User talk:RLJ/Archive 1

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yep, good idea - MPF (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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).[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The paper by Greuter 1989 supporting Primula acaulis is written with similar arguments. --RLJ (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]


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

LSP1 and LSP2[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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


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)[reply]

* 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)[reply]
{{LSP}} does not allow for a page range. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
* {{LSP|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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Yeah same here I will follow WCSP and Kew as usual. Andyboorman (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[reply]
It is "Reichsverband der Schwedischen Aquarium-Vereine" --RLJ (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

───────────────────────── 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)[reply]

Just as a heads up, I am not a taxonomic authority. :/ —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The entry for "ex" in Wikispecies:Glossary is also helpful. --RLJ (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sollte er aber. Die Kategorie enthält bisher aber nur Pflanzen und keine Fische. --RLJ (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ich weiß. Aber für die Pflanzen in P wäre halt die Category:MNHN vorhanden. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]


Dear, RLJ!

Would you accept to be an Administrator on Wikispecies? Wikispecies need more Administrators and presently there is only 22 out of 231 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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).[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
das ist gut¡--Penarc (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hi @Penarc: and RLJ. Well reasoned and therefore I must happily agree. Andyboorman (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator rights[edit]

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

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

Admin userbox on Wikispecies[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The "Preferences->Gadgets->MoreMenu" seems to interfere with the "More" menu, if activated. -RLJ (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks for this we have done all we can do! Andyboorman (talk) 07:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello I thought you ought to be aware of the proposed changes in the above tribe. They are based upon Siadati et al., 2018, which is on the tribe and genera pages. As an example see Pseudodictamnus acetabulosus c.f. Ballota_acetabulosa. I have only made the minimum changes myself and as you are a major editor for this group of taxa, I thought that I would alert you here. Clearly these proposals will not have had time to spread much wider than the rapid changing WCSP. All the best Andyboorman (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello What does capitalising catol-Hassler and category actually do? Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, probably not much or nothing, but as these links lead to capitalised lemmas, I think is a cleaner approach to have them capitalised in the source text, too. It is part of a VBA script with a batch of searches and replaces. Certainly edits consisting exclusively of capitalisings should be avoided, what I have neglected in my recent edit of Cota (Asteraceae). I apologize. -RLJ (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman: I agree with RLJ here. Also (even though it may seem petty...) the actual wiki server file names (or database designations, rather) for all of Wikispecies' templates and categories are spelt with leading caps. I also think it looks better if all templates and categories are formatted in the same way throughout the site – perhaps with the exception of {{Sp}} + {{Fam}} etc. templates in the taxonavigation section, since capitalising them lessens legibility when many of them are stacked together in a list of taxa. That being said, I fully understand that my personal preference is of no real value here... :-) However a consistent format throughout all of Wikispecies most certainly is. Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks all good! Andyboorman (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


If I insert in line ref I know that name appears there?--Penarc (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Penarc, ref should be avoided in WS. The name Leontochir ovallei appears also in the other cited sources. I think it is more appropriate to add a short comment to the citation of the Catálogo that this name is regarded as accepted in this work: "(as Leontochir ovallei)". --RLJ (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


and thanks a lot for your action [5], Harassment is not acceptable - Lomita (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lomita: After the recent vandalism I've now semi-protected your user talk page, so that it can't be edited by new or unregistered users. It can only be edited by users that are already registered and has made at least a few good, constructive contributions. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]


Hi. When I see any vandal changes here, I'll rollback or add a delete template. If you give me a patrol right, I can patrol pages. Thank you.--Turkmen (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Thank you for your contributions! --RLJ (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop messing with common templates[edit]

You have been unilaterally messing with common templates like BA, HOT and HET. Why are you doing this and where is your consensus? Please see the discussion on the Pump, meanwhile please do not use a bot to make mass changes. This is not good protocol for an admin to go off on your own projects without consulting the wider community. Andyboorman (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get upset, you had just a few seconds to reset them. --RLJ (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot templates REP and MIS. -RLJ (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vitek redirect[edit]

Hey RLJ, thanks for making it a disambig, I undid your earlier revision because this is what was needed and was going to ask you to do this. But you did it anyway. Sorry for not messaging straight away am doing admin stats at the moment for everyone. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, please range & remove TPA. Thanks. 大诺史 (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Range block activated by Burmeister @ 15:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC). Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

quoad typum[edit]

I have added this definition quoad typum to the Glossary. Can you check and edit, if needed, in relation to change in synonymy as regards a type. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Malysev, Peshkova & Baikov, 2003[edit]

You recently deleted Template:Malysev, Peshkova & Baikov, 2003; but there are several pages still using it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me! I restored Template:Malysev, Peshkova & Baikov, 2003 which I deleted in error and deleted the redirect Template:Malysev, Peshkova & Baikov, 2007 which I originally intended to delete. --RLJ (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forskal / Forsskal[edit]

Heya I know your correct with this spelling but in Herpetology his name has tended to be spelt Forskal though some refs do both eg:

Forskål, P. [Forsskål, P.]. 1775. Descriptiones Animalium: Avium, Amphibiorum, Piscium, Insectorum, Vermium; quae in Itinere Orientali Observavit. Post mortem auctoris edidit Carsten Niebuhr. Hauniae [Copenhagen]: Mölleri, 164 pp. whish is how it is referenced in

Might be a good idea for both Forskal and Forsskal to be redirects to his page.

Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no problem, I have undeleted Forskal. Cheers, --RLJ (talk) 10:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carex nigra transcaucasica[edit]

Thanks a lot --Penarc (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hallo @RLJ:,
Für die kommenden Weihnachtstage wünsche ich Dir alles Gute.
Möge uns das neue Jahr 2020 hier und überall ein friedliches Miteinander und eine erfolgreiche Zeit bringen.
Beste Grüße. Orchi (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vorlage da[edit]

{Standard IPNI form} Huang Zhang why not?--Penarc (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the IPNI standard form is an important key information which is used in redirects and author templates. I think this information should be expressis verbis in the author article, and not be outsourced. I consequently do not use the template IPNI standard form. In general I tolerate other users changing the expressis verbis into the template, though I disagree. --RLJ (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Standard IPNI form" is a redirect to "IPNI standard form". Redirects should be avoided, so I change this. -RLJ (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with RLJ, however I haven't yet seen an incorrect IPNI standard form in the Wikidata database. Also, I would recommend not using the IPNI standard forms as author links in reference templates, since the IPNI forms are always redirected. This may sometimes pose a problem since author abbreviations are only unique for specific authors within the field of botany. In zoology many authors can share the same author abbreviation, and those abbreviations may be identical to IPNI standard forms of unrelated botanists. In those cases the IPNI form is directed to an author disambiguation page instead of directly to the correct botanist. See e.g. Elliott, Ferguson and other such pages for examples. Such mistakes will automatically be avoided if we always use the full author pages names in our wiki links instead of the IPNI forms. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Multiple authors[edit]

The ICN allows for the use of "et" or "&". I have chosen to use "et" consistently across the Marchantiophyta, both because we standardize to Latin, and because we use Latin "ex" and "et al." In my opinion, it would be odd to use these Latin phrases for most information, but then use a symbol to represent "and" when there are multiple authors. There is nothing at all in Help:Name section about either option. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as you might know, "&" is a ligature of "e" and "t" = "et" - and as such correct Botanical Latin already used in Linnaeus' Species Plantarum, 1753. Botanical Latin is Neo-Latin, not the Latin of Cesar and Cicero. It is used here on WS in a vast majority of articles on vascular plants. furthermore in important databases like IPNI, WCSP, Tropicos, Catalogue of Life. "et" is allowed but not used in ICN nor its appendices. In the examples in Help:Name section "&" is used except for "et al." I don't think "et" would be a good, work-sparing standard for WS. I am concerned with vascular plants, and only exceptionally editing in articles of other organsisms. -RLJ (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know the symbol is a ligsture. So is æ but we don't use that ligature. I prefer to use the word rather than a collapsed form. I don't edit much outside bryophytes, but when I do, I go with whatever style the previous editor started. If you can say that the vascular plants tend to have & rather than et, then I'm fine with following that on vascular plant pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring Pump[edit]

Clearly you are ignoring the Protologue citations discussion with the Psychotria edit for its protologue! Tongue well in cheek. Thanks for pointing out the LSN10 template as well, I was not aware of its existence. Andyboorman (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hitchcock & Chase, 1911[edit]

If Template:Hitchcock & Chase, 1911 is a duplicate, it should be redirected, not deleted, lest it be created again in future. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...and to avoid leaving red links, like the one you left on Mary Agnes Chase. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Andy, Hitchcock is the author of the taxon, not of the paper. I don't think it will be necessary to recreate it in the future. This and maybe other taxa in the same paper are better covered by the citation "Hitchcock & Chase in Chase", as well as by the category of Hitchcock's taxa. I don't think it makes sense to create 57 templates for each page of this paper. Normally the reference template should include the title of the paper and a link to online access, if available. Sorry I forgot to delete the entry on Agnes Chase --RLJ (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would not have deleted the redirect if tens or hundreds of articles were involved. But here it were just three.
Other subject: what about Module:TaxonBar? See here --RLJ (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vote on Taxonbar[edit]

Hi, Following the discussion about the use of template Taxonbar in Wikispecies articles, I now propose a vote. Please feel free to leave your opinion. Cheers, --Caftaric (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I note your reverts, which I respect. I think they are taxonomic opinions not set in stone - yet again, IMHO! Have you contacted Hassler and Govaerts? If not why not, they are very open to discussion in my experience? Andyboorman (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POWO is definitely an outdated list with name creations like "Cyclamen graecum subsp. mindleri", aimed to the Cretan endemic subspecies but with a type on the Greek mainland, Cyclamen creticum "(Dörfl.)" Hildebr. (but looking at the protologues of both taxa, Cyclamen repandum var. creticum Dörfl. was published independently from Cyclamen creticum Hildebr. and has a different type), etc. According to Culham & Könyves 2014, Cyclamen maritimum is genetically distant from Cyclamen graecum; this view has since been followed by other authors in Cyclamen Society publications. Concerning Catalogue of Life, a wider species concept, apparently following Ietswaart, is used. I have used the Mathew' Cyclamen monography of 2013, a Kew publication, backed by Cyclamen Society, comprehensive, can be regarded as authoritative. --RLJ (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't myself see a problem with your reasoning and use of Mathew and also Culham & Konyves paper. However, perhaps Hassler and Govaerts, with their greater expertise, know of a problem and if not they will alter their databases when they can. At the moment Covid is giving them both problems, but they are still answering emails promptly. Give it a go. At the moment I am looking at Santalales for which these two differ somewhat in generic circumscription. Hassler uses Nickrent and his followers, whereas PWO primarily refers back to APG IV. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Please block Special:Contributions/WikiBeyer_KIMOTIWARUI!!!! --WikiBayer (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I have a question can I write a article? --Foxxiestst (talk) 09:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikispecies! Please read and understand Help:General Wikispecies and its subchapters first. --RLJ (talk) 09:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clinopodium alpinum subsp. alpinum[edit]

What a mess - that is because it is an autonym, not necessarily a sub-species distributed only in the Alps, IMHO. I have said this before, if you know better and can prove it then write up a paper/monograph. I can look over it if you wish and then help get it published. Otherwise we are in the hands of others. Andyboorman (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Names which cannot be assigned to a subspecies should be placed to the species, of course. It is not necessary to write a new publication, most of these names have been assigned to the other subspecies in Med-Checklist or in other floras which I have cited. It is up to Govaerts to correct this list or to cite his sources for placing plants from countries like Spain, Morocco, Sicily, Romania etc., which are not given as distribution of this taxon. It is obvious that something went wrong with this list, and that it can't be trusted. There are lots of data in WCSP, human resources are limited, and mistakes can happen. WCSP is a useful database which I use very often, but it is not the bible, it has authority by scientific evidence, but not by primal trust. -RLJ (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are right on all accounts, but without reading the original 1999 treatment by Govaerts and its background, we have little evidence for making extensive changes. Given that WCSP will change if presented with robust evidence. The reason I distrust The Global Flora by Byng and Christenhusz is they tend to make large taxonomic changes seemingly on a whim. Of the online databases, only Tropicos cite sources and most of these are themselves secondary. That is why I spend a lot of time on Google Scholar, but I am still mainly up at the generic level. However, I am not happy with making a taxon page for every species in the synonymy for Clinopodium alpinum subsp. alpinum or any other combination with an extensive synonymy, just because the species in synonymy are validly published without robust evidence that the synonymy is flawed. A wide geographical distribution across similar ecosystems is not evidence, just a phenomena or observation. As you know there are numerous examples of plant species with wide natural geographical distributions and if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and floats on a duck pond! Final point local flora can possibly be a geo-political exercise how do we tease this out this one? Regards Andyboorman (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should have said that I do like your treatment of the above - very thorough. Andyboorman (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

autonym and synonyms[edit]

Hello. I was under the understanding that synonyms, usually including the main basionym, of a genus or species were transferred to its autonym, unless synonyms applied across all of the other sub-divisions as well. Excepting, of course, those that are exclusive to the sub-divisions themselves. Hopefully, I have expressed this satisfactorily. Thanks for your help. Andyboorman (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

note GBIF[edit]

See discussion on Pump. Cheers. Andyboorman (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Native distribution areas[edit]

Hi RLJ - please only add Native distribution areas, as per the title of the section! Cultivated and human-introduced invasive populations do not belong here, as they are not relevant to taxonomy or evolution of the taxa. Of Hyacinthoides × massartiana, I'll accept the Spanish distribution as natural, but the WCSP is in error in including Ireland, as one of the parent species (H. hispanica) does not occur naturally there, only through human agency, so the hybrid is also there as a result of human agency. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi MPF, I don't need to repeat myself, see [[6]]. The chapter title is "Distribution". If the word "native" is the problem, let's delete it from the template or let's create a new template for the whole distribution or for non-native distribution. Non-native distribution can be of taxonomic relevance, see Spartina anglica, Reynoutria × bohemica etc. I have set the non-native distribution in small script and annotated them with "(introduced)", so the native distribution should clearly be distinguishable from the non-native. Up to now, you are the only user insisting on "native", while your own contributions on distribution are sparse. -RLJ (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems there, the suggestion was to put non-native distribution on the talk page ;-)
The "small" script does not work, it is the same size as the normal. The '(introduced)' is not overly conspicuous, and because of the alphabetical ordering, can be misleading: "Austria (introduced), Belgium, Germany (introduced), Netherlands" - does Belgium count along with Germany as introduced, or not?? It isn't clear. If the introduced range has to be included (which I still think it should not be), then it should be entirely separated below (not mixed in by region), and more clearly indicated such as a full sub-header and with (if possible) e.g. pale grey rather than black text, or in a greyed-out box. So (for Hyacinthoides non-sripta), instead of:

Native distribution areas:

  • Continental: Europe
    • Regional: Northern Europe
      • Great Britain, Ireland
    • Regional: Middle Europe
      • Austria (introduced), Belgium, Germany (introduced), Netherlands
    • Regional: Southwestern Europe
      • France, Portugal, Spain
    • Regional: Southeastern Europe
      • Italy, Romania (all introduced)
  • Continental: Australasia
    • Regional: New Zealand
      • New Zealand North, New Zealand South (all introduced)
  • Continental: Northern America
    • Regional: Western Canada
      • British Columbia (introduced)
    • Regional: Northwestern U.S.A.
      • Washington (introduced)
    • Regional: Northeastern U.S.A.
      • Indiana, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania (all introduced)
    • Regional: Southeastern U.S.A.
      • Kentucky, Virginia (all introduced)
  • Continental: Antarctic
    • Regional: Subantarctic Islands
      • Falkland Islands (introduced)

One would instead have (box 1):
Native distribution area:

  • Continental: Europe
    • Regional: Northern Europe
      • Great Britain, Ireland
    • Regional: Middle Europe
      • Belgium, Netherlands
    • Regional: Southwestern Europe
      • France, Portugal, Spain

And, (in a separately collapsible box 2)*:
Exotic distribution areas:

  • Continental: Europe
    • Regional: Middle Europe
      • Austria, Germany
    • Regional: Southeastern Europe
      • Italy, Romania
  • Continental: Australasia
    • Regional: New Zealand
      • New Zealand North, New Zealand Sout
  • Continental: Northern America
    • Regional: Western Canada
      • British Columbia
    • Regional: Northwestern U.S.A.
      • Washington
    • Regional: Northeastern U.S.A.
      • Indiana, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania
    • Regional: Southeastern U.S.A.
      • Kentucky, Virginia
  • Continental: Antarctic
    • Regional: Subantarctic Islands
      • Falkland Islands
*I couldn't work out how to make the entire paragraph grey, so had to do it line by line. But it should be possible. - MPF (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should add, of "while your own contributions on distribution are sparse" - that is because I think this whole by-nation textual system is very cumbersome, and misleading of true distributional boundaries - does "Great Britain" mean throughout the country, or just in a small part of it? I'd much prefer to use maps, where one is not restricted to following political units that don't match distribution. But there has never been any consensus on adding maps here, so I haven't generally done so (there is one at Acer platanoides for an example). MPF (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MPF:, the small script works. Maybe among many territories with non-native distribution a few territories with native distribution can be overlooked. Maybe a grey background, envelopped by a template ({{RLJ/NNT}}, can be altered quickly) would be helpful.

I am sceptical if one more separate box would find acceptance, but native and non-native distribution could also be separated in one box, or with the second box encapsulated in the first one.

A proposal with mixed native and introduced occurrences


Native distribution areas:

References: Brummitt, R.K. 2001. TDWG – World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions, 2nd Edition

A proposal with separated native and introduced occurrences, the latter in a separate box


Native distribution areas:
  • Continental: Europe
    • Regional: Northern Europe
      • Great Britain, Ireland.
    • Regional: Middle Europe
      • Belgium, Netherlands.
    • Regional: Southwestern Europe
      • France, Portugal, Spain.


References: Brummitt, R.K. 2001. TDWG – World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions, 2nd Edition

--RLJ (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@RLJ: Guten Tag RLJ,
ich möchte mich bei Dir für die etlichen Korrekturen bedanken, die Du in letzter Zeit vorgenommen hast. In der Vergangenheit hatte ich (aus Unkenntnis) bei den Autoren-Seiten und Templates einen zu einfachen Weg beschritten. Wenn Du ein Werkzeug hast, diese korrekturbedürftigen Seiten zu finden, würde ich mich gerne an Ausbesserungen beteiligen, um Dich zu entlasten.
Ich hatte in den letzten Monaten auf Deinem Unterordner User:RLJ/Author templates schon Autoren-templates überarbeitet. Könntest Du vielleicht diesen Ordner durchschauen und aktualisieren?

Ich hätte noch verschiedene Themen, die ich gerne ansprechen möchte. Heute will ich mich nur auf das Thema Ixyophora advena beschränken, das ja schon thematisiert ist.
Im Artikel Syzygium hatte ich versucht, Deine Vorschläge zum Thema „eingeführte Arten“ zu realisieren. Kannst Du bitte einmal nachschauen?
Grüße. Orchi (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo @Orchi:, vielen Dank für Deine Zuarbeit! Ich habe User:RLJ/Author templates aktualisiert, es sind jetzt noch 49 Autorenvorlagen. Ich habe sie (neben ein paar Formatiervorlagen) mit folgendem Suchparameter gefunden: insource:"font-variant: small-caps;". Vorlagen-Quelltexte lassen sich mit {{msgnw:VORLAGE}} anzeigen (z.B. {{a|Neil A. Harriman|Harriman, N.A.}}<noinclude>[[Category:Author templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]</noinclude>). Dies erleichtert das Finden von abgekürzten Autorennamen und anderen zu Korrekturen anregenden Einträgen.

Ixyophora advena: ich denke, dass es die Lesbarkeit der nadi-Einträge verbessert, wenn alles was nicht zur natürlichen Verbreitung gehört, also fragliche, nachweislich falsche und nicht einheimische Vorkommen, durch eine andere Schrift ausgezeichnet wird. Insofern entspricht Dein Text genau meinem Vorgehen.
Syzygium: Ich fände eine gemischte Liste mit anderer Auszeichnung der nicht einheimischen Vorkommen lesbarer. Bei den Kontinenten mit einheimischen und nicht einheimischen Vorkommen, also hier Afrika und Pazifik, springe ich permanent vom oberen Teil der Liste in den unteren und zurück. Viele Grüße --RLJ (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo @RLJ:,
Dank für Deine Nachricht. Einen Teil der 49 Autorenvorlagen habe ich bearbeitet. Vielleicht kannst Du die Liste nochmals aktualisieren. Mit einigen "roten" templates habe ich allerdings Schwierigkeiten, da ich die entsprechenden Infos bei IPNI nicht finden konnte.
Leider sind Deine Vorschläge zu den Suchparametern für mich nicht umsetzbar, da ich in diesen Dingen ein absolutes Greenhorn bin. (Ich werde mal üben).
Zu Syzygium: Ich werde in den nächsten Tagen eine Seite nach Deinen Vorstellungen erstellen.
Grüße. Orchi (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Guten Tag RLJ, ich habe Deine Änderungen auf der Seite: Lamium galeobdolon gesehen.
Für eine bessere Lesbarkeit habe ich eine bisher nicht benutzte Farbe eingesetzt.
Technisch kann man das sicherlich eleganter lösen.
Grüße. Orchi (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Orchi, bei mir ist die Farbe auf dem Smartphone und auf einem niedrig auflösenden Monitor differenzierbar, auf einem 27-Zöller mit 2560 x 1440-Auflösung muss ich länger hinschauen, um den Unterschied zu erkennen, unabhängig von der eingestellten Farbtemperatur. Was planst Du Dir mit den Verlinkungen (Italy, New Zealand North & South)? --RLJ (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo RLJ, ....ich habe nichts geplant. Es sollte nur ein Test zum Überlegen in der anstehenden Dikussion sein. Grüße. Orchi (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please inform IPNI[edit]

Cerastium zhiguliense they will auto-correct if you are right. Go on give it a go! Andyboorman (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. IPNI's auto-reply in these difficult times:

Thank you for your email. Due to the Covid-19 crisis our resources are extremely limited to reply to feedback. We hope we will be working as normal by October.
Please DO NOT SEND US FEEDBACK at this time as we are unlikely to be able to read it. Any messages not replied to within two weeks should be resent after October.
Thank you for your patience, understanding and support during these exceptional times.
Best Wishes,
The IPNI team --RLJ (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile they replied personally. I am in good hope they will correct it. -RLJ (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Jancaea / Ramonda) heldreichii[edit]

Hi RLJ - if the combination in Ramonda is validly published now, I'd be happy for it to be taken up here; do you want to move it? - MPF (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MPF, I agree with you. I will move it. --RLJ (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! - MPF (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Then contact them, they will change the database, otherwise it is just your word. Andyboorman (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ortho var.[edit]

I thought Cupressus tortulosa Griff., Not. Pl. Asiat. 4: 26 (1854), is an orth. var. of Cupressus torulosa D.Don ex Lamb., Descr. Pinus 2: 18. (1824). If not then you need to contact IPNI and WCSP in order that they can correct their entries. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Plant List[edit]

The Plant List is no longer supported and is replaced by PWO. Andyboorman (talk) 08:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. The content is sometimes different. In my eyes the reference section should mainly reflect what has been used for the article. Therefore I do not replace Plant List citations by POWO. -RLJ (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The differences are due to Plant List not being updated since 2013, so given the number of changes in the last 7 years it is too out of date to use IMHO. Indecently, they are more or less out of the same stable, so to speak, that is RBG Kew. These are the reasons I change TPL to PWO, as the later is its replacement. Not that I agree with PWO 100%, as it reflects a position in the rare cases where there are taxonomic opinions. Andyboorman (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Validity of publications[edit]

The code does not mention IPNI, ISBN or ISSN as an indicator of a valid publication. I am not an expert on the code by any means, however, I do remember being told that the basic principle strongly implies physically the publication has to be found at a legal deposit library, such as British Library, Bodleian, USA Library of Congress and so on. Of course with the prevalence of the internet this had altered somewhat, as the code acknowledges through its procedures for epublishing. It is a foundation of validity that the publication of the name be freely accessible copyright free to anybody and not through a paywall or by having to contact a university of other specialist institute. The principles of precedence and priority are dependent on this openness. I have no idea why Thomas Landström did not submit Ornithogalum dictaeum through the usual process of publication in a peer reviewed journal rather than just leaving it in his thesis. By the way, I think I have I have the species in my garden, again no expert but it certainly looks like the pictures or maybe it's just a form of O. umbellatum! Regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, Article 30.9 is the relevant paragraph, giving an ISBN or at least the name of a publisher or a printer as indicator that effective publication is intended. Deposition in a legal library is demanded by national laws but I am not aware that this is ruled by ICN. The extent of distribution does not seem to have an effect on validity of the name. Certainly a distribution of publications as wide as possible is good practice, and the contrary is not. According to WorldCat Landström's work is available from 5 libraries in Germany, 2 in Denmark, 1 in Switzerland, 1 in the Netherlands, 1 at Kew, UK, 1[?] in Sweden and 2 in the United States. Kew's library policy seems to be restrictive, so access may be difficult. In Greece access to this work is time- and money-consuming. In Germany there is no problem to get this work but Phytotaxa has been subscribed in print and online by one institution only, the Botanic Garden and Museum in Berlin.
Landströms's thesis consists of 5 parts which obviously were intended to be published as separate papers in Nordic Journal of Botany, closely following the format of this journal at that time. By whatever reason this was not realized. At least in Germany the universities hold the rights on theses and can dictate where they should be published. Anyway the paper seems to be published right away from the exam and without control by the author, without deleting the phrase "1 New taxa presented in this paper are not to be considered as validly published." Regards --RLJ (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I did not mean to imply that access through a deposit library is a must, it just clarifies and makes it obvious that the ICN articles are met. Extent of distribution is not an issue it is about ease of access in my opinion. I or any UK resident can walk into the Bodleian or British Library and get hold of a hard or ecopy and read and take notes and even photocopy. Indeed, I can order a copy through their online portal, but that costs £5.00 or so. I came across a name that was epublished in a journal that had to go off line due its name infringing copyright. Nobody can now access to check validity of the name and therefore it has to be voided see Namoideae and the concern that I raised has made it to APGIV. For our pretty Ornithogalum there could easily be a taxonomic tidy up. I guess with a short paper in Phytotaxa. I would suggest as a title "Better late than never: tidying up the validification of Ornithogalum dictaeum Landström, Sp. Ornithogalum Greece: 5. 1989, nom. provis." As far as IPNI, WCSP, RHs and others, the phrase "1 New taxa presented in this paper are not to be considered as validly published." clinches it. Andyboorman (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CSP template[edit]

Thanks for editing this template. It sort of half works, but my template skills are not good enough to get it to search flawlessly, but at least it goes to a useful search page on the portal. Thanks once again Andyboorman (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Type locality[edit]

Hallo RLJ, warum löscht du bei den Hedlundia- und Karpatiosorbus-Arten die Angabe "Type locality"? Das entspricht nicht dem Konsens. Ich persönlich finde eine Angabe in zwei Zeilen (Type locality und Holotype) auch viel übersichtlicher, als alle Informationen nur unter Typus zu listen. --Thiotrix (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo @Thiotrix:, der kleine Gewinn an Übersichtlichkeit wird erkauft durch das Missverhältnis zwischen einem Absatz mit dem Namen und zwei Absätzen, die sich mit dem Typus beschäftigen. Bei den "Type localities" handelt es sich um mal mehr, mal weniger genaue, jedenfalls mit GPS oder Google Earth nicht exakt reproduzierbare Ortsangaben, die im Stil des Sammlers und/oder des Autors der Veröffentlichung verfasst sind und die thematisch zum Zitat des Herbarbeleges gehören. In botanischen Veröffentlichungen ist das Zitieren von Herbarbelegen in einem Absatz das übliche, auch in der Sorbus-Arbeit von Meyer et al., 2005 angewandte und auch hier häufig zu findende Verfahren. Als "Holotypus" sollte nicht die gesamte Aufsammlung bezeichnet werden.
Wenn Du Wert darauf legst, stelle ich diese zweigeteilten Belegszitate wieder her unter Beibehaltung des eingerückten Absatzes und der Links zu den Herbarien. Viele Grüße -RLJ (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatierung in Vorlagen[edit]

Hallo RLJ, bitte achte bei halbautomatischen Formatierungsarbeiten darauf, dass du Taxonavigations-Templates dabei ausklammerst, siehe z.B. Euphorbia cuneata subsp. cuneata. Bereits repariert habe ich unter anderem Vicia monantha subsp. monantha, Lagerstroemia tomentosa, Gypsophila pilosa und Cuscuta chinensis. Grüße von --Thiotrix (talk) 08:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC) Hallo Thiotrix, vielen Dank für den Hinweis! Ich habe die restlichen von dem Fehler betroffenen Artikel repariert und den Haken bei "Ignore templates" gesetzt. Viele Grüße, --RLJ (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinus fenzlii spelling[edit]

Hi RLJ - many thanks for the correction on this! I fear the "fenzleyi" spelling 'correction' is yet another Farjon error (I got it from his Bibliography of Conifers), this time one I hadn't noticed . . :-( MPF (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Agree this is a very authoritative source, but unfortunately I am not sufficiently skilled in getting the Template to work correctly. Sorry for that. Andyboorman (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now with the long URL including all search parameters, at least a page with search results turns up. For direct access to the taxon page the taxon ID (28f5b877-a56f-443d-9f67-f0484315ba11 for Picris cupulifera) is needed. --RLJ (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is as good as it needs to be. Many thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent redirects[edit]

You recently created a number of redirects to Aleuritopteris veitchii, which doesn't currently exist. Where they meant to be pointing somewhere else? DannyS712 (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two minutes later this article is created. For redirect creation, I have to remove the italics within subspecies and variety names, It is more economic to create the redirects while writing the article, immediately after the list of synonyms is finished, and to insert the italics afterwards into the article. --RLJ (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

template: DISPLAYTITLE:Template:Genus|noreplace[edit]

Guten Tag RLJ,
Du hast mit dem Einsatz von dem Zusatz "Taxit" bei den templates der Gattungen den Einzel-Einsatz des DISPLAYTITLEs bei Subgenera, Sectiones, Subspecies etc. überflüssig gemacht.
Könntest Du bitte das template so ändern, dass auch z.B. der Begriff "nothosubsp." nicht mehr einzeln behandelt werden muss? Beispiel: Orchis × angusticruris nothosubsp. transcaucasica.
Dank für Deine Mühe und beste Grüße. Orchi (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Orchi, ich habe die dazu notwendigen Änderungen hier getätigt: [7] und hoffe, dass dies trotz meiner nicht-existenten LUA-Programmierfähigkeiten geklappt hat. Das Modul wurde wohl aus der englischen Wikipedia importiert, der maßgebliche Programmierer dort ist user:Peter coxhead. Falls es mit den Änderungen nicht klappt, melde Dich bitte. Viele Grüße --RLJ (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo RLJ, vielen Dank für Deine perfekte Gestaltung im "Modul:TaxonItalics". Wieder eine Verbesserung, die viel Zeit ersparen wird. Viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse search of Brummit distribution data[edit]

Hi RLJ - is it possible to do a search for a taxon by location? Specifically, "Which species of Acer are native to northwestern Iran [Iranian Kurdistan]?" I've found a pic on Commons (File:Leaves of Acer (sp), Kurdistan, Iran, May 2020.jpg) which should be easy to ID, given a short list of maples native in that area. It is closely similar to Acer sempervirens, but that doesn't occur that far east. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. @MPF: Sorry to enter this discussion, you are both on my watch list! It looks very close to Acer sempervirens and there are no species similar, as far as I can ascertain. It could very easily be an escape from cultivation, we have no context for the image and it should be viable in the low mountains of Iranian Kurdistan. The Kurds are great cultivators of plants both ornamental and economic, so this is just a viable supposition. Min.neel, the contributor does not seem to be a botanist, but has added a few plant images to commons many with a Kurdish interest. Not sure this helps. However, I now realise that our pages do not reflect de Jong's work on the genus in relation to sections. This is important in the world of Maples. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, MPF and Andyboorman, according to the key in Flora of Turkey and Flora Iranica, Acer sempervirens would have leaves with distinctly shorter petioles than here, I think this plant keys out at Acer monspessulanum which is very variable in Iran. These are treated in this papaer:
From the distribution as well as from the glabrous leaves and the dentate lobes I would place the tree on the photo to Acer monspessulanum subsp. assyriacum. -RLJ (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For a search for Acer species occurring in Iranian Kurdistan, I would set my hopes into a structure for distribution data at a very detailed level in Wikidata whenever this will finally come into reality. -RLJ (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! There's a 2nd pic of the same tree, I'd be confident that's wild (not planted) and highly likely native. I'll check the paper in a mo. @ Andy - I actually took out the de Jong classification a while back, because it does not match more recent genetic data in multiple places; several of his groupings proved paraphyletic (IIRC, the relevant refs are on the Acer page) - MPF (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, do you (either RLJ or @Andyboorman:!) have access to the paper cited at Acer iranicum please? The abstract hints there might be some useful info on all Iranian maples in it - MPF (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF: Please note that while our Acer iranicum page cites the {{Mohtashamian, Chatrenoor, Fatehi & Rastegar, 2017}} paper, there is also a 2020 version of it often referred to online. Perhaps simply a reprint? Also, it looks like Fagus was aware of this when he first created the template, since just a single minute afterwards he also created {{Mohtashamian, Chatrenoor, Fatehi & Rastegar, 2020}} which only job is to redirect to the 2017 one.
Lastly, I've requested access to the paper (albeit in PDF format) but haven't yet received an answer whether it will be granted to me or not. I'll keep you posted. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]
I think you are right about Acer monspessulanum. The WS page does not have Acer monspessulanum subsp. assyriacum does it need to be corrected? Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I have added a 2019 paper by Li et al. on the Acer page that largely confirms de Jong and also a digital paper by that authority, which incorporates some adjustments proposed by Li et al. (2019). Andyboorman (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{@Tommy Kronkvist: As to {{Mohtashamian, Chatrenoor, Fatehi & Rastegar, 2017}}, no I do not have a copy. However, I feel that @Fagus: has made a well meaning error on the date, perhaps based upon a pre-print. Both the journal and IPNI show 2020 as the correct year of publication and so it should be corrected from 2017 to 2020. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Systematic Botany is available on BioOne via Wikipedia Library, upon application. --RLJ (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After finding no evidence for a publication in 2017 in the PDF, BioOne and IngentaConnect I have moved the template to 2020. --RLJ (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'nadi' query[edit]

Hi RLJ - I noticed that on the Sequoiadendron and Sequoiadendron giganteum pages you cite it as cultivated in Austria and France. Any reason for selecting just those two? It is of course widely cultivated in multiple other European countries and elsewhere, but not naturalised or invasive in any (including not Austria and France). Are there any criteria for what cultivated (as opposed to naturalised / invasive) plants should be listed generally? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MPF, I took the data from WCSP. other sources with more data would be GBIF, WorldPlants and Euro Plus Med. I think, distribution normally should be shown for native and established occurrences. -RLJ (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! In that case, should the cultivated locations be removed, as neither native nor established? - MPF (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK to contribute? Cultivated locations should be removed, please. WCSP's critera are rather loose and not helpful. Andyboorman (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Will do - MPF (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC) . . . except you've beaten me to it! MPF (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Digitalis purpurea[edit]

Hi RLJ - I'd changed Denmark from grey to black as I'd thought it was native there (it is common in Danish woods); I'm not sure what their justification for saying it isn't, but I'll not argue :-) MPF (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear RLJ and MPF: For what it's worth Danish Wikipedia's page about "Almindelig fingerbøl" i.e. Digitalis purpurea says that, quote:

"I Danmark findes den hist og her. Den er knyttet til plantesamfund i kystnære egne og på halvskyggede og let fugtige steder med svagt sur jordbund."

Or in English translation:

"In Denmark it is found here and there. It is associated with plant communities in coastal areas and in semi-shaded and slightly moist places with slightly acidic soils."

Danish WP refers to "Naturbasen," a Danish national database of species (mainly insects, amphibians, reptiles and plants). Naturbasen's Danish text translates into "The plant [i.e. Foxglove] does not belong to the original Danish flora, but has gone feral from domesticated specimen and has now gradually been fully naturalized. It is fairly common, but somewhat unevenly distributed."
–Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you very much for your contributions! A happy and healthy new year! -RLJ (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users[edit]


You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

academic titles[edit]

'Dr.' is used in some entomologist pages ([8]) and seemingly there exists no guideline on this topic yet. I think information of academic titles are helpful when someone needs to contact and greet living authors. Do you think it is out of scope at Wikispecies? --Eryk Kij (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eryk, the articles about persons here on Wikispecies are not in the centre of interest, but in a satellite position. I think mentioning academic titles in articles about persons requires consensus. I would note that it is an exception that academic titles are mentioned in the author list of a publication. Such entries might require updating (e.g. according to her personal homepage, Farideh Attar is Professor). I think it is beyond the scope of Wikispecies (and Wikimedia in general) and problematic in terms of privacy to provide contact data directly here. This is better done by linking to a personal homepage, to a ResearchGate profile or similar, or to recent publications.-RLJ (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinus brutia[edit]

I noticed that the subspecies are not supported by many, preferring only varieties instead. Have you thoughts on this and any direct contemporary references? Andyboorman (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not done any taxonomic changes today, and my personal knowledge is limited to Pinus brutia subsp. brutia but Businsky's concept with the geographic races as subspecies and the long-needled form as variety (Pinus brutia subsp. brutia (including the content of Pinus brutia var. brutia), Pinus brutia subsp. eldarica, Pinus brutia subsp. pityusa (incl. Pinus brutia var. stankewiczii‎‎) and Pinus brutia var. pendulifolia) has its charm. --RLJ (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinus sect. Pinea[edit]

I can not find a justification for this section. Would it not be best to merge this under Pinus sect. Pinus? Subsect. Pinaster Mayr ex Koehne would then accommodate the species. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion of the sectional dividsion in Businsky 2008: 45 (in Czech; Deep-L helps). Farjon and Eckenwalder use wider concepts. --RLJ (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phagnalon telonense[edit]

According to Just this species is accepted. However, Hassler shows it to be be a hybrid with the same authors, so at least should appear on the list in some form or another. I rolled back your edits for now. Andyboorman (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The taxon is accepted by POWO only, based on the outdated Catalogue of Life version 2018; it is given as synonym of Phagnalon saxatile by Euro+Med and by Global Compositae Database, it is not mentioned by Dobignard & Chatelain, Index Synonymique Flore de l'Afrique du Nord. Hassler WorldPlants, Catalogue of Life versions 2019 and younger and African Plant Database as well as Quézel & Santa 1962, Nouvelle flore de l'Algérie give it as the hybrid Phagnalon saxatile x sordidum.
I just found this paper: Montes-Moreno, Noemí; Garcia-Jacas, Núria; Nualart, Neus; Susanna, Alfonso; Sáez Gonyalons, Llorenç (2018): Typification of plant names referable to Phagnalon (Compositae) with some taxonomic notes. Phytotaxa 360(1): 1–18. DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.360.1.1.. Based on the type, it is regarded as nothospecies Phagnalon x telonense, with Phygnalon x hybridum and Phagnalon x paschale as heterotypic synonyms. I think that this publication can be followed. -RLJ (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. I can not read the full text of the 2018 paper, but from what you say this seems a reasonable approach. I will modify the taxon page accordingly. The old Flann database does not exist and the Worms link is non-functional. So work for a person skilled at coding! Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Hi I would like to draw your attention to Böhnert et al., 2023 DOI: 10.1002/tax.12864. It proposes an additional subgenus and in addition it seems to to resolve the dispute in relation to possible segregates from Muscari s.l. It looks like Govaerts et al., (2023) have accepted their proposals. Happy reading and editing. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christensen template[edit]

Hi RLJ - you say "Access closed: means paywall, not freely available for the general public" - but it is freely available for the general public, since the copyright holder (Københavns Universitet; 'ku' in the link) has released it, it is no longer closed, even if not accessible from the doi link. The padlock is misleading, and will only discourage readers from following the link. It also looks better if the link is in the page numbers, rather than separated at the end. - MPF (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MPF, Paywall concerns the doi link, not the publication in its entirety. User:Circeus is the creator of this template, and you should discuss the matter with him. I am not the inventor of the citation format as defined in Help:Reference section. I think it is advantageous to know the document type you get when clicking in a link. --RLJ (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The intent (or at least how I always formatted references back when I was still editing on Wikispecies), was that the padlock was to be associated with the prior identifier, regardless of what that identifier was (many ResearchgGate articles are not freely accessible, for example, and even some JSTOR content is locked off, but mostly it's for DOIs, which are especially unpredictable). You would then add your separate link labelled as [url.pdf PDF] or [webpage Article] or whatever was the most useful label. These links, unless labelled as "abstract" are usually only to fully accessible versions. The problem is that the weird construction of the style guides makes actually updating the damn thing a nightmare (plus editors are not actually interested in agreeing to even the idea that the guide has gotten useless), so I just gave up on writing that stuff down. Circeus (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll leave it as it is, except would it be OK to put an open padlock next to the KU link after the closed padlock? - MPF (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting Asperula (Rubiaceae): a proposal for consistency purposes within sections Cynanchicae, Thliphthisa and Hexaphylla[edit]

We seem to be doing a bit of cross editing of Asperula based on Del Guacchio & Caputo (202). I made my edits in good faith, as there seemed to be a large gap between your originals and the present. Hopefully I did not cause a problem. I noticed that you have been a bit reluctant to add type species on the gen. nov., is there a reason for this? A PDF copy of the paper has just appeared on, which I have downloaded and started to read. I can not find a problem with the type species, but may be I misunderstood some of the content. In addition I noticed you cited Ehrendorfer (1975: 3) in places. Do you intend adding this as an additional reference? Thanks in advance. Andyboorman (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, Hexaphylla (Klokov) P.Caputo & Del Guacchio is a new combination, no new name, so its type is the type of the basionym. I have added a reference for Ehrendorfer. Merry Chrismas! --RLJ (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So it would be OK to add the type under the name as well? It might make it easier for less taxonomically experience users. Merry Christmas Andyboorman (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would object. Caputo and Del Guacchio put the type under the basionyms of Hexandra and Thliphthisa, too; it is not them who typified the names. --RLJ (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine they go without a type. Not the first taxon on WS where this occurs. OK by me. Andyboorman (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cota brachmannii[edit]

Could you please inform IPNI that you think they are in error with respect to the spelling of the epithet of Cota brachmannii. If you are correct they will change the epithet on their next update just after Christmas. It is annoying that WS and IPNI are at odds. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done! I think a WS page "IPNI/POWO issues" would be useful. --RLJ (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I want to use AutoWikiBrowser. What are the conditions. Can you help me. Fagus (talk) 11:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fagus, have a look at Best wishes, --RLJ (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]