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!

Scilla[edit]

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]

Wikispecies-logo.svg

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: https://cgt.name/patrolstats/wikispecies.html 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 "http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/" 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)

WCSP[edit]

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)

dashes[edit]

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]

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)

Paronychia[edit]

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)

ISSN[edit]

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)

Template:GCC[edit]

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)
  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.