Abbreviazioni: WS:V, WS:VP

Wikispecies:Village Pump

Da Wikispecies.
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiSpecies notext-invert.svg Welcome to the village pump of Wikispecies.

This page is a place to ask questions or discuss the project. If you need an admin, please see the Administrators' Noticeboard. If you need to solicit feedback, see Request for Comment. Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar). Use the Wikispecies IRC channel for real-time chat.

If you're going to critique the work of fellow editors (blatant vandals excepted) in your post on this page, you should notify them, either by mentioning them with a {{Ping}} template, or with a post on their talk page.

If you insert links to Wikipedia pages in your comments, don't forget the leading colon (:) before the wiki language code (including when you reference a remote user page instead of using a local signature), otherwise it will generate spurious interwiki links collected in the sidebar instead of in the expected location within the discussion. Thanks.

Village pump in other languages:

1 (2004-09-21/2005-01-05) 2 (2005-01-05/2005-08-23)
3 (2005-08-24/2005-12-31) 4 (2006-01-01/2005-05-31)
5 (2006-06-01/2006-12-16) 6 (2006-12-17/2006-12-31)
7 (2007-01-01/2007-02-28) 8 (2007-03-01/2007-04-30)
9 (2007-05-01/2007-08-31) 10 (2007-09-01/2007-10-31)
11 (2007-11-01/2007-12-31) 12 (2008-01-01/2008-02-28)
13 (2008-03-01/2008-04-28) 14 (2008-04-29/2008-06-30)
15 (2008-07-01/2008-09-30) 16 (2008-10-01/2008-12-25)
17 (2008-12-26/2009-02-28) 18 (2009-03-01/2009-06-30)
19 (2009-07-01/2009-12-31) 20 (2010-01-01/2010-06-30)
21 (2010-07-01/2010-12-31) 22 (2011-01-01/2011-06-30)
23 (2011-07-01/2011-12-31) 24 (2012-01-01/2012-12-31)
25 (2013-01-01/2013-12-31) 26 (2014-01-01/2014-12-31)
27 (2015-01-01/2015-01-31) 28 (2015-02-01/2015-02-28)
29 (2015-02-28/2015-04-29) 30 (2015-04-29/2015-07-19)
31 (2015-07-19/2015-09-23) 32 (2015-09-23/2015-11-21)
33 (2015-11-21/2015-12-31) 34 (2016-01-01/2016-04-17)
35 (2016-03-22/2016-05-01) 36 (2016-05-01/2016-07-12)
37 (2016-07-13/2016-09-30) 38 (2016-10-01/2016-12-04)
39 (2016-12-04/2017-01-17) 40 (2017-01-18/2017-01-28)
41 (2017-01-29/2017-02-13) 42 (2017-02-14/2017-03-21)
43 (2017-03-20/2017-08-11) 44 (2017-08-10/2017-12-07)
45 (2017-12-08/2018-01-08) 46 (2018-01-19/2018-03-11)
47 (2018-03-11/2018-09-11) 48 (2018-09-01/2018-10-11)


There are now two different preferences/opinions regarding the circumscription of Nothofagaceae and Nothofagus. New Zealand is most definitely going with segregation of Nothofagus, but in Australia and elsewhere, the preference is for Nothofagus s.l. and a monogeneric family for extant species. For combinations under Nothofagus this breaks the one taxon one name rule/guideline. I have not completed the pages and there is more work to be done on the blue links. However, before going on further I would peoples opinions on my approach to date. It is worth mentioning that both circumscriptions are compliant with the evidence available to date. Incidentally there is even more of a problem in Scilloideae, but that will have to wait for another time! Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Even in its tradional wide circumscription, Nothofagus is a genus of only modest size. Moreover, the genus is monophyletic anyway. The splitting option with four genera, from a phylogenetic POV, is no more informative than the classification with four subgenera. However, splitting is against nomenclatural stability. Most probably, even in New Zealand, all the guys from the "applied" fields of activity will be unhappy with this splitting. --Franz Xaver (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
In cases like these, in my database I generally try to follow Plants of the World Online, if they have got round to treating the genus in question; wikispecies may like to do the same (or not...). I believe they favour the "no splitting" option, see . They appear to base their opinion on World Checklist of Selected Plant Families 2019. Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Of course, POWO may itself contain errors or out-of-date content too, however I have found R. Govaerts a helpful correspondent whenever I have queried something in POWO that looks wrong - sometimes that is because it is (and he has then fixed it), sometimes it is awaiting update, and sometimes there was something else I was unaware of. Ah, the joys of taxonomic database curation. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Was just going to add a new comment (after seeing the mention under Dracaena below), but saw this section here - I too am in favour of retention of the traditional broad single genus, as it isn't that large. Unless there's any objections, I'll merge and redirect duplicate pages fairly soon - MPF (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Default image size[modifica]

When the older format [[File:Picturename.jpg]] is used, the default (no dimension specified) is 400 pixels wide. When the format {{Image|Picturename.jpg}} is used, it is just 250 pixels wide, which I find too small to look good. Any objections to my changing the latter to 400 pixels? - MPF (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

400px is far too wide for what should be a thumbnail. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
My error, actually - the format [[File:Picturename.jpg]] can be specified in user preferences; I happen to have chosen 400 px. The default is 220 px. Apologies for the error! But it does raise the point, that the {{Image|Picturename.jpg}} format can't be set in one's preferences, it is rigidly defined by its template. Would it be possible to make it adaptable to preferences? - MPF (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
The template {{Image|Picturename.jpg}} is open for changing the format in the edition, default is 250px, but you can use, for example {{Image|Picturename.jpg|280px}}. I am not in favour of opening the format that "free".--Hector Bottai (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I know that; the problem is if I put {{Image|Picturename.jpg|400px}} (what I would like to see), it forces this on everyone, including those who don't want it. What would be good is if the {{Image|Picturename.jpg}} could be made to respond to user preferences in the same way that [[File:Picturename.jpg]] does. - MPF (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the tempalte's code, There are certainly no technical reasons that this shouldn't be possible. Even a novice such as I should be able to achieve it after some trial and error. Circeus (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
That's what I was hoping; unfortunately I'm even less technically able with template editing! Can someone else give it a go, please? - MPF (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Alright, this should work. I've added a note that the size cannot be changed if an image has not been explicitly defined. Circeus (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Does any of this have a negative impact on the screen-rendering on smaller screen sizes, e.g. on mobile phones and tablets? Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC).

It means that users can select the size they like - so if using a mobile, it means you can now set image size to 10 pixels (or whatever!) wide, instead of being forced to have the 250 pixels previously mandated by the Image template. Head to Preferences, there to Appearance, and scroll down to Files, Thumbnail size. - MPF (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, but I've always been fairly well informed about all of the user prefs settings, except perhaps for a few of the often quirky gadgets and/or beta features that used to be available there some time ago. Personally I only use mobile devices for WS work when I'm on the road, and then only to check up on "Recent changes" to fight off the trolls... For common page editing or for creating templates and such I always use a gorgeous 27″ screen with 5K resolution instead, and have my user preferences set accordingly. However until today I haven't really studied the details of the actual wiki code within the {{Image}} template – which strikes me as odd, realizing that I often use the template more than 50 times a day... Anyway, I took a quick peek at Circeus' edits to the template just a few minutes ago. It takes a while to get one's head around how the code is supposed to work (almost 20% of the approximately 1,500 characters are different types of brackets...) but as far as I can tell it should work fine.
Good job @Circeus: and thanks @MPF: for bringing up the issue in the first place! Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC).
I think it should be possible to make the resizing work even without a set image, but I'm not sure it's possible without breaking previous uses (and I'm not that good at using ParserFunctions). Circeus (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Chaetonotus (no subgenus)[modifica]

A variation of the "incertae sedis" problem. Delete or keep? --Succu (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

"unknown" goes to "no subgenus" and so, perhaps charitably, it is a tidy up, but all in all it is just nonsense, unlike incertae sedis. Andyboorman (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

News from Commons and request about fossil collection[modifica]

Dear Wikispecians,

The Museum of Natural History of Neuchâtel has requested Wikimedia CH's help to upload the photographs of their collection of fossil fish, most of which are part of a collection that was established by. I made a broad category to put them all in Commons under Media contributed by Muséum d'histoire naturelle de Neuchâtel, but I think the collection might be more exploitable if there were smaller categories inside, such as for the Cheirolepis trailli, or the Psephodus magnus pertaining to the collection.

Would anyone be interested in helping out?

Thanks in advance.--Flor WMCH (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Fabaceae a discussion[modifica]

Hello botanists and taxonomists. In 2017 the Legume Phylogeny Working Group (LPWG) came up with a recircumscription of Fabaceae based upon comprehensive analyses. The paper summarising this is on the taxon page Legume - Phylogeny Working Group 2017. A new subfamily classification of the Leguminosae based on a taxonomically comprehensive phylogeny. Taxon 66(1): 44–77 and a PDF is available. I have partially implemented their findings, but as yet have not placed Mimosoideae combinations into Caesalpinioideae s.l.. The main reason is their use of the working term "mimosoid clade" for these combinations, as opposed to a formal rank. Ideally I would like to use this clade name for the page, but have held off due to the Linnean nature of WS. A second solution would be just to transfer the three existing tribes from Mimosoideae into Caesalpinioideae s.l. until subsequent changes have been formally published. I am asking for comments from fellow editors before making changes. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Technically from a nomenclatural POV it is clear, that the name Mimosoideae now is a synonym of Caesalpinioideae in its new circumscription. Thus, the three mimosoid tribes have to be included within Caesalpinioideae. Anyway, you may intercalate between the subfamily and these tribes a page for the "mimosoid clade", comparable to pages as Core eudicots. In my opinion, this clade can be equated in WD to de:Mimosengewächse and others. --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
The tribe Caesalpinieae is non-monophyletic either. We will have to wait for a new tribal classification for the re-circumscribed Caesalpinioideae. Anyway, I am expecting, that the old "mimosoids" never will receive more than a clade name. Theoretically, this clade could be ranked to a tribe and the former mimosoid tribes then would be subtribes. However, I don't think this would be the final solution. --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Also the tribes Ingeae, Mimoseae and Acacieae need to be united or re-circumscribed. --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Would it then be best to make Mimosoideae a synonym of Caesalpinioideae, redirect the old page and finally to dispense with tribes under Caesalpinioideae all together? Andyboorman (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
The name Mimosoideae already is synonymised at the taxon page of Caesalpinioideae. That's OK as it is. The Mimosoideae taxon page should be renamed "mimosoid clade". (However, the redirect page should point to Caesalpinioideae.) Some changes will be necessary in the clade page. Of course, a clade does not have a ICN name, nomenclatural type etc. The tribes in their present circumscription are not tenable any more. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, if they use a nonlinnean term while list Linnean synonyms under it... then you have a clade with a Linnean name you can use on Wikispecies (As long as there is a corresponding Linnean name, of course. Sometimes there isn't, as discussed in Unplaced Senecioneae). In Solanum the "Dulcamaroid" clade is really an expanded circumscription of Solanum sect. Dulcamara (with synonymy and all being listed in the linked paper), and so I have treated it as such when editing. Circeus (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
If no rank clearly can be attributed to a clade, names as ruled by ICN cannot be used, though the circumscription of the clade may include some of these ranked taxa, so that their names are listed in "synonymy" in some papers. By the way, I am not happy, when ranked taxa above genus rank are called "Linnean", as Linnné himself did not know these. You may call such names Jussieuan, as Jussieu was the first to publish a "natural system". (However, he used the term "ordo" for what later would be families.) --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

How about transferring all genera of both groups onto the Caesalpinioideae page, as well as removing the tribes? The list of genera could be split into two, the first labelled "Caesalpinioideae s.s:" and the second "The mimosoid clade:". The genera will have all tribal links replaced with just Caesalpinioideae. The existing Mimosoideae and tribal pages could then be blanked after transferring their references etc. to the subfamily, where appropriate, but with redirects to Caesalpinioideae. Do the tribes then appear in the synonymy? Andyboorman (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure that Mimosoideae is a synonym of Caesalpinioideae, rather than Caesalpinioideae a synonym of Mimosoideae? Both are from the same publication, but Mimosoideae has page precedence over Caesalpinioideae, and is the more familiar (and also the easier to remember, and spell!) name. Has any publication definitely selected one or the other for priority? - MPF (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
The answer to that one is yes - see LPWG (2017) for their reasoning. Andyboorman (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Two similar entries[modifica]

Hello, just for info Edward Lloyd Bousfield is the same than Edward L. Bousfield. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Christian Ferrer: Thank you for the information. All data related to Bousfield are now redirected or merged into the main page Edward Lloyd Bousfield. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC).

Dracaena and Sansevieria[modifica]

I intend subsuming Chrysodracon and Sansevieria under Dracaena, as recommended by 2/3 of the references on the Dracaena page. Christenhusz, M.J.M., Fay, M.F. & Byng, J.W. (eds). 2018. The Global Flora, Vol. 4: Special Edition, GLOVAP Nomenclature Part 1. Plant Gateway Ltd., Bradford is particularly informative and definitive - see pages 2 and 64-67. This circumscription is supported by WCSP (2019) and the necessary comb. nov. have been made. It will be a bit of work, but I will not start until discussion has been completed, however, I would also urge fellow editors not to work on these three taxa until then. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Dear Andy, it all depends on who to follow. for me Sansevieria is nicely clustered so why not keep it as a genus. A classification accepting only monophyletic groups is logically unnatural, nature doesn't work that way. There has been a lot of criticism in the taxonomic world about the work of Christenhusz et. al. who I hope stop hunting the monophyletic ghosts!
About Chrysodracon, according to "Sansevieria (Asparagaceae, Nolinoideae) is a herbaceous clade within Dracaena: inference from non-coding plastid and nuclear DNA sequence data November 2018 Phytotaxa 376(6):254 DOI:10.11646/phytotaxa.376.6.2" Chrysodracon (not accepted by WCSP is nested in Dracaena) (Dracaenaworldwide (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC))
@Dracaenaworldwide: I tend to agree with those who feel that subsuming Sansevieria into Dracaena is a step too far for now and will require a greater level of consensus than its acceptance by the well respected WCSP.
Monophyly has a number of very useful functions and will not be abandoned, IMHO. Importantly it reminds us not to lose sight of the woods for the trees. However, monophyly can be achieved by both lumping and splitting, but whatever emerges it requires a re-examination of existing and new data, which is highly beneficial. Given that, specialists in a group of taxa often tend to "over split" using minor morphological features. However, plants can be very labile with features appearing and disappearing under evolutionary pressures, therefore the selection of morphological synapomorphies can be a real challenge and a combined molecular/morphological approach is required. Therefore consensus regarding acceptance is essential, unfortunately occasionally this does not emerge and leads to taxonomic opinions breaking the rule one taxon one name "rule", see Nothofagus as a recent example. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@Andyboorman and Dracaenaworldwide: Ad monophyletic vs. paraphyletic taxa: From a logical point of view, Brummitt was correct, that a system with ranked taxa is impossible without accepting paraphyletic taxa. His last stand, as far as I see: doi: 10.3417/2012089. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@Andyboorman and Franz Xaver: Thanks to both of you :) — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dracaenaworldwide (talkcontribs) 12:57, 7 March 2019‎.

───────────────────────── @Dracaenaworldwide and Franz Xaver: I will not go through with my proposal above for now, but given that the page needs still needs reworking and updating. However, from my knowledge of the genera and reading of the evidence, the synonymy is reasonable. Monophyletic vs. paraphyletic is an interesting, if forlorn debate, after all we are debating constructs. A pragmatic multi-evidential approach leading to acceptance by the greatest number (consensus) is about the best that can be achieved for 95% of taxa. However, that brings me on to Salvia another holdout on WS? Andyboorman (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andyboorman, Dracaenaworldwide, and Franz Xaver: - given the comment "Dracaena L., Syst. Nat. ed. 12, 2: 229. (1767) Often cited with the authorship "Vand. ex L." but Vandelli called the Dragontree Draco and put Dracaena in synonymy" - I'd think the page should be moved from Dracaena (Vand. ex L.) to Dracaena (L.)? As an aside, I've changed the lead pic to a pic of the type species; that future-proofs the page against any potential splits that might get agreed on. - MPF (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@MPF, Dracaenaworldwide, and Franz Xaver: Both excellent suggestions. If the page move has not been made later, I will complete and also try to add the sp. nov. excepting Sansevieria. Andyboorman (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@Andyboorman, MPF, and Dracaenaworldwide: Why not move the page to Dracaena (Asparagaceae)? The authorship of the name Dracaena is disputable at all. The first place of publication seems to be in Mant. Pl.: 9, published by Linnaeus in October 1767 as an appendix to Systema naturae, Tomus II, but here Vandelli clearly is indicated as author. So the author citation rather would be "Vand. in L." or "Vand.", not "Vand. ex L." The dissertation of Vandelli, where he used both Draco and Dracaena, appeared in 1768, even referring to Systema Naturae here, so is irrelevant to our problem. The place cited in the present version of the Dracaena taxon page, i.e. Syst. Nat., ed. 12, 2: 229, 246 by Linnaeus himself, appeared together with Mant. Pl., the latter as appendix of the first, and thus has equal priority. The shortening from the version of Mantissa Plantarum to that in Systema Naturae probably was done by Linné, but does this give him the right of authorship of the taxon name? Anyway, both places have equal priority, one suggests "Vand. in L." or "Vand.", the other "Vand. ex L." or "L.". --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver, MPF, and Dracaenaworldwide: well reasoned Franz, the solution also fits comfortably with the WD praxis. Agreed. Andyboorman (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver, Andyboorman, and Dracaenaworldwide: - sensible, so long as the genus is placed in Asparagaceae (also with a long history of dispute!!). The other option is perhaps 'Dracaena (Plantae)', since the other Dracaena is an animal. - MPF (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@Andyboorman, MPF, and Franz Xaver: Thanks Franz you beat me to it, I agree fully with you, we (me and the editor of the Flore du Gabon) had the same discussion about the author citation of Dracaena and we came to the same conclusion. We did ask Tropicos to remove the annotation that leads to a confusion [1] "Annotation: Often cited with the autorship "Vand. ex L." but Vandelli called the Dragontree Draco and put Dracaena in synonymy (see Boss, 1984: 16)". Bit they didn't do it yet.19:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Dracaenaworldwide (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
@Andyboorman, Franz Xaver, and Dracaenaworldwide: - sorry to have to mention; the change has been done wrongly, by cut-n-paste, rather than using the 'Move' tag, thus breaking the page history. Should the change be re-done, or is it not sufficiently important? - MPF (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Full name of S. Shaw[modifica]

Does anyone know the full name of entomologist S. Shaw, Fellow of the Royal Entomological Society and the author of Eucolaspis antennata and Eucolaspis hudsoni, among other taxa? (These two species were both described in Shaw, S. 1957. A revision of the New Zealand genera Eucolaspis Sharp and Atrichatus Sharp (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) with descriptions of two new species. Annals and Magazine of Natural History (12), 10(117): 641–655. doi: 10.1080/00222935708656008.) Apart from the above I don't know much, but guess that the author is male since I don't think that the Royal Entomological Society allowed women FRES at the time.

More information about him would be most welcome! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC).

Stanley Shaw, citation on that page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Andy! As a result, I've changed all links on all pages referring to the oddly named "Stho002"-template {{}} into the properly named {{Shaw, 1957}} recently created by you. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC).
On the name of the cited journal, we surely don't need to give the full subtitles and Uncle Tom Cobley and all - rather than Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Including Zoology, Botany and Geology, Being a Continuation of the 'Magazine of Botany and Zoology', and of Louden and Charlesworth's 'Magazine of Natural History' , just Annals and Magazine of Natural History. - MPF (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Repository TARI[modifica]

The abbreviation TARI is here occupied by Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute. But TARI is also needed as the current abbreviation of the herbarium of Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands in Tehran, Iran, see Index Herbariorum. I noticed a small headnote linking to TARI (IH), but how to be sure, that repository links are set correctly?. What should be done, perhaps move TARI to TARI (Taiwan)? --Thiotrix (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

While there are some pages which do refer to the Taiwanese TARI, none of them links to that page: all the pages that do are plant species. Since the Herbarium name is standardized, I think the meanings should be swapped and a new, separate "TARI (Taiwan)" category created.
Alternatively, we could just use a different acronym ("TARIT"?) for the Taiwanese institution instead of a disambiguation and manually correct the acronym in the relevant species, since the acronym are just a convenient referential system in the first place, as long as they link to the correct institution, there's really no obligation for us to entertain inconveniently clashing systems where only only one is actually formalized. Circeus (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
That may be a handy sollution and the functionality is already built in to the template, e.g. {{Repository link|TARIT|TARI}} will link to "TARIT" but is rendered as "TARI" on screen. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC).

Repositories MFP and MNHNCU[modifica]

Please have a look at the two discussions at User talk:GabrielaMolinaHdez#Phyllophaga taxon names and User talk:Andyboorman#Repository oddities about the different MFP and MNHNCU repository links. What's what, and what's right? Today MFP is automatically redirected to MNHNCU, but if they're in fact two separate repositories then MFP should of course have a page of its own. The present pages were both created by @Burmeister: do you perhaps have any more and/or updated data on the subject? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC).

Were pre-1959 collections actually moved to MNHNCU? In any case, it is clear that MFP ought to be a separate page if the institutions exist independent of each others, regardless of their past connection. Circeus (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I do not know whether the actual collections were moved but yes, today the MFP and MNHNCU indeed seems to be two different and independently sovereign repositories. Unfortunately I have very little up-to-date data about them in terms of current addresses, what they (primarily) keep in their repositories, which researchers are connected to the museums, etc. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC).-


I see someone make templates for species. But you make only a species template if there are subspecies. The last time I see a lot of mes, make by robot PeterR (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@PeterR: Who is "someone", and can you please give an example of such a template? In that case I can contact the user/bot operator. Thank you. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC).
I'm sorry, but I can't find it back. The example was 08 March 2019. PeterR (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thanks anyway. I'll try to find it. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC).

Hugo Gross, cosmopolitan?[modifica]

The author Hugo Gross is currently listed as a French botanist here at Wikispecies. The same is true on the Spanish Wikipedia, however the German Wikipedia lists him as German. Both esWP and deWP claims he was born 1888 in Tuniszki, Poland (back then very near the German-Polish border) and that he died in Bamberg, Germany. However deWP (and IPNI) states he died in 1968 but esWP say 1951. To add to the confusion Wikidata states Gross was a citizen of both Germany and the Kingdom of Prussia. Can anyone please help shed some light on this Gross issue? ;-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC).

On my mother's side, I am Slavic-Prussian, and from that very area since before 1300. Tuniszki is deep into Prussian territory (18th-19th Centuries, Kingdom of Prussia, Östpreußen from then till 1945), presently Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship of Poland. Gross is very good German word and name. His education and employment seem to be more German. Possibly there are two, with the other in Spain. After 1945, Comrade Stalin's ethnic cleansing would have forced him out. Neferkheperre (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Neferkheperre, and thank you for your input! I'm fairly fluent in German and know that Gross/Groß (i.e. 'great', large, 'big') is a perfectly good and valid German word as well as a not too uncommon sur- and even given name. Then again I think there were a lot of people moving between the Prussian/German-, Dutch-, Spanish-, Hungarian- and French- (e.g. Perreault?) speaking states back then so having a German name like "Gross" doesn't necessarily equal a German or Prussian nationality.
Also, as you say there may of course have been two Hugo Gross'es – one German and one Spanish and both independent of each other – however two homonymous, well renowned botanists born the same year (and both in Europe) seems like an unlikely coincidence. I'm inclined to believe he's German, but I guess the jury is still out... Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC).
If I understand the first posting here, it's about French versus German. Spain is only involved, because esWP gives some information on this botanist. OK, the combination of given name and family name is not that extraordinary, that there cannot be two of them. If there ever existed a French Hugo Gross, he or his family most likely would have had his origin from Alsace - but who knows?. Anyway, the botanist we are talking about published on Polygonaceae and the respective paper is telling, that he is from "Königsberg i. Pr. [in Prussia]". According to IPNI, information on death year was provided by J.L.Reveal, who also has published quite a lot on Polygonaceae. So, probably we can trust him. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Who is able to read German, may also have a look into this obituary. --Franz Xaver (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I'll be happy to read it but it must wait until tomorrow. Thanks for the link! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC).



Is there a map of species? I have several plants in the local area, which have been here for many years, whose species name I do not know. I think that a freely licensed map of such information, perhaps using OpenStreetMap for the map of surrounding houses and roads etc, could be quite helpful. Please tell me if this already exists somewhere, or if not, then what technology and what effort would be desired to make it happen.

--Gryllida (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Gryllida: No, currently there's no such map – at least not in Wikispecies. I agree that a map with taxon names might be both helpful and interesting but from a strictly nomenclatural and taxonomical viewpoint (i.e. the scope of Wikispecies) I think that the value would be limited. Also, as far as I know Wikidata currently doesn't list any information about the geographical distribution of species. Otherwise it would be fairly easy: simply query the database for a bunch of taxon names and their respective geo-data, and present the result on a map. For this to happen we must first add the geo-data to the respective species items in the Wikidata database. However as of this writing there are about half a million taxon pages in Wikispecies, and adding geo-data for them all will likely take some time... It's not a bad idea though! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC).

Seeking biographic confirmation re: Betty Thompson and F. Christian Thompson.[modifica]

Back in 2011, User:Stho002 added a note stating Betty J. Thompson is the wife of F. Christian Thompson. This was shortly reflected in F. Christian Thompson's Wikispecies page (diff). While the two share the same last name, and have certainly co-authored multiple papers, I haven't yet found a reliable source confirming they are in fact spouses, and not merely colleagues with the same name. Can anyone confirm this? Cheers, -Animalparty (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The author credits on [2] are "Betty J. & F. Christian Thompson" and later "Betty & Christian Thompson". Colleagues' names would not be listed like that, unless married. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
That's not the most direct evidence, but I've since found an acknowledgement (here) thanking "F. Christian Thompson... and his wife Betty". Still not ideal or air-tight, and I don't have serious doubts, but it would be nice to have a concrete source that unambiguously says in essence "this authority named Betty J. Thompson is married to F. Christian Thompson." Animalparty (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Missing pages, with inbound links[modifica]

Our most-linked missing pages are currenlty:

Most of these seem to be for a genus, where the species pages have been created. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems like a bot created mess generated from COL. Andyboorman (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Use int[modifica]

What is the benefit for using int:? PeterR (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@PeterR: It will automatically translate the text into any of the languages listed in Wikispecies:Localization, depending on each user's different languages settings set in their user preferences. So Chinese speaking users will automatically get the text in Chinese, Spanish speaking users will automatically see the text in Spanish, etc. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist:. I see only all the text in English, not in Dutch. PeterR (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Semantic Scholar[modifica]

Semantic Scholar is a free, non-profit search engine for peer-reviewed research, with over 42 million papers indexed and analysed. (See also en:Semantic Scholar.) I have found it useful when tracking down taxonomic papers and their authors.

I have just added Semantic Scholar author IDs (Semantic Scholar author ID (P4012)) to {{Authority control}} (see, for example, Ulrich Ehlers, for whom we have no other UID). Wikidata also has Semantic Scholar paper ID (p4011), and yesterday I made a proposal for a property for their topic IDs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

You may now become 'Wikispecies — A Wikipedia project'[modifica]

According to this discussion at Meta, Wikimedia Foundation is considering rebranding. This means for you, that rather than Wikispecies being a Wikimedia project, it would become a Wikipedia project.

The proposed changes also include

  • Providing clearer connections to the sister projects from Wikipedia to drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to all movement projects.

While raising such awareness in my opinion is a good thing, do you think classifying you as a 'Wikipedia' project would cause confusion? Do you think newcomers would have a high risk of erroneously applying some of Wikipedia principles and policies here which do not apply? If so, what confusion? Could you please detail this. I have raised a query about that HERE in general, but I am looking for specific feedback.

Please translate this message to other languages. --Gryllida (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Unpatrolled changes[modifica]

We have ~2,300. The typical reason why is that one user (e.g. User:Monster Iestyn) makes a lot of very small, very fine edits (e.g.) in a short period. I recommend admins/bureaucrats take a look at the queue and give appropriate autopatroller rights to users making good edits to weed out what are good editors who may make a mistake but don't need oversight versus individual edits that genuinely need patrolling. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that @Koavf:, and while it is important to evaluate newcomers edits before making them autopatrolled, maybe we should be a little faster in giving autopatrolled rights? Dan Koehl (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl and Koavf: I partly agree... Recently about a handful of new users have become very active, and the vast majority of their edits are excellent. This is of course very welcome, however in some cases the quality of their edits differ between namespaces. For example some of the users create good pages in the Template namespace but uphold a somewhat lesser standard in the Main- and/or Category namespaces. This should be up for discussion with each respective user before granting them autopatroller rights. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC).
Maybe a polite suggestion to study the instructions closer, combined with a proposal of granting autopatrol rights, if they confirm to follow instructions, would make those users to take a step in a wished directon? Dan Koehl (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Sure but if no one is reviewing their edits anyway, there is no reason to leave them unpatrolled. This way, we can focus on the new users whose edits are generally poor rather than the overall good editors who are struggling in some specific area. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
One of the problems is that there are too few active patrollers. I've reviewed more than 700 edits the past week, but the workload most certainly is too big for one single user. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC).
Sorry I did not realise this had got out of hand again. I have been extra-ordinarily busy the last 12 months working on an entire museum collection, some 18000 specimens. Anyway I will try to do some patrolling over the next week to do my share. Although I agree with some points above that maybe we should look into when people get the autopatrol rights, we also do have to be wary of issues. It should never be given blindly just based on number of edits or time editing, the quality must be assessed to. But perhaps we can speed it up a little. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Dan Koehl, Faendalimas, and Koavf: Not counting translations (which can sometimes be difficult to mark as patrolled due to technical limitations) we're now down to approximately 400 unpatrolled edits. Still quite a few of course, but a lot better than 2,300. Some edits are difficult for me to check, simply because I haven't got the proper literature or references. For example please have a look at the two last edits of Agra vation [sic] and the most recent version of Plectranthus amboinicus. Any help is much appreciated. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

Thanks a lot. I'm gated by 1.) lack of knowledge of the subject matter and 2.) not knowing certain languages. Some of the Chinese translations I looked at seemed good enough but I was hesitant to mark them patrolled. :/ —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Understandable. Cross-references via the external links at the Wikidata "taxon pages" and/or zhWP helps a lot, but it takes time. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC).
In case of Plectranthus amboinicus, the diff by the IP was a subtle vandalism, changing basionym and heterotypic synonym. I have corrected this page. --Thiotrix (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Biographies with no UIDs[modifica]

The page I have just at Wikispecies:Biographies with no identifiers contains a Wikidata query which returns a list of people with a Wikispecies biography, but with no UIDs (VIAF, ISNI, ORCID, IPNI, Zoobank, etc) on Wikidata - in other words, if {{Authority control}} is used on their biography, it will have no content.

There are currently 21,347 people in the list! Some of them, such as A. Murdoch, have an ID (Zoobank, in this case) in the Wikispecies article text; but many have none there, either. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)