User talk:RLJ

These are the archives of my talk page:
To Jan 2024		|-	The archives are searchable:

Vitis vinifera

Do you support the current accepted synonymy for this taxon? WS support for the subspecies seems to be at odds with the current thinking for non-cultivated plants. At the moment I am concentrating on adding the Chinese accepted mames, but need to have a look at the European and American species in due course. Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The lumper is POWO (without source), not Hassler (V. v. subsp. sylvestris as V. gmelinii). It is distinguished from the cultivated taxon by diecy, by different leaf, fruit and seed characters. The wild taxon is endangered e.g. in Germany. I think the scientific non-recognition is contraproductive for its protection. I don't think there is any consensus about merging, and I would prefer keeping these two taxa separate. --RLJ (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

As an instinctive lumper, we can always find differences in natural variety after all, I distrust unnatural divisions not supported by distinct evidence. The pages of taxonomic treatises are full of infraspecific and generic names that are no longer used. The only more or less current primary source that covers this is Ardenghi et al. (2014) and they are very unsupportive, it is worth a read. I take your point, about protection of a few genotypes, but I am not convinced. I will not engage in any edit wars. Andyboorman (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Information sources and some help

Hi, RLJ, I wanna ask you some help about something. Lately, I've seen how you have modified some pages created by me and you have taken a look at others and corrected them for the better, either due to my interference or that of other users (which, by the way, I must thank you for your work, keep it up), but I need your help to do better my modifications and future pages, so, I don't know if could you help me with the sources you use to modify, expand, and contrast the synonymy of the species I modify or make. for example, sometimes POWO, GBIF or Catalogue of Life aren't enough, and I should compare Wikipedias in other languages, check the species sources, etc. like some synonyms in Hepatica nobilis or Paliurus spina-christi(which are species where I've edited and you've enriched their synonymy), I hope you could help me, thank you and greetings. AbeCK (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• Hello AbeCK, thank you very much for your inquiry! Apart from POWO (which is very useful and influential, but should not be confused with the bible; it is not always consensus, not always error-free (missing basionyms, homotypic names), not complete for synonyms and with a preference for house publications), you can use WorldPlants or Tropicos, or national checklists like the French Tela Botanica or the German Florenliste. New and old literature like taxonomic revisions or floras (https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org, https://archive.org/, https://bibdigital.rjb.csic.es, https://herba.msu.ru/shipunov/school/sch-ru.htm) may also be useful. Be aware that the taxonomic circumscription may vary from publication to publication. Best wishes, --RLJ (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
  • @AbeCK: FYI. Callistemon is found as a synonym of Melaleuca in most secondary databases and sources. However, this is only partially accepted by the Australian Plant Census, where they note that some states accept the synonymy and others do not, but still keep its page. The Australian public are very unhappy about this and are ambivalent. I propose that WS follow the science, but add a note and perhaps a disputed tag and will edit very soon. My garden Callistemons are doing well fingers crossed. Andyboorman (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Vitis vinifera

Hello also @MPF: I have added a note on Vitis vinifera page explaining the problem and potential of accepting the two subspecies circumscription. If WS keeps this circumscription then I think we must transfer all the synonymy on Vitis vinifera subsp. vinifera to the yet to be created Vitis vinifera subsp. sylvestris. Thoughts please. Andyboorman (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd be happy with dumping subsp. sylvestris as a synonym - MPF (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

All the current synonymy of Vitis vinifera subsp. vinifera as presented here clearly belongs to the cultivated taxon. Maybe some relate to cultivars of hybrid origin.--RLJ (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for checking through that. I had started, but thanks again! Andyboorman (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@MPF: & also @AbeCK: here with reference to your sources discussion above. My work to date on Vitis vinifera finds very little agreement with respect to infraspecifics across the secondary sources on the links. I have added two primary sources, but can find more if you advise this would strengthen the page. I am happy to go with consensus with respect to the subspecies and create Vitis vinifera subsp. sylvestris. Please advise Andyboorman (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I see that Euro+Med as well as POWO treat Vitis vinifera as monotypic. I would guess the basic point in question, is whether any cultivated derivative of a wild plant (nothotaxa derived from two or more taxa presumably excepted) can be considered distinct at an ICN taxonomic rank as opposed to an ICNCP rank; many (me included!) would say not.

As an aside, it would be nice (even despite it being named from a cultivated plant) to find a photo of a wild plant to illustrate the page. - MPF (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

It is also rather ironic that the cultigen becomes an autonym. Presumably this is what Hassler was trying to avoid. Andyboorman (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Quite likely! It is very far from the only case; the same probably applies to most major crop species. Among the conifers that I know better than other groups, the type of Cephalotaxus harringtonia is a fastigiate cultivar, and (IIRC) the type of Chamaecyparis pisifera is a juvenile-foliage cultivar. - MPF (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

WS does have pages for cultigens, for example Citrus, Triticum aestivum and Camellia sinensis. The pages do need a little more work. Andyboorman (talk) 08:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@MPF: I have started the page Vitis vinifera subsp. sylvestris, if you would like to have a look and add date, re-edit and so on. Andyboorman (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping! Nothing really to add, except in the synonyms, to query whether a taxon named "sativa" (sweet) would really refer to an unselected wild plant, rather than a cultivated selection? - MPF (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@MPF: You were correct I checked through the references and according to DC it is cultivated. 08:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Andyboorman (talk)

Cirsium

Hello. I noticed you have done some edits on the above genus. I am not sure that the sectional classification has validity, as there are no sources. In addition, Cirsium vulgare is placed in Cirsium sect. Epitrachys = Lophiolepis, but this species is retained in Cirsium. Edits are clearly needed. Can you help? Please also look at the discussions starting here here before I possibly migrate them to the Pump. Andyboorman (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

BPH abbreviations

Hello RLJ. I've seen that over the years you've added the parameter "BPH abbreviation" to our journal pages. Just to be sure: I guess you are referring to Botanico Periodicum Huntianum (Q43150264). Or have I misunderstood? :-) Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC).

Hello Tommy, yes, BPH relates to Botanico Periodicum Huntianum, first published in book form (1968, supplement: 1991. second edition: 2004). This is the work from which IPNI took the standard. Kind regards, --RLJ (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

IPNI templates

Please stop adding redundant data to IPNI templates, as you did in this edit (which I have reverted) and have dome repeatedly to the same and other biographical pages. The template is designed to pull in such data automatically from Wikidata, and does so prefectly well. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Andy, I disagree. Wikispecies is no front-end of Wikidata; content (the standard form is important content, no facultative content as that delivered by Taxonbar or Authority control) should stand word by word in the article. It should be taken from the original source and not from another wiki. The matter should be further discussed in the pump. --RLJ (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see Wikispecies:Administrators' Noticeboard#Use of Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

My Link Preferences

I add the page link to the Reference citation for the protologue, as it makes my data entries on INPI a lot easier. Therefore I would appreciate you not adding the link exclusively to the Name Section with a delete to the Reference Section. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

nadi

I thought it was praxis to use italics for Regional and bold for Continental in the nadi template. There are literally hundreds if not thousands that use this format, as opposed to your preferences. This, of course, is not important, as it has only minor relevance to taxonomy and classification and could be just seen as minor Editor personal preference unless there has been consensus on the Pump. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Examples? Here are some examples for the opposite from other users which I have not edited: Cirsium tepehuanense, Neottia cordata, Nepenthes abgracilis, and one from me: Salvia. Until today I have never seen italics in nadi templates, and this is obviously not praxis. -RLJ (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree it is a personal preference. I usually do not bother with it and will now continue not to do so. Back to taxonomy and literature. Following these I have a side project which I am going to concentrate on and that is adding names to IPNI, which helps place protologues on WS taxon pages. Andyboorman (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

bot

Is it you or your bot removing volume numbers from Sp. Pl. in the name section? I think IPNI is correct not POWO. I will continue following IPNI in my edits and re-edits. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Andy, I am sorry. I am rather neutral towards the volume numbers of Species Plantarum. Both options are possible, because the pagination in Species Plantrum is continuous. So I geneerally let it as it is. --RLJ (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

And I look at IPNI as the main authority and follow its example. I add them when I am editing or creating pages so get a bit miffed when I am reverted. No problems. Andyboorman (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

That may be IPNI's ambition, but look here, for example, with a mixture of Roman and Arabic numerals, missing volume numbers, missing years etc. Or here, partly with "Sp. Pl.", partly with "Sp. Pl. [Linnaeus]"--RLJ (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:Hainanecio

Please see p. 117 of the species protologue here. Where do we get the change in subtribe from? Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Andy, it was you who inserted Hainanecio into the list of genera of Tussilagininae, without any comment or source. I have not found any sources backing this assignation. So I would not mind if you change the template and delete the entry in list of genera of Tussilagininae (or add a source and delete the entry in the genera list of Senecioninae?). Best wishes, RLJ (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake, it seems! Andyboorman (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Bolanthus etc

Thanks for taking this on. I will leave to it to you to sort out the three genera and their species. I will check back later. BTW I thought the consensus was to use Genus (family name) not (Plantae) for disambig. Mind you looking through the list there is no consensus! Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Betonica officinalis

Your recent edits on the above page seem to be moving into the realm of an edit war with AbeCK. I suggest that you take the discussion to the Pump for a fuller discussion. I have placed a virtually identical message on AbeCK's page. I was considering putting a Protect on the Page, but you are a fellow editor and this may be considered a bias. I do hope you can sort out your differences. Regards. Andyboorman (talk) 07:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Andy! I have written my statement on the Pump. Kind regards, -RLJ (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

WCVP templates

Thanks for starting to try rationalising the {{Catol-Hassler}} template. I have an observation regarding your {{Catol-WCVP}} template. Like the well established POWO, it uses the Kew WCVP as its database and so can not be independent. I notice that at least one other user is starting to use your templates and they have been picked up for duplicating sources. See Salvia officinalis subsp. gallica. I can not point this out myself to this fellow editor (see the Admin page). If you have other "Hassler" template improvements to share, I would like to try them on Cactaceae, as their are often significant differences in species circumscriptions. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Andy, the accounts on vascular plants in Catalogue of Life are predominantly taken from Michael Hassler (217,324 species) and from WCVP (123,996 species). Pinopsida (834 species) are taken from WFO. 23849 of the species accepted in CoL come from other sources, but it is time-consuming to find out from which ones. Cactaceae are taken from Michael Hassler. Kind regards, --RLJ (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I will keep it simple, but keep an eye on developments. Will you alert the community via the Pump when you are happy with progress? My present project is re-tackling Cactaceae, which predominately means double checking CACO with POWO, MBG etc., then attempting to deal with species in dispute. Taxonomic nightmare given the WS policy of no OR. Kind Regards Andyboorman (talk) 07:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Turkey = Türkiye

Hi RLJ, You know, I used the term 'Türkiye' instead of 'Turkey', and you had a point of contention with it. Now I see you are also using the term 'Türkiye'. It caught my attention. I suppose you've been convinced. It seems so. Fagus (talk) 12:34, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Fagus, as I have written in the Pump on 30 Apr, POWO has recently updated the geographical terms for the distribution data:

• Czechoslovakia --> Czechia-Slovakia
• Sudan --> Sudan-South Sudan
• Swaziland --> Eswatini
• Turkey --> Türkiye ("Türkey" is used in the distribution data, "Türkiye" in the "Build a Checklist" tool)
• Turkey-in-Europe --> Türkiye-in-Europe (dito)
• Yakutskiya --> Yakutiya
• Yugoslavia --> NW. Balkan Pen.
• Zaïre --> DR Congo

I think these updates are positive, but with "Türkey" I have the problem that I cannot find this term anywhere except in POWO (can you?). So I would prefer to use the official term "Türkiye" instead. --RLJ (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Upon Türkiye's request, the United Nations changed the country's name from "Turkey" to "Türkiye" in foreign languages. I will also be using this name from now on. Thank you. Fagus (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

"Paleospecies"

Good afternoon RLJ, I just saw your edits on Acer after I started the expansion into fossil taxa. My question is if "Paleospecies" as a separate section is still the editing convention or not? I have come across a number of pages where extinct taxa are simply listed at the end of the extant taxa list with daggers to denote the difference, while on pages where the extinctions are recent the extinct taxa and extant taxa are either all in one alphabetical list OR separated with recent and paleo at the end, but not segregated into a fully separate list. Are there any village pump discussions in the archives I should be aware of or should one be initiated?--Kevmin (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello Kevmin, I am not aware of any discussion on the pump or any offical convention. The term "paleospecies" is not my invention (as the taxonomic categories in Taxonavigation should be given in Latin, "palaeospecies" is more correct), and I am not the only one putting the fossil species into an own paragraph. I think this is justified because the literature is different. In recent organisms you have biological material, in fossil organisms you only have its traces. Greetings from Germany and best wishes, RLJ (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I am not the only one putting the fossil species On the other hand I am not the only on doing a single alphabetically divided structure, and thus the community is working against itself without a solid directive. You say the literature is different, but the taxonomic and phylogenetic frameworks both are placed into are the same, and literature often does not use the term paleospecies (and in the case of Acer no liturature uses the term "paleosectiones", a wholly Wikispecies made up term. Also as recent findings in fossils are showing we more and more have much MORE preserved in fossils then was thought would be possible 50 years ago. This really should be a community discussion to make a firm choice that is then reflected in the article construction guides.--Kevmin (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I recommend to consult the pump. --RLJ (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Unused templates

There are a number of unused templates, created by you, whose names begin with "Template:RLJ/", listed at [1].

Is there any reason not to delete them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I use these templates with subst in order to to organize and streamline my volunteer work here. Please do not delete them. The same is true for the author templates. --RLJ (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough; but in that case please add a note to that effect inside the "noinclude" tags.

Also, if you make a page at, say, User:RLJ/Templates, and transclude each one there, it will remove them from the special page listing untranscluded templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Helmut Mühlberg status

Hi, RLJ.

Even though I don't own the Hegi volume, Thanks for consulting it. I did a direct Google search, including papers and bibliographic references, consistently supports, that the full names of these authors are indeed Hermann Meusel and Helmet Mühlberg. Regarding Gypsophila vaccaria, the synonym

• Vaccaria hispanica var. grandiflora (Fisch. ex Ser.) Meusel & H.Mühlberg in G.Hegi, Ill. Fl. Mitt.-Eur., ed. 2, 3(2): 978 (1971).

As you wrote in your edit: "'M. Mühl.' is an error in Hassler; the co-author is Helmut Mühlberg (*1932), professor of botany in Halle/Saale, without IPNI entry, therefore unabbreviated. I have consulted the Hegi volume."

I can confirm that Helmut Mühlberg does have formal records in:

• IPNI: Helmut Mühlberg
• HarvardBotanist: Helmut Mühlberg
• Wikidata: Helmut Mühlberg

A while ago, I made the entry for this author here on WS (alternative names and author botanical abbreviation). If you have any further biographical or bibliographic data on Mühlberg, you can edit it there.

I have already reported the authorship issue to IPNI and POWO and am awaiting their response, about this synonym.

Best regards. AbeCK (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Ascherson, Graebner & Graebner fil. 1920–1929

@AbeCK: Your edits on the above template have seemed to have generated a conflict in the {{Subst:Reftemp}} protocol. See Gypsophila fastigiata subsp. visianii as an example. Would it be possible to rectify the problem? Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 09:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Andyboorman (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

#property:P961

Please note that this template does not work if IPNI has more than one registration for a name or combination. What is its advantage as opposed to using the fixed IPNI n/code? Andyboorman (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Does this question concern me? I don't remember having changed anything in the IPNI template recently. --RLJ (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I seem to have missed out the topic header that is #property:P961 template added into the IPNI template in place of the IPNI code. The #property:P961 has a problem as outlined above. Andyboorman (talk) 09:10, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

AbeCK

Please see my request to bureaucrats on the Admin Notice board concerning the edit behaviour of the above. They seem to be adopting a very personal approach to the project including warning others off others and using persistent reverts on pages that they are involved in. I will leave the problem in their capable hands. Best Regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:17, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

VP Discussion

Template HOM and level two header ==Homonyms== are the same beast. See VP discussion. Andyboorman (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Silene niceensis

I have a very strong suspicion that the correct epithet is nicaeensis as found on POWO and IPNI. The reason being that in the protologue the author refers to the plant specimen as "a silene found in the fields around Nice" and a common name is the Nice Catchfly. The Romans knew Nice as Nicaea and so as an epithet, this would become nicaeensis. I am waiting for a final confirmation from Kew. Thoughts? Andyboorman (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Good evening, Andy, Allioni used "niceensis" in the original publication. When you look for "niceensis" on Google you will have plenty of results. So it may be an orthographic variant used by a minority, but it is not necessarily an orthographic error, and this must be seen in the historical context of 1773. "Silene niceensis" is used in Med-Checklist, Flora Iberica and Flora Hellenica, incl. satellite publications. In ICN Proposals and Disposals there is no conservation of "nicaeensis". Good night --RLJ (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Good morning! I do not like the term misspelt either, one persons misspelling is another's orthographic variant. WS should follow IPNI in my opinion unless there are very good reasons for not doing so. I have contacted them and they will not change their epithet based upon its usage by secondary sources. However, they are still thinking about it, as if based upon Nice, not Nicaea, as in the Greek city Nikaia or Empire Nicaea Empire, then the epithet would be nicensis , again not niceensis. Leave it for now I reckon? Andyboorman (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

The original Index Kewensis entry, citing Allioni's Flora Pedemontana, published in 1785 where Silene nicaeensis is used. This makes a correctable orthographic error (Art. 60.1 ICN) likely. I am curious for the reply from Kew. --RLJ (talk) 10:36, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I would prefer a neutral term to "misspelt". --RLJ (talk) 11:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

That is why the standard orthographic variant ortho. var. should be used. OK a bit high brow, but accepted in science! Another autocorrect? As a courtesy I will drop a note. Andyboorman (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I will send you the thread once it has ben completed. Andyboorman (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Sent to your email directly as requested. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

By what reason ever I still did not receive your message. Thank you very much for your efforts! I saw that they created a new item for Silene niceensis at IPNI and that they completed the information for both variants. Allioni 1773: 88 repeats "Niceensi" in footnote 123, so this is intention, no lapse. I think the names of the synonyms must be corrected to "niceensis", too. -RLJ (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if I misspelt your first name? I agree about the synonyms mandated under the latest acts, I believe. Andyboorman (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

This one, with "f" not with "ph". --RLJ (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I am getting error messages from my not so good BT service. I did spell your name correctly. The most important bit of the thread is:

Dear Andrew,

Corrected to Silene niceensis All., Auct. Syn. Meth. Stirp. Hort. Regii Taur.: 36 (1773) (Preprinted from Mélanges Philos. Math. Soc. Roy. Turin 5: 88, 1774)

Original spelling not correctable as protologue explicitly states 'in agro Niceensi', a correct Latin word.

Kind Regards, The IPNI editors Andyboorman (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Silene aladagense

You need to contact IPNI for an opinion and a correct, if required. WS is hanging out on its own. I have made some temporary edits to the taxon page otherwise it seems nonsense, but I have not added a note. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I have written to IPNI: The gender of Silene is feminine, so the ending of the third-declension adjective "aladagensis" is "-is", not the neuter "-e", and the correct name is Silene aladagensis." --RLJ (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I should think you will get a quick positive reply unless there is something else to consider. Andyboorman (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I notice that IPNI has updated, but not POWO as yet. I have contacted them about a tweek for Silene nutans subsp. livida. Andyboorman (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Silene sect. Silene

Hello Jahn. This section has been expanded to include a number of other sections and subsections including Silene subsect. Fruticulosae, hence my addition of the species previously under these once segregates, including Silene abietum, where you removed my sectional addition. Compare Jafari et al. (2020) with Oxelman et al. (2013). However, do you have contradictory evidence that you need to share with us? Andyboorman (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, this must have been an unintentional update of an old version. --RLJ (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

No problems thanks Andyboorman (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Silene gallinyi

I have put a note on @AbeCK:'s talk page and corrected the WS entry for Delectus Seminum in horto botanico universitatis Vindobonensis, so that it matches IPNI. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

GBIF linking

Hello, this is neither a new nor an isolated issue. It has happened before, for example, with Silene sclerocarpa, and it Is happening again with the removal of the GBIF link without proper justification.

I would like to remind you that in Acanthoprasium, a clear consensus was reached to maintain GBIF linking as seen here, so it's not right to unilaterally revert it. These kinds of edits, even if they seem minor, end up causing unnecessary conflicts and undermining collaboration.

I also provide additional reasons for GBIF linking:

• First, GBIF sometimes offers common names and even the most common name for certain taxa.
• Second, GBIF offers synonymy that goes unnoticed by other taxonomic databases. In many cases, these synonyms were already reflected in older WS editions, but have been deleted and ignored in more recent edits. Its usefulness is comparable to, and sometimes even surpasses in level of detail, that of World Plants. This is because it allows for a clearer tracing of nomenclatural history and the relationships between names.

Therefore, maintaining its link is not redundant; it contributes to improved traceability, regardless of whether it was used to create articles or not.

In the case of Silene badaroi, I restored the GBIF link and incorporated additional improvements to that page. I ask that you please avoid making further minor changes that lead to major problems, as in this case.

Greets. AbeCK (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, adding "useful links" already present in the taxonbar without adding content is unwelcome. The "improvement" from GBIF is clearly erroneous. Viviani cites a junior homonym of Silene italica, so it is no nomenclatural act, but a simple (mis)identification. --RLJ (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, both. Sorry to butt in, but you are on my watch list. I have nothing against GBIF for genera and species, except that I can not find an easy way of contacting them to report errors or missing data. That is one of the main reasons for me avoiding going to them as a source of first instance when constructing taxon pages, another is that it does not seem to hold entries for tribes and other infrataxa. Finally it usually uses WCVP for its taxonomic data, which is the same as POWO. Andyboorman (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Silene behen

Hi Jahn Do you have citation(s) that support your Note? I am not questioning its veracity, but we could do with putting additional references on the taxon page and citations in the note, as it is unsupported or am I missing something? Andyboorman (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Andy, it is difficult to support the obvious. The problem is the disambiguous epithet behen which occurs in the nomenclatural history of Silene behen and of Silene vulgaris and which easily leads to confusion if you are not aware. This happened in the Silene behen account in Michael Hassler's World Plants, where Lychnis behen, Behenantha behen, and Oberna behen were erroneously assigned to Silene behen and not to Silene vulgaris (= Cucubalus behen), while in POWO Behenantha behen and Oberna behen were correctly placed into Silene vulgaris and their basionym Lychnis behen confusingly into Silene vulgaris subsp. vulgaris.

Heliosperma quadrifidum subsp. carpaticum Zapał. and the six combinations derived from this name are erroneously placed in both databases into Silene behen, which is a typical Mediteranean plant with gaps on the northern side (POWO, Atlas Florae Europaeae) and very unlikely to reach the working area of Zapałovicz which lies in Galicia, Ukraine. Probably this should be assiged to Heliosperma alpestre like Heliosperma quadrifidum s.str., or H. pusillum. --RLJ (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, but unfortunately for a a wiki there does not seem an obvious way of diverging from POWO, Hassler etc. without contacting them and getting a change. Without these changes we are in OR territory. I think that the synonymy found in POWO should be used, but with a few notes. The other approach is to write a paper disentangling the problem, but to be fair there are many problems with the taxonomy of these plants. Andyboorman (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I think we are not obliged to copy these highly dubious synonyms, which are in POWO at least since 2022, so we should not include them, and delete the note. Placing Silene pseudobehen and especially Silene reinholdii into synonymy of Silene behen (based on the new Turkish flora) is not followed by Hassler and VPG. And the POWO staff should be asked about this synonymy. --RLJ (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I will drop them an email and ask for an opinion. All the best Andyboorman (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I communicated the error with Silene mellifera var. rhodantha to WCVP. Rafael Govaerts replied personally that it will appear on the next POWO refresh. --RLJ (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

BTW POWO no longer have Lychnis behen under Silene behen, but now its in Silene vulgaris subsp. vulgaris, as of course a heterotypic synonym and so your note on Silene behen is incorrect. I have just drafted an email questioning this species and wait a reply. I will not edit the note. Andyboorman (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

In addition, how can Lychnis behen Scop., Fl. Carniol., ed. 2, 1: 305 (1771) be the basionym of Behenantha behen (L.) Ikonn., Novosti Sist. Vyssh. Rast. 12: 198 (1975) and Oberna behen (L.) Ikonn., Novosti Sist. Vyssh. Rast. 13: 119 (1976) as you stated above. Surely Cucubalus behen L., Sp. Pl. 1: 414 (1753) is their basionym? This is supported by IPNI. If this is the case then Behenantha behen (L.) Ikonn., Novosti Sist. Vyssh. Rast. 12: 198 (1975) can not belong to Silene behen but must be in the synonymy of S. vulgaris? No wonder I am confused! Andyboorman (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Lychnis behen (L.) Scop. is no heterotypic name, it has Cucubalus behen L. as basionym and the same type. - Scopoli cites the name implicitly, by indicating the page and the current number of Cucubalus behen as well as the diagnosis. Behenantha behen has also Cucubalus behen as basionym and must be removed from the Silene behen article. Ebraxis behen has Silene behen as basionym and remains in this article. And all the Heliosperma names have to be moved out. --RLJ (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

So where have you placed;

Silene venosa var. carpatica Zapał. in Consp. Fl. Galic. Crit. 3: 129 (1911)

Oberna carpatica (Zapał.) Czerep. in Sosud. Rast. SSSR: 166 (1981)

Ixoca carpatica (Zapał.) Ikonn. in Novosti Sist. Vyssh. Rast. 21: 62 (1984)

Oberna behen var. carpatica (Zapał.) Fedor. in Ukrayins'k. Bot. Zhurn. 57: 26 (2000)

Oberna behen subsp. carpatica (Zapał.) Tzvelev in Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow & Leningrad) 87(3): 128 (2002)

Silene pseudobehen Boiss. in Diagn. Pl. Orient. 1: 36 (1843)

Silene reinholdii Heldr. in Atti Congr. Int. Bot. Firenze 1874: 238 (1876)

and with what justification?

Lychnis behen can be a heterotypic synonym of, for example, Silene vulgaris subsp. vulgaris (POWO, 2026) is what I meant. I am waiting for an opinion from Rafael about the whole farce that is Silene vulgaris and Silene behen.

Where have you moved the Heliosperma names given the circumscription of the genus is a mess? Andyboorman (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I have sorted the names systematically.

Scopoli refers Lychnis behen clearly to Linnaeus, without citing any other herbarium material or other references. So it clearly has the same type as Cucubalus behen. This circumstance is generally named as homotypic.

For the taxa with the carpatica epitheton the actual mix of these perennial mountain plants with a Mediterranean annual is a perfect mess. It is understandable that this can happen among 1.4 million data.

Flora of URSR [Ukraine] 4: (1952) accepts this taxon as Heliosperma carpaticum (Zapal.) Klokov (not listed above).

Savulescu 1953, Fl Rep. Pop Romane 2: 185 places Heliosperma quadrifidum subsp. carpaticum into synonymy of Heliosperma quadrifidum var. emarginatum (Pantu & Proc.) Savul.

Mosyakin-Fedoronchuk 1999, Vascular Plants of Ukraine: 174 and Tzvelev 2001 accept this taxon as Ixoca carpatica

Flora Europaea 1 (ed. 1: 173 & ed. 2: 258) do not mention this taxon, but obvioulsy treats it under a wide Silene pusilla.

Atlas Florae Europaeae 7: 85 has a wide Silene pusilla concept, too, with a long synonym list including the carpaticum names.

In POWO, Heliosperma is accepted, for Ukraine Heliosperma alpestre (given only for "Dnestr river gorge") and Heliosperma pusillum subsp. pusillum are given in the distribution maps. Most probably Heliosperma carpaticum is subsumed by Heliosperma pusillum subsp. pusillum or will figure as Heliosperma pusillum subsp. carpaticum.

Silene pseudobehen and Silene reinholdii; accepted by Greuter in Flora Hellenica 1, in the case of Silene reinholdii with vehemence, and continuing to be accepted in the Vascular Plants of Greece database (cf. photo with that in the Silenen behen article), Silene reinholdii is also accepted by Strid (not known to be a splitter), Atlas of the Aegean Flora and in his new Atlas of the Hellenic Flora, Silene pseudobehen not. At least acceptance of Silene reinholdii should be continued. -RLJ (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

A reply from Rafael Govaerts with reference to Silene armeria M.Bieb., Fl. Taur. Caucasus 1: 339 (1808); "M.Bieb. cites Linnaeus, so this is not a new taxon and you need to ask IPNI to suppress that" : [2]. I will make the request to IPNI.

With respect to the mess that is Silene behen and S. vulgaris, the replies are; "I think there was some confusion with Silene carpatica (Zapał.) Czopik, and yes, it is Heliosperma pusillum. As per your comments above!

My words: Should Lychnis behen (L.) Scop., Fl. Carniol., ed. 2, 1: 305 (1771) be with its basionym, Cucubalus behen L., Sp. Pl. 1: 414 (1753), in Silene vulgaris and not on its own under Silene vulgaris subsp. vulgaris?

The reply was: "Yes, basionym is Cucubalus behen L. and changed synonymy". POWO/WCVP are on the case! Andyboorman (talk) 07:26, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

A final reply:

"Yes, a Linnaean European common species has always a lot of stuff in its synonymy, I go through one a couple of times a week. You wouldn’t believe what I find!" As I keep reminding people Kew are more than happy for help from all sources!. Andyboorman (talk) 07:29, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Silene armeria M.Bieb., Fl. Taur. Caucasus 1: 339 (1808)

The name has now been supressed and IPNI will update on their next refresh. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2026 (UTC)