User talk:Fagus

I am very sorry if you feel that my comment about orphans insulted you. You have made great contributions here on WS and I. for one, am sorry if you feel you have to leave. Good luck in the future. Andyboorman (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please note that Maharanga and Onosma have been extensively emended by {{Cecchi & Hilger, 2022}}. The changes are also on IPNI and PWO. Cheers. Andyboorman (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if you're aware already or not, but Template:Template:Commonscat and Template:Commonscat are now duplicates. Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Do you really want this page? At the moment it is orphaned and I was wondering what to do with it. Andyboorman (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I find it interesting, as it seems to be an attempt to have an exhaustive list of names (that's how I see it); I'm not sure I've seen such a list here before. Maybe it could be linked from the Myosotis taxon page, possibly in a "See also" section, like it was done for List of Rindera taxa in Rindera and for Aubrieta/All taxa list in Aubrieta. The title of these lists should probably be standardised. Korg (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Interesting idea, but without extensive curating these lists will rapidly date and it could be a logistical problem to expend it to all taxa.. I am not against it just being devil's advocate. Andyboorman (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

You can delete these pages. --Fagus (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello again! @Andyboorman: I see, that's a fair point. I wouldn't oppose their deletion. I was thinking that such lists could be generated and maintained by a bot, but that's easier said than done...

These lists have different kinds of links: besides the blue and red links, they also contain redirects and links to disambiguation pages. You might find helpful to be able to see them, so I take the opportunity to share this tip I posted at the Village Pump. Kind regards, Korg (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

This species name is not expressed as a hybrid in spite of a proposed hybrid origin. In their 2012 protologue Mateo & Egido are very clear about their proposed name. This is accepted and reproduced by IPNI, POWO and so on. It would be best if WS did not differ. I suggest that it would be best that you corrected this error. Thanks and happy new year. Andyboorman (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Having said the above they now propose this species is named Pilosella gudarica subsp. adenogaliciana. IPNI have entered their name as Pilosella × gudarica subsp. adenogaliciana (Mateo & Egido) Mateo, Egido & Gómiz, Flora Montiber. 84: 51 (2022). I assume due to Mateo publishing the species Pilosella × gudarica in 1990. This is proposed in their 2020 paper PDF which you can read. However, in this paper they drop the hybrid epithet. I have no idea who is correct - IPNI or Mateo & García. We will have to email both I assume. No wonder POWO have not accepted the changes to date. Best regards and a puzzled Andyboorman (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

THanks for adding some detail to the Acer section pages. I assume you are using GRIN for species names. Do you know where they get their information from? Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

They get this information from Gelderen, D. M. van et al, 1994. Maples of the world, Flora of china and Murray, A. E. 1970. A monograph of the Aceraceae.--Fagus (talk) 08:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello and @MILEPRI:. I understand that your Homotypic synonymy for this species is incorrect. Negundo nikoense Miq., Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugduno-Batavi 2: 90 (1865) was based upon a couple of trifoliate leaves sent to Miquel, which is misidentified as an Acer type tree and named by him, but in fact they were leaves of Parthenocissus tricuspidata. As N. nikoense is the basionym of; Acer nikoense (Miq.) Maxim., Bull. Acad. Imp. Sci. Saint-Pétersbourg 12: 227 (-228) (1867), Acer nikoense (Miq.) Miq., Arch. Neerl. Sci. Exact. Nat. 2: 478 (1867), isonym and Crula nikoensis (Miq.) Nieuwl., Amer. Midl. Naturalist 2(6): 114 (1911), these are also synonyms of Parthenocissus tricuspidata.

This link was sent to me as a reminder by Kew on response to clarifications. I now remember this case from my time teaching plant identification and systematics as a bit of a tongue in check example of oddities in synonymy. POWO has the correct synonymies for both species. Hope this helps Andyboorman (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I always add the accepted full name into the this template not just the name and author. The reason is that this prevents the use of isonyms and homonyms and also is taxonomically correct. Sorry to be a pedant, that this taxonomy as you know! I would be graceful if you did not edit out this information in the future, as you did with Salvia × mendizabalii. Of course you are free to use the shortened form if you wish, but it would be better not to edit out any changes made by other editors. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

• No problem. I can also use it as you say. Let's use it this way from now on. --Fagus (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Many thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

These can often easily be found on IPNI or Tropicos. They are very useful/essential for working botanists and taxonomists. I always try to add them when editing or creating spaces. I was looking through Rosa and species, so thanks for the detail you added, so just asking. Many thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please note this comment. Without protologues the taxon pages are not really that valid/useful taxonomically. Many protologues can now be found under the authors. I would urge you to concentrate on this information. Unfortunately I can not always do so. Incidentally, many species of Turkish Salvia are not described with a subgenus or section. Do you know anybody who is working on this? Many thanks Andyboorman (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Fagus, why do you remove the names in synonymy (e.g. Noaea)? I find them very helpful for my work on Amaranthaceae. Long lists can be collapsed, but please do not delete them. Thiotrix (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why? Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

because it does not comply with wikispecies format. --Fagus (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

(The above edit from 19:53, 9 January 2025 was copied in from User talk:Dušan Kreheľ by Tommy Kronkvist (talk). It's Wikimedia praxis to keep one discussion together in one single place, or else it can become impossible to follow it's history in the future.)

@Dušan Kreheľ: Wikispecies is an online database specifically and exclusively encompassing the taxonomy of biological organisms, and the nomenclature surrounding that taxonomical data. The citation you added to the Scabiosa ochroleuca page only adds data about the standard heights and lengths of plants, i.e. information which has no taxonomical value. Hence, that information is out of scope of the Wikispecies project. I'm afraid that all of your recently added, similar citations will be deleted as well.

However, you are of course still very welcome to add any valid information that regards the taxonomy of organisms! Please also note that your heights/length data may perhaps in some cases be well suited for Wikipedia, which has a much broader scope of interest than Wikispecies.

–Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC).Reply

@Tommy Kronkvist: Deletion can be a problem because length can play a role in some plants. Or maybe a reason for subspecification. ... So, what now? Hm. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Dušan Kreheľ: If that is the case (which as you say is very rare), then we need to add publications that say why that information is of taxonomical importance. Please note that Wikispecies is not a database intended to be used to differentiate between different specimen. For example, it's not supposed to be a "field key" for distinguishing between different species. In those cases a printed flora or ornithological handbook etc. would be much better. But not Wikispecies – since those cases aren't related to taxonomy.

In other words, a scientific article which only states that "An adult human's standard height is generally 165 to 185 centimeters" has no taxonomical value at all, since it doesn't say anything about the biological systematics of Homo sapiens.
–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC).Reply