus page, but I have placed a disputed on it, as well as adding Cyanus Mill. to the list of synonyms on the Centaurea page. MILEPRI is working through the Centaurea making or editing pages some of which are duplicated on Cyanus. I have a number of recent papers that can be added to either or both genus taxon pages, but will not do so for now. Thoughts, discussion? Andyboorman (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Indentation means that Allium reticulatum var. nuttallii is a homotypic synonym of Allium nuttallii[edit]

  • Heterotypic
    • Allium nuttallii S.Watson, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 14: 227. 1879.
      • Allium reticulatum var. nuttallii (S.Watson) M.E.Jones, Contr. W. Bot. 12: 80. 1908.

I kind of get what you mean, but most users would not IMHO. Would an additional comment be more explicit? Your format looks very odd if not obscure. Andyboorman (talk) 07:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I think this hierarchical structure should be generally self-explaining in the sense that the subordinated name is derived from the superordinate, as the same epithets are concerned (and if different epithets are involved these are generally marked as "nomen novum", also without the hierarchical structure). In taxonomic literature the symbols "≡" (homotypic), "=" (heterotypic) and "–" (misapplied) are used, but I think there is no way to introduce these symbols here at a large scale. The templates BA and HOT would be more confusing in this context, maybe another template with "Homotypic names" in smaller letters would help. --RLJ (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Leopoldia neumannii[edit]

Hello. Your synonymy of the above could just be seen as a reflection of the controversy of Muscari s.l. versus Muscari s.s., as it draws on the Greek Flora. We discussed this previously here, as you not doubt remember. I will ask for an update from Kew as a cross community source when I get back from a mini-visit. Deleting Böhnert & Lobin (2017) was not a good idea but I have the template so its is not lost! It does not make the disputed taxon go away! Indeed, the paper makes a lot of good points in the general debate, so I have added it to the Muscari taxon page, as well as Leopoldia. I sense a disputed tag coming along! Cheers for now. Andyboorman (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, as you might know old versions of the articles are normally archived so they definitely should not get lost as long as Wikispecies exists. It is “Flora of Greece” Web which is a second, updated edition of Dimpopoulos et al., 2013. Vascular Plants of Greece . An annotated checklist, and makes this taxon go away. The Böhnert & Lobin paper is in the first place a reference to Leopoldia neumanniana, in the second it is a review of the current state of debate on Muscari systematics, without giving any new aspects not already cited. The main reason why they took Leopoldia was the following of WCSP. -RLJ (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. However, as I read it, neither WCSP nor Flora of Greece are wrong in their taxonomic opinions This is rare, but not uncommon, as you know and WS cannot take an opinion. I will check with experts at Kew and if they hold with Leopoldia neumanniana then it will be a disputed taxon, but not for the next few days. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 10:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Template Taxa by author[edit]

Hallo RLJ, kennst du schon das Template {{Taxa by author}}, um Autor-Kategorien schneller anzulegen? Man gibt in geschweiften Klammern einfach "Taxa by author|Vorname Nachname|Nachname, Vorname" an, letzteres als Sortierschlüssel ohne Diacritics. Gruß von --Thiotrix (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Hallo Thiotrix, vielen Dank für den Hinweis auf diese sehr nützliche Vorlage! Viele Grüße, --RLJ (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


There is no need to circumvent the template. It already displays the author's name as part of the template function. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

* I forgot the prefix {{a| . I think a direct link to the author article in such a much-used template is appropriate. Other users see this the same way.
* The "Tomus" contradicts Help:Reference section as well as the formats used in IPNI and WCSP. Volume numbers are normally not prefixed by "volume", "Tomus" or whatever. There are users who don't use this template and who correct LSP1 to LSP because of this. The first edition is clear because of the publication year 1753, the second one is additionally indicated in the title..
* I think it is absolute nonsense to have four templates for the same work: Template:LSP, Template:LSP1, Template:Linnaeus, 1753 and Template:Linnaeus, 1753a, of which three currently have an idiosyncratic format.
* Other opinions would be of interest. --RLJ (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
{{LSP}} does not allow for a page range. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
* {{LSP|1|1–2}} -> Linnaeus, C. 1753. Species Plantarum 1: 1–2.
But let's have a community-wide conversation about what format(s) we want and where to use them. It certainly seems we could reduce the number of templates in use. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I have transcribed this discussion to the pump. Andyboorman (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


Hello Do you have a PDF of this paper - Doğru-Koca, A. 2016. Phylogeny of the genus Tordylium (Tordylineae, Apioideae, Apiaceae) inferred from morphological data. Nordic Journal of Botany 34(1): 111–119. doi: 10.1111/njb.00991? I notice that you have extensively edited Tordylium seemingly based on this paper and also I assume Al-Eisawi & Jury (1988). The circumscription you have come up with does not appear to have permeated widely and I would like have a look at the paper and to send a pdf to some other interested parties. Clearly Al-Eisawi & Jury (1988) has not gained full acceptance in the last 30 years, for example Downie et al. (2010) and Yu et al. (2011) cited here Tordylieae. Hope you can help. I must admit I had abandoned Apiaceae until recently hoping for more clarity to emerge during the last 4/5 years. Best Regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Andyboorman, I sent you an email. The main differences between Al-Eisawi & Jury 1988 and Doğru-Koca 2016 are that the subgeneric classification is rejected and that Tordylium aegaeum is accepted in the later work. As in these works, Downie et al., 2010 include Ainsworthia and Synelcosciadium in Tordylium. In Yu, Downie et al. (2011), Ainsworthia and Synelcosciadium are accepted with reference to Downie et al., 2010 where they are not accepted. Al-Eisawi & Jury (1988) is not cited by both of them. I think, Yu et al., 2011 should not be given much weight outside it main subject Chinese Heracleum. -RLJ (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi RLJ. I totally agree with your reasoning. Thanks for the paper having read it can understand your changes. I should think that Michael Hassler will change during his next edit round as well, as I have sent him a copy, but if not he will email me with his reasons. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Format of dates[edit]

Hello. I always place a brackets around dates, as seen in WCSP and sometimes in IPNI. The reason is that I have been told by a number of different sources - both academic and amateur that it make the date more accessible. In terms of convention a full stop or brackets are both optional I am led to understand. I will continue to use brackets for this reason and have explained myself on the Pump with no howls of derision. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

New IPNI entries consistently use the dots, ICN uses the dots (see here or here. As long as there is no consensus, I will continue. --RLJ (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah same here I will follow WCSP and Kew as usual. Andyboorman (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

V. K. Pazii[edit]

Hi. About a month ago you created the author page V. K. Pazii. I wonder if he perhaps is identical to the Viktor K. Pazij (born 1923) as seen in Wikidata (Q5481354) and IPNI (Author details)?

Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC).

Hi, it may well be that this both are identical. My version is derived from IPNI where he/she is called "V.K.", without full first name and birth year. The Wikidata article is derived from an article in the Spanish Wikipedie, but both don't cite any sources documenting the first name Victor and the birth year 1923. I searched the name with Google, also as Виктор К. Пазий, but without result. -RLJ (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I changed the article and those linked with it and linked to to the wikidata item. I am in doubt about the birth year 1923. In IPNI the first nomenclatural activity is this one: Eurotia fruticulosa Pazij -- Bot. Mater. Gerb. Bot. Inst. Uzbekistansk. Fil. Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R. 3: 31 (1941). That would mean that the person was only 18 years old at that time. In this paper written in Tadjikian I found the name Вера Кондратьевна Пазий (Vera Kondrat'yevna Paziy, born 1909) who could well be this person. Somebody who is more familiar with botanical literature about Central Asia should decide. I don't speak Russian nor any other Slavic language. --RLJ (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts! I'll have a closer look at it later today. I'm logging off now, in order to do some much needed coding for the web site of "Sveriges Akvarieföreningars Riksförbund" ("SARF"), i.e. the national umbrella organization for all of Sweden's aquarium associations and fishkeeping clubs. I guess the Swedish name translates into something like "Reichsverband der Schwedisches Aquarium Vereine" (except I almost never get the German -er, -es, -e etc. grammatical declension endings correct...) 🙂 –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC).
It is "Reichsverband der Schwedischen Aquarium-Vereine" --RLJ (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


Sorry but I have never really seen your format concerning Homonyms. Can you show me where on The Pump or Help Section this practice is presented as policy? I have seen them more commonly placed in synonymy than not. In addition, If this is not policy then you ought to start a discussion on the pump in order to convince us to adopt it. I was tempted but will leave Cachrys libanotis as it is for now. Personally I do not "force" changes on others based upon my personal preferences. I do understand your point by the way, but... Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion: Village Pump/Archive 43#Synonyms and homonyms revisited. General use: see the articles listed under [3] and "%3D%3D+Homonyms+%3D%3D". Note that equal names based on the same type are called isonyms. And note that a WS article treats a taxon and not a name. --RLJ (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Acacia Willd., regarded until 1967 as the valid name, is a homotypic synonym of Acacia Miller, P. , based on the same pre-Linnean sources. If it were not, about a hundred Acacia species described by Willdenow would be invalid. So it is an isonym, and no good example for the Template HOM. -RLJ (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry a couple of your links are dead. General use has little or no consensus. Looking at Archive 43 no consensus was reached just a couple of individual practices as far as I can see, but I did try and seek consensus and clarity. I understand that a page treats a taxon not a name and most taxa can have a suite of names associated with them including; homonyms, basionyms, homotypic and heterotypic synonyms and isonyms. Generally I try to do my best without getting into over-technical detail such as, what is an isonym versus a homonym. My main concern is when a homonym refers to an other taxon page. I understand now your use of REP and nom. nov. for older names under Art 33.4 etc. I have said this before, some of us are red link fillers, going for scientific articles and robust secondary sources to justify complex edits. Other mainly improve existing taxon pages and templates of papers, mind you I do some work on stubs and poorly referenced pages. WS needs both approaches, IMHO. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for you edits on the above - I am casting out my net and checking out this genus and expect changes to secondary databases, unless new evidence emerges, in which case I will adjust WS. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


Have you a reference for the synonymy of Cota feinbruniae and Cota rayatensis with Cota brevicuspis? There is nothing on any of the taxa pages and given your conscientiousness there must be one or more. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The two species were relegated to synonymy of Anthemis brevicuspis by Iranshahr in Flora Iranica 158, Compositae VI Anthemideae: 22. 1986. This was followed by TICA, under Anthemis. Cota brevicuspis was placed into Cota by Lo Presti, Oppolzer & Oberprieler (2010). As Hassler does not give any source for his treatment, I don't see any fundament for resurrecting Cota feinbruniae and Cota rayatensis. --RLJ (talk)
Thanks fairly old secondary sources, but not worth bothering about. I think you will find that Cota brevicuspis was placed in Cota earlier by Holub in 1974 according to IPNI. It seems that Presti et al., were attempting to contributing the lumping/splitting argument, as well as adding to treatments of Anthemis, so their treatment is an isonym. In addition, they do not mention the synonymy above. I was not aware of Iranshahr (1986), but I do tend to treat local flora with circumspection and think they need cross checking with additional sources. My reasoning is that they can counter consensus without producing additional evidence, that is they are personal opinions, which is fine, of course, as long as this is taken into account. Hassler will give you sources if you email him, by the way. TICA does not always cite sources other than Govaerts in this case. So my reasoning is that you are tracing the synonymy to an obscure treatment of Anthemis in Iran. Another taxonomic opinion, I wish life was simpler - maybe not! Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Flora Iranica is definitely not obscure. The species in question are limited to the area treated by this flora. Cota was established in the 19th century, but has found acceptance with the rise of molecular systematics, not in 1974. And Hassler is a database compiler. -RLJ (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Don't get so hissy - I agree with you apologies for the word obscure by the way and a badly written original response. IMHO Flora are also databases some mainly in print and some are heavily referenced. Unfortunately unlike Hassler, although I can assure you that he and his team, do read considerable amounts of scientific literature. My point with Holub was not that he delineated Cota that, as you know, was Jacques Étienne Gay in Florae Siculae Synopsis, but that he segregated a number of species of Anthemis into Cota. Clearly Iranshahr was not aware of this or took an different taxonomic opinion, so no fault on his behalf.
References do help - in your case Flora Iranica. Look my main advice to you, is that when you seem to go against consensus (WCSP, Hassler, Tropicos, Floras, APGIV, etc.) then always provide references, so that your circumscriptions can be cross-checked by others. Without these then the page is your opinion. The changes you made are brilliant, IMHO. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Have a look at Inulanthera, where the original type species was subsumed into synonymy. The references by Magoswana et al. help explain the differences between the WS page and Hassler, APD have made the changes already. In due course I should contact Hassler and he will more than likely change his database. Sorry to be so picky, I appreciate you are an experienced taxonomist and valued editor. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I have had a reflection on Cota brevicuspis. Does the heterotypic synonymy constitute "original research"? It has not been explicitly published anywhere else only by implication. Therefore, this is the first time the synonymy has appeared. I am no expert on The no original research policy, so I have copied in @Tommy Kronkvist: @Koavf: for their opinions, hope this is OK. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Just as a heads up, I am not a taxonomic authority. :/ —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks will @Dan Koehl: as well for advice on original research on Wikis.

Inform IPNI[edit]

With ref to your edits on Heterorhachis you ought to inform IPNI that they have got it wrong, so that they can change their database in line with Art 46.10 ICN with Ex. 48 and 49. Sorry to ruffle your feathers. Andyboorman (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no reason to do this, the citation there is correct and equal to that in the name section of the article. Heterorhachis Walp., Repert. Bot. Syst. 6: 278. 1847. would be equally correct. To understand "ex", read Art. 46.10 with Ex. 48 and 49. -RLJ (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
The entry for "ex" in Wikispecies:Glossary is also helpful. --RLJ (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, interesting read the Art, refreshed myself on the whole of 46 - must be getting anal in my dotage. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 10:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Arum lucanum[edit]

Thanks for your thoughts on the above. Did Pignatti, Fl. Italia, ed. 2, 1: 107. 2017 consider the synonymy outside Italy, for example Albania? I have not read this publication so can not comment. Boyce is pretty definite. I will contact Govaerts after your thoughts are posted here. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I could not find any additional synonyms. Pignatti closely follows Boyce and gives only few synonyms, no one of them new. In Albanian flora, Arum lucanicum is only given recently, in Vangjeli 2015, Excursion flora of Albania; before, only Arum italicum and A. maculatum were given for Albania in the local floras. I found only one source for Arum lucanicum in Albania: Meyer, F.K. 2011. Beiträge zur Flora von Albanien. Haussknechtia Beiheft 11: 32, based on a collection made in 1960. Boyce 1993 gives the species only for Italy. Pils 2016, Illustrated flora of Albania: 160 placed the record to Arum cylindraceum. In Boyce 2006, Arum italicum subsp. neglectum is withdrawn as well as the varieties of Arum dioscoridis except Arum dioscoridis var. philistaeum. There are more discrepancies of WCSP from other sources. The records of Arum maculatum and Arum italicum from Crete have been shown to belong to Arum cylindraceum and Arum concinnatum (Greuter 1984, Bot Helv. 94: 15–22, followed by Boyce 1993 and by every flora and checklist published since), so it should be reasonable to remove the "KRI" entries for these two species from WCSP. In Arum apulum the combination Arum apulum (Carano) Bedalov in Pignatti, Fl. Italia 3: 627. 1982 should be checked if it is valid; the basionym Arum nigrum var. apulum was published in Ann. Bot. (Roma), not "(Oxford)". And I am not through with Arum. Best regards, --RLJ (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Great work. I guess Arum lucanum is ambiguous for locations outside Italy, so could be reinstated with the notes above. I have found discrepancies in WCSP as well, but very few compared to other online databases. I guess having the resources at RBG Kew just down the corridor does help and the database is not the work of a single individual. In general I have found WCSP 99% correct for the data it handles, which is a bit of a triumph when I come across a query. I have also found them very helpful when I contact them and quick to correct errors. I just email Rafael Govaerts directly if I come across something or even seeking clarification. I do know that they will be interested in your thoughts about removing "KRI" from the distributions as well as some of the other concerns you highlight. A weakness of WCSP is the lack of sources, which makes WS somewhat stronger where editors add links to protologues, flora, books and papers. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 10:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Repository category P[edit]

Hast du schon bemerkt, dass Category:P sich nicht auf das Herbarium P bezieht? Siehe Isoetes pedersenii. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Sollte er aber. Die Kategorie enthält bisher aber nur Pflanzen und keine Fische. --RLJ (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Ich weiß. Aber für die Pflanzen in P wäre halt die Category:MNHN vorhanden. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Aber vielleicht hast du recht, dass es das Beste wäre, einfach nur die Beschreibung der Kategorie zu ändern. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Angesichts der Menge an Typen wäre eine Änderung des Kategorienamens unerfreulich. Ist das "P" bei den Zoologen allgemein oder bei den Ichthyologen eine Standardbezeichnung? Wäre eine andere Benennung möglich z.B. MONZ-P? Der Ersteller der Kategorie ist User:Neferkheperre. --RLJ (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Ich kenn mich bei den Gepflogenheiten in der Zoologie nicht wirklich aus. Jedenfalls gibt es für die Botanik ein standardisiertes System von Abkürzungen für die verschiedenen Sammlungen, ausgehend vom Index Herbariorum. Ob es in der Zoologie eine vergleichbare Standardisierung gibt, weiß ich nicht. Ich glaub aber, dass dort so etwas fehlt. Das Herbarium P gehört sicher zu den fünf oder zehn größten botanischen Sammlungen weltweit und ist extrem reich an Typen. Das würde meines Erachtens schon dafür sprechen, dass man für diese neuseeländische Fischsammlung einen anderen Kategorienamen wählt. --Franz Xaver (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


What, please, is BC, which you linked to at Cistus heterophyllus nothosubsp. marzoi? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

BC. Other herbaria: [4] + Acronym. -RLJ (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' Noticeboard[edit]

Please see Wikispecies:Administrators' Noticeboard#Sabine Von Mering redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


Noia 64 apps help index.png

Dear, RLJ!

Would you accept to be an Administrator on Wikispecies? Wikispecies need more Administrators and presently there is only 27 out of 221 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) 22:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Dear RLJ, I have now nominated you as admin at Requests for adminship, please confirm there, that you accept the nomination. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Species lists[edit]

Hi RLJ - re "Species lists are easier to handle with 1 per line, e.g. with Excel" at Convallaria - obviously it hardly makes any difference with a genus with just 3 species, but in large genera, it is considerably easier to handle with spaces rather than new lines, where you can end up with repetitive strain injury scrolling half-way to Australia to get to text below the list. Any particular reasons why you find it easier in excel? (I don't use it). Thanks! - MPF (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi MPF, I agree with small genera; in large genera you see more species with one view, but using the preview you have the same effect, and it is not always good to see lots and lots of species. Maybe it is a matter of habit, but I think that with line-breaks it is easier to detect sort errors, duplicates and comments. Excel, or any other spreadsheet software you are familiar with, is an efficient tool for sorting, formatting and updating large species or synonym lists, by the tabular structure, by the onboard tools and by VBA scripts. In order to prepare the species list it is of course possible to replace the spaces by line breaks via a word processor or, in Excel, to distribute the items with the space as separator to a row of cells and to transform this row into a column. But this are two working steps more. Best wishes, --RLJ (talk) 12:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@MPF and RLJ: Please excuse me for barging in on your discussion, but I just wish to remind you that there are a lot of good (and often free) software available that can take care of these kinds of text and/or file conversions semi-automatically, using regular expressions. Many of them can expedite large bodies of text very fast and efficient, and you can use them by simply dragging-and-dropping your file (or pure text) and the program then makes the conversions and automatically saves the result. Of course you will need to first create a task to tell the program which conversions to make, and save that as a setting, but after that it's pretty much a one click deal which only takes a few seconds. These kinds of "regexp" programs are available on all major platforms including Mac OS X, Linux, and of course Windows. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist and RLJ: Thanks! I took a look at the 'regular expressions' page; it's way beyond my computer abilities, unfortunately. Would it mean using spaces wouldn't differ from using line breaks? I can't see how it would get round the need for tedious scrolling to get to the end of a line-by-line view though. - MPF (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Tommy Kronkvist, for your valuable suggestion! I tried the RegExp function out with OpenOffice Write (with Calc it works, too). I think it is easier with line breaks. Long lists of synonyms seem to be too intricated to get satifying results. I understand that you, MPF, feel more comfortable with spaces. I think that in large genera it is worth considering an external editor. Best wishes, --RLJ (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Nom nov.[edit]

Why do you wish to use this epithet? It is nonsense on a taxon page here on WS, in my opinion, as it refers to a transitory state relevant at the point of publication. To use it otherwise needs justification, or it amounts to rampant pedantry, surely? I await your reasoned response. Andyboorman (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Andy, the term "nom. nov." is also used in a different sense as "spec. nov.", which only makes sense in the protologue of a new name. From WS Glossary: "A nomen novum (new name) is a replacement name based on a legitimate or illegitimate, previously published name. The previous name is its replaced synonym and, when legitimate, does not provide the final epithet, name, or stem of the replacement name. New names are created in order to avoid homonymy or creation of tautonyms." In the glossaries of Melbourne and Zhenzhen code, "Nom. nov." is given as synonym of "Replacement name". Maybe this term is more appropriate. --RLJ (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi I have added the link to Art 6.11 on the Glossary Page. Hope that is OK. Best Regards. Andyboorman (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


Guten Tag RLJ,
ich wünsche Dir festliche Feiertage und für das Jahr 2019 alles erdenklich Gute.
Möge das neue Jahr uns allen ein friedliches Miteinander bringen.
Beste Grüße. Orchi (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Hallo Orchi, vielen Dank für Deine guten Wünsche! Ich wünsche Dir auch frohe Weihnachten und und glückiches und gesundes Jahr 2019. --RLJ (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Herbert Huber[edit]

Herr RLJ

ES gibt zweimal Herber Huber hier Ich denke Herber Bubert kurz ist besse¡ --Penarc (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Penarc, I think one person, one article is the best. "Herbert Franz Josef Huber" is the name given by IPNI, I think this should be followed except if the author used a different name in most or all of his publications, e.g. Werner Greuter, who is filed as "Werner Rodolfo Greuter" in IPNI, but never uses this name. As there are many, and among them several important publications published by "Herbert" (e.g. Kubitzki, Fam. Gen. Vascular Plants, Ceropegia monography of 1958) this might be also appropriate here. The English, German and Spanish Wikipedias also use Herbert, and not the full name. @Andyboorman:, what do you think about it? --RLJ (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Penarc: I have to agree with RLJ. We ought to follow not lead. He was always known and published as Herbert Herber, Herbert Franz Josef Huber or variants, so there should be no need for Herber Bubert even as a note on his WS page. However, if you feel a redirect Herber Bubert to Herbert Franz Josef Huber is helpful then I would not disagree - I have created one for the alias above. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
das ist gut¡--Penarc (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Andyboorman:, @Penarc:, "Herber Huber" and "Herber Bubert" are misspellings. The choice is between the short "Herbert Huber" (based on an obvious majority of publications signed with this name, used also in his obituary) and the long "Herbert Franz Josef Huber" (based on the IPNI entry) as lemma of the article about the corresponding person. Another criterium in favour of the long name is the ambiguity of the name, "en:Huber" is one of the most frequent German surnames, though I am not aware of any other "Herbert Huber" involved in systematic biology. -RLJ (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Penarc: and RLJ. Well reasoned and therefore I must happily agree. Andyboorman (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrator rights[edit]

Wikispecies Administrator.png

Dear RLJ, You have been granted administrator user rights, congratulations!

Thank you very much! --RLJ (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Admin userbox on Wikispecies[edit]

Wikispecies Administrator.png This user is an administrator on Wikispecies. (verify)

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

{{User Admin}}

Userbox on EnWp and Meta-Wiki[edit]

Theres also a Wikispecies userbox which you can use on the English Wikipedia, located at en:Template:User admin Wikispecies.

If you have a Meta Wiki user page, you can put the Wikispecies admin user box for Meta on your Meta-Wiki user page. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Admin rights[edit]

Hello. I for one would be happy for you to speedy delete as part of housekeeping. It is not controversial and saves posting them up for someone else. Best regards and congratulations by the way. Andyboorman (talk) 09:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Andy! I think the procedure is not very obvious. I guess it works like this: go to the version history of the article to delete, select all versions, press the button "Change visbility ...", set all visibility restrictions to "Hidden", enter "Housekeeping" as reason (but why does this not appear in the menu?) and hope that pressing "Apply to selected revisions " will have the wanted effect. -- Does it work like this? Best regards ---RLJ (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Do you have a More option? If so then there will be a Delete function with a drop down box and at the end of this will be Housekeeping just above Vandalism. Hitting Delete Page will get rid of all versions. Andyboorman (talk) 09:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I have the More option, but not the Delete function. There is only the "autodelete" function from Preferences->Gadgets->Admin tools which apparently has no effect. --RLJ (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
If you on the page to be deleted, for example here from the speedy delete selection, you should find four options or three if you are looking at the revision history. Both will have Delete at the top. Any help? Andyboorman (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Now it works! After I have resetted all preferences to the default values. Thank you very much for your efforts! Best regards, --RLJ (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The "Preferences->Gadgets->MoreMenu" seems to interfere with the "More" menu, if activated. -RLJ (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Well spotted my gadgets are set as yours! Excellent. Andyboorman (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Differences in approach.[edit]

The uncertainty regarding Hyacinthinae classification and circumscription is very interesting in one way, but also frustrating if you want one plant one name. Just now exemplified by Scilla nana, as its circumscriptions, I think, reflect opinions and differences in approach. As you know, subspecies, varieties and forms always interbred producing fertile offspring, therefore their delineation is a matter of human enterprise not important botanical reality. I am of the school that unless there is very good reason for segregation then they are just taxonomic fluff. I will not go into the very good reasons, but blindly following the well renowned Franz Speta is not one of them. It is good that we, in WS, are evolving methodologies to overcome this problem of taxonomic opinion, but still maintain robust reasons for our decisions. It is not perfect, for example I would like to have separate but linked pages for all "accepted" combinations in Leopoldia and Pseudomuscari, whilst there is a lack of consensus in Muscari. Even though my preference is to have broad generic circumscriptions rather than endless segregates based upon micro-morphological features. The tribe is full of these so called "problems" and, in my humble opinion, it is the role of science to tease out answers not local flora that just follow a paper trial. Thoughts and best regards Andyboorman (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Bellevalia sasonii[edit]

According to IPNI this combination is nom. inval. contrary to Art. 40.7. ICN (2018). I have not got access to the full text so can not confirm, so must take this on trust. Andyboorman (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this information, I don't have the original paper either, and I did not consult IPNI. It seems that the author has forgotten to specify the herbarium where the type is deposited, and the reviewer(s) as well as the editor did not notice it. I have requested the paper from the auther at ResearchGate. Cheers, -RLJ (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
The auther has sent his paper, and I informed him about the IPNI entry. In fact the name is invalid, it can only be guessed if the type is in his private herbarium, in the herbarium of his home university at Siirt, or elsewhere. --RLJ (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for this we have done all we can do! Andyboorman (talk) 07:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)