User talk:Thiotrix

⇒Thiotrix/Archive 2009–2017
⇒Thiotrix/Archive 2018–2019
⇒Thiotrix/Archive 2020–2022

Timothy „Tim” Littlewood

Hello Thiotrix! About six months ago you created the template {{Stockley et al., 2005}} where you refer to an author called Tim Littlewood. Do you know whether he is identical to British helminthologist D. Timothy J. Littlewood?

I know I'm a bit late, however ich wünsche Ihnen ein frohes neues Jahr! Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC).

Hello @Tommy Kronkvist:, thank you, and good whishes for 2023 for you too! I guess the Littlewoods are probably the same person, as for both the affiliation is cited at the Natural History Museum in London and both do phylogenetic research. But I do not know it exactly. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

We finally have an answer!

It took a while but the nomenclature Committee has ruled regarding the Cyphocarpa vs. Kyphocarpa debate: they agree the name is to be spelled and credited as "Kyphocarpa (Fenzl) Lopr.". Circeus (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Very good! For Wikispecies, I will update the genus and its species tomorrow. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Anfrage für erweiterete Rechte

Hallo @Thiotrix, ich wollte anfragen ob ich als langjähriger User erweiterete Rechte erhalten könnte und wo ich diese beantragen müsste. Viele Grüße Badlydrawnboy22 (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Hallo Badyldrawnboy22, du wurdest im Oktober 2019 vom "Standardeditor" auf "Automatischer Kontrollierer" hochgestuft (d.h. deine eigenen Edits gelten automatisch als kontrolliert = autopatrolled). Wenn du gern als Prüfer die Edits anderer Standard-Editoren kontrollieren möchtest, kannst du das ganz einfach auf der Seite Wikispecies:Patrollers beantragen. Falls du ein Administrator werden möchtest, mit der Lizenz zum Löschen und weitergehenden Rechten wie Sperrung von Vandalierern und Spambots, kannst du das auf der Seite Wikispecies:Administrators beantragen, dann werden alle Admins darüber abstimmen. Viele Grüße von --Thiotrix (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

User Badlydrawnboy22 has got several years of Wikispecies experience, and has proven himself with many good and very welcome contributions to the community. Therefore, a request for patroller rights would most likely be speedily approved. As for sysop/admins I don't think that there is a need for more administrators right now, but any registered user is of course welcome to apply! However, a request for administratorship will never be speedily approved: there will always be a public poll for seven days or more before administrator user rights are approved (or rejected).

Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC).

Dear Thiotrix, dear Tommy Kronkvist, thank you both very much for the kind and quick replies and the support. I might consider to request for the patroller rights. Adminsitratorship would definitely be too much. I assumed that there is a finer "graduation and that it would be possible to obtain the rights for deleting pages at a lower level. Thanks once again for your replies.

Alles Gute Badlydrawnboy22 (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Neujahrsgruß

Hallo Thiotrix.
Ich wünsche Dir für das neue Jahr 2024 alles erdenklich Gute.
Hoffen und wünschen wir, dass das neue Jahr 2024 uns allen wieder friedlichere Zeiten bringt.
Beste Grüße.
Orchi (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Salsola

In my opinion the taxon page for Salsola is confusing, a series of taxonomic opinions and could be considered as OR. For example, why are former Darniella, excluded from the s.s. list? Why is this list just Kali with a replaced name? Surely the list sensu Akhani et al. 2007 is dated and taxonomic nonsense given that there have been few formal transfers to date? I am not an expert in this group of plants, but the WS taxonomy appears a mess from an outside perspective. I am happy to be enlightened. Andyboorman (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello Andyboorman, current Salsola is indeed identical with the former Kali. This happened because a new type (Salsola kali) has been conserved for the genus in 2017. For following years, many species were planned to be excluded (in the literature), but not yet transferred to other genera. So the genus was itself a pure mess, as the main databases had highly controversial species lists. But now this seems to improve, as Hassler and POWO both accept some related genera, especially genus Soda. I am working on the Wikispecies page, but this will take some time, please wait for a while. Kind regards, Thiotrix (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I did not think that the currently accepted Salsola was identical to Kali. I assume that some specialists think so, whereas others prefer a more expanded view that includes species derived not just from Kali, but also some Darniella, Isgarum and Physandra. However, it is much better now that Soda has gained wider acceptance. I will let you get on with the edits. Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Now I finished Soda and updated Salsola as far as possible. The latest publication seems to be Template:Mosyakin & Freitag, 2023, where further recombinations are announced, that will be published later. Let us see, what will then become of Fadenia and related genera. Kind regards, Thiotrix (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on Template:Mosyakin & Freitag, 2023. Interesting paper that seems to be definitely moving the phylogeny into taxonomy. We await further developments. Andyboorman (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

POWO catch up

Other than Blitum antarcticum, are there any other chenopods for which POWO need to catch up? If you have a list I am happy to contact Kew, if you wish. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello Andyboorman, no I don't have a list. Oxybasis, Dysphania, Salsola and Soda are now updated, but I will have to follow the taxonomic literature on Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthaceae since 2018 to update other genera on Wikispecies. I hope that I can find recent info about Nitrosalsola, which is still not accepted by POWO, but I do not know, why not. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello Thiotrix. I will ask Kew about Nitrosalsola, but I can find recent papers that do not support our circumscription. Therefore, I assume they will say that the Russian work, i.e. Feodorova is expressing a taxonomic opinion and that its segregation is not fully accepted by local flora and research. I will ask though as they are open to change. Andyboorman (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Just heard back from Kew and they have corrected Blitum antarcticum and POWO will update very soon. I assume others will also updates as well. Andyboorman (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello Thiotrix. I can not get to some resources due to internet outrages in the USA so I am still unwilling to contact Kew about Nitrosalsola.However, with the information to hand I think the segregation from Caroxylon seems to be a taxonomic opinion not accepted by all botanists outside Russia. I can find sources using Caroxylon nitrarium (Pall.) Akhani & Roalson, Int. J. Pl. Sci. 168: 947. (2007) post Theodorova (Feodorova), T.A. (2015). However, I will carry digging and get back as soon as I can. Andyboorman (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello Andyboorman, the work of Feodorova is cited 7 times at ResearchGate. I have read those taxonomic papers. While usually the new combinations are mentioned "as they are" without any personal comment, Falatoury, Iamonica & Freitag (2017) state "...but the renaming does not appear to be sufficiently justified from a phylogenetic viewpoint and is not yet generally accepted." The different acceptance of Nitrosalsola in Hassler and Govaerts seems to reflect the different acceptance in literature. By the way, Govaerts still include Blitum antarcticum in Oxybasis. And still do no accept Halimione, though it proved to be phylogenetically distinct from Atriplex. Generally, I think that CoL seems to be more reliable for chenopods than POWO. --Thiotrix (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not defending POWO, but they are generally more circumspect than Hassler. In addition, Kew taxonomists are not instinctively drawn to taxon inflation. I will also put Halimione on my check list. The site can take a week or two to update, as they do a mass update not by drip feed, if you catch my drift. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Dysphania incisa

Hello. What is it with POWO placing Dysphania graveolens into synonymy with the illegal Dysphania incisa (Poir) ined.? Work in progress I assume or suspicion of a name with priority? Andyboorman (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

In their combination into Dysphania, Mosyakin & Clemants 2002 cited errorneously Chenopodium graveolens Willd., Enum. Pl. [Willdenow] 1: 290. (1809) as basionym, which is a nom. illeg. (authorship must be Lag. & Rodr. Anales Ci. Nat. 5: 70. (1802)). This error was corrected in Template:Mosyakin, 2021 according to Art. 41.8(a) ICN. But IPNI currently lists this correction as a later homonym of Mosyakin & Clemants 2002. --Thiotrix (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I will contact IPNI and assume they will correct. It is a big database with only a handful of staff. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I have heard back from IPNI. It appears that Mosyakin got the taxonomy wrong, as Chenopodium graveolens Willd., Enum. Pl. [Willdenow] 1: 290. (1809) and Chenopodium graveolens Lag. & Rodr. Anales Ci. Nat. 5: 70. (1802) are not homonyms, as they use two different types. The original description by Mosyakin, S.L. & Clemants, S.E. 2002 is valid and the later work in Mosyakin (2021) is not a correction, but a later homonym. I will get back regarding Dysphania incisa (Poir) ined., but I can see where that could be coming from. Andyboorman (talk) 09:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this info. I will add it to the taxon page. So a replacement name for Dysphania graveolens (Lag. & Rodr.) Mosyakin & Clemants, nom. illeg., is needed but not yet published. --Thiotrix (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

---

That is correct. The problems with Dysphania graveolens means that we have to use Chenopodium incisum Poir., Encycl. [J. Lamarck & al.] Suppl. 1. 392 (1810) as the earliest published type, hence Dysphania incisa (Poir.) ined. Confirmed by Kew. Complex taxonomic problem, which re-inforces the needs to be very careful. Andyboorman (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Unpleasant edit

I have rolled back an unpleasant edit on your user page and indefinitely blocked the responsible anonymous user. I do hope this does not cause long term problems. All the best. Andyboorman (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Redirects

You recenlty deleted Category:Aparna Kalawate taxa with the summary::

Housekeeping, WS:DP: content was: "#REDIRECT Category:Aparna Sureshchandra Kalawate taxa", and the only contributor was "Pigsonthewing"

Kalawate has published as "Aparna Kalawate" and so the redirect seems to me both useful and sensible. Please reinatate it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a redirect from Aparna Kalawate to Aparna Sureshchandra Kalawate. But there is no need for two categories, and Category:Aparna Kalawate taxa was empty. Redirects in categories are non-functional. --Thiotrix (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

If a user tries to apply a rediected category, such as the above example prior to deletion, tools such as HotCat will recognise the redriect and apply the correct category. If the category is a red link, the tools cannot do that. Deleting such redirects reduces functionality and increases the risk of the wrong category being erroneously apllied; and then of being recreated as a duplicate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Usually we keep only one taxa-category per author and empty redirects are deleted. If you consider it important to keep empty redirected categories, I propose to continue this discussion at the village pump, so that all editors /admins get knowledge and discuss about this. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 12:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Weber Bosse vs. Weber-van Bosse

Hello Thiotrix,

Thanks for having created the Perinema disambiguation page!

About the IPNI standard form of Anna Antoinette Weber-van Bosse, "Weber Bosse" doesn't really look correct to me, as it omits part of her name. Do you have any idea why this was chosen rather than “Weber-van Bosse”, as found on AlgaeBase? [1]

I'd be tempted to contact IPNI about this. Korg (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

For information, the standard form of Anna Antoinette Weber-van Bosse has been amended by IPNI to "Weber-van Bosse".

Here is their response: "The original source of the data was ‘Berkeley algal list’ but they now seem to use ‘Weber-van Bosse’ https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/get_bpu and TL-2 also shows ‘Weber-van Bosse’ as the abbreviation https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/33066471." Kind regards, Korg (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 07:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hemihomonyms

Hello friend. In the case of Saundersia (disambiguation) where we have four homonyms in the same regnum (Animalia), so they would not be allowed as valid, and one in Plantae, is it still valid call the disambiguation page as Hemihomonyms? I am not an specialist, so this is just my doubt. Thanks. Hector Bottai (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello Hector Bottai, hemihomonyms are homonyms under different codes, here the botanical and zoological code. The plant Saundersia was described in 1866. The first Animalia name Saundersia (even if synonymized later), makes Saundersia a hemihomonym. Kind regards,--Thiotrix (talk) 06:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Dating of Koçak & Kemal, 2008

I notice in the synonomy of Ademirsoyus that you give the publication date of Koçak & Kemal, 2008 (Paper 141) as "[Aug./Sept. 2008]". Can you remember where you found this information? The headline of Paper 141 carries the inscription "05 05 2008", but this cannot be the true publication date as there are recorded accesses to papers on the Internet on 10 May 2008. I am interested because this paper also creates the genus Peruana in Acrididae, while Özdikmen 2008 (reputedly 1 June) creates the same name in Opiliones, and I am trying to determine which of these is the valid name. Keith Edkins (Talk) 17:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Keith Edkins, the information is from Orthoptera species file: "Koçak & Kemal 2008 in August or September [not as stated in May]". Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Costatoverruca

Do you have information more recent than 2021 on Costatoverruca? Gale, Rosso & Vertino, 2021 had synonymized it into Rostratoverruca. Neferkheperre (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

There were three pages of fossil species left in Costatoverruca without any taxonavigation, after the taxotemplate forCostatoverruca was deleted: Costatoverruca baxteri, Costatoverruca macropluteum, and Costatoverruca tredecima. Therefore I reinstalled the template and made it a redirect, until all species pages have been moved to their new combination. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I just simply worked with Gale, who did not list those three species. I shall research them. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Noneae

Frankly, I didn't think it was important. There is already a list of synonyms for each taxon. It's my opinion. You can take it back. I'm not insisting. Fagus (talk) 11:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

No reusing redirects

Hi, Thiotrix, I would like to raise a concern that's been causing me some concern regarding redirects and some recent edits you've made in Pterocereus gaumeri subsp. foetidus.

When I request the deletion and removal of redirects, my intention is to facilitate the proper transfer, renaming, and/or creation of new articles while ensuring the correct use of valid or updated names in accordance with the most current taxonomic standards. However, if there is one thing that has particularly concerned me about your approach, it is the handling of the article Pterocereus gaumeri subsp. foetidus. Instead of fully deleting the redirect to create a completely new article, you opted to repurpose it under the argument of "better than deletion: created the taxon page.", and no, I'm not agree.

Recycling a redirect, as was done in this case, can open the door for other users to inappropriately modify the page, potentially reverting it back into a redirect without justification. This can lead to confusion within the community and compromise the consistency of related pages. I have not even been able to fully implement the necessary edits due to this approach, compounded by some questionable modifications on your part, which I have had to take the time to correct.

On the other hand, deleting the redirect before making a move or renaming is a more robust practice, aligning better with the project’s policies and objectives. This prevents unnecessary duplication of information within the redirect, as you have done. In fact, that is precisely my point: repurposing redirects to create articles essentially taints their edit history.

At the very least, I urge you to refrain from modifying the redirects in the edits I make, as my approach is more viable and practical for the reasons outlined above.

That said, I remain open to your response to clarify and resolve this matter in the most satisfactory way possible. Unfortunately, this is not the first time we have had disagreements of this nature, and frankly, I have no desire for further conflicts with you. I also want to make it clear that I do not wish to continue in this cycle of tension between us. Greets. AbeCK (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry that my edit did not please you. My answer is the same as before: If you want to alter our edit guidelines, please take this discussion to the Village Pump. Until the community of our editors decides to alter our style guide, I will continue to change former redirect into pages with content. And of course I will add links to the full author names, not only IPNI abbreviations, just like is is recommended on our help pages. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 10:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)