User talk:Andyboorman

These are the archives of my talk page:
To the end 2013		Jan 2014 to the end of 2014
Jan 2015 to the end of 2015		Dec 2015 to Dec 2017
Dec 2017 to Oct 2020		Oct. 2020 to Dec 2023
The archives are searchable:

Pilosella

Yes, sometimes our hands are tied. Fagus (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

New Year Greeting

@Andyboorman: Dear Andy,
I would like to wish you all the best for the New Year 2024.
Let us hope, that the world becomes more peaceful again.
Best regards.
Orchi (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Delete pages

Hi there, Andyboorman, I need your help to delete some redirection pages that have errors, and I also don't know if you could help me put templates or something to notify them that they will be deleted. At the moment I have these 4:

• Saxifraga bernardensis, already exists as Saxifraga × bernardensis
• Saxifraga macropetala, already exists as Saxifraga × macropetala
  • Both of the above are registered with IPNI without the x symbol, due to differences in nomenclature compared to 2024.
• Ziziphus talanae, has a major spelling error, according to the species' publications, the correct epithet is "talanai", not "talanae"
  • I will check with IPNI and POWO and get back. Andyboorman (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Pterophylla (Asteraceae), this plant genus is not from Asteraceae family, but Cunoniaceae family only.

Greetings! AbeCK (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@AbeCK: I will delete these pages, if they need deleting. However, if you add {{Delete}} to a page it flags if for speedy deletion. See Ziziphus talanai as an example. You can see a list of pages for speedy deletion on your WatchList. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Meant to add that you have to be an Admin or Bureaucrat to actually delete pages. Andyboorman (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Guareeae

When I begin to create the tribe of Guareeae in Meliaceae, I notice that Wikispecies has genera from the tribe Aglaieae, I would appreciate it if you could inform me if the error is found in one or the other. Saludos--MILEPRI (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@MILEPRI: I have found a reference that merges Guareeae into Aglaieae and will deal with later. Andyboorman (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@MILEPRI: I have added a redirect to Guareeae as per Holzmeyer et al. (2021), but kept its page for now. The changes for the genera once of Guareeae have been made. Andyboorman (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Schmardaea

El género Schmardaea de ka familia Meliaceae' se encuentra sin subfamilia y sin tribu en wikispecies. En wikipedia en inglés aparece en la subfamilia Cedreloideae. ¿Podría ser un sinónimo?. Le agradeceria su opinión. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@MILEPRI: Schmardaea is in the Cedreloideae subfamily, as far I am aware and according to APW. However, it is not formally assigned to a tribe, but it is a basal clade with Chukrasia. I have made a partial edit. Saludos Andyboorman (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

OK. saludos. MILEPRI (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Rosmarinus officinalis and other of your questionable/doubtful edits in redirects

Hi, Andyboorman, hey I'm here to question your reversion of my edit to Rosmarinus officinalis, as well as some edits of yours in redirects with which I totally disagree, look:

• First, redirects should contain absolutely nothing except the page they redirect to
• Second, not only Rosmarinus officinalis, I've seen that you have made changes keeping old content in the redirects on other pages such as those of the genera Aloysia and Acantholippia, only with that you'll misinform and mislead those who visit Wikispecies, especially, whose corroborating the information on Wikispecies with other sources, besides in any case, the page with updated information can be better used, if there is a case for changing the name instead of the page with old, obsolete and half-baked information.
• Third, If you want to say something like "Rosmarinus officinalis is still used by important authors" or something like that, under better circumstances it would be better to put a template or a note (or something else to emphasize on it) something like what you did in pages like Backebergia militaris or Deamia chontalensis, by the way, I recommend you carefully compare the information offered by various databases with each other, not all of them are asymmetrical with respect to a species or genera, regardless of their regnum. AbeCK (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@AbeCK: I always cross compare/reference. There are a few, but significant number of names, where there is no consensus across expert sources and you highlighted just two. However, WS cannot take sides when there is differing taxonomic opinions. However, please do not patronise other editors and only delete their data with caution. Andyboorman (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

For now, I'm going to revert this reversion in Rosmarinus officinalis you made and if you agree, I'd like to put it up for discussion on some board to avoid conflicts with the editions and come up with something. Greetings. AbeCK (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@AbeCK: WS belongs to all and is not my or your personal project. Andyboorman (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Metaxyaceae

The family Metaxyaceae is listed in POWO as a synonym of Cyatheaceae, however it is accepted by Tropicos and Catalog of Life. I would be grateful if you could inform me if there has been any recent change that clarifies its location. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello {@MILEPRI: The differences depend on whether or not a broad or narrow description of Cyatheaceae is accepted. This is a taxonomic opinion. I am not an expert on ferns, but I will post a request on the Pump. WS seems to follow a narrow circumscription. Andyboorman (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

OK. Gracias MILEPRI (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Taxonav and contents

@Andyboorman: === Hi. Thanks for your reply to my question on village pump about the mysterious "contents" box appearing. If i rephrase your answer, then my understanding is essentially that some of taxonavigation templates had that extra wording "Taxonav" inserted, and it caused a clash/loop as that had been inserted into templates at two different but nested hierarchical levels (both on a superfamily template and any of the family templates). If so, that's great to know - enough for me to know the cause - so thankyou, without my needing to knowing why the heck it chose to present a 'contents' box from that! I decided to write here as my issue now is a direct query to you. I've been typically adding the extra wording of "Taxonav" into templates for the family level, hence into that for Cladonychiidae, etc. My impression from my notes (after rechecking about it) was that the extra "Taxonav" shouldn't be on the template for taxa above the family level (e.g. Superfamily, Infraorder etc). Hence, if this way, therefore i'd mistakenly added it to the new template for the superfamily Travunioidea. Your kind fixes i think removed "Taxonav" from each of the families (within Travunioidea), but kept in that for the superfamily Travunioidea. What i'm trying to say, i wonder if would be more consistent if the "Taxonav" is kept on the (several) family level templates, but removed from that of the superfamily etc?. Sjl197 (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sjl197: You are right in the sense that taxonav is better at the family level and that is where I add it, if required. My removal at the family level was just a quick, if dirty fix. Please feel free to reverse and get rid of its occurrence at the superfamily. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Roemeria

Hi Andy - just a heads-up that your note at Roemeria (Medikus) is out of date now; POWO now accept the genus, with an expanded number of species (many of which are still at Papaver here) - MPF (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@MPF: Thanks had a go at correcting, but probably need an additional reference. Andyboorman (talk) 07:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Think this is the one you want: A new genus for Papaver sect. Meconella and new combinations in Roemeria (Papaveraceae) in Europe and the Mediterranean area (2022). Also adds the new genus Oreomecon for Papaver alpinum and related species. - MPF (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Couple of additional refs for further Oreomecon combinations:

• Galasso G., Banfi E., Bartolucci F. 2023 (Jan). New combinations in Oreomecon. Pl. Rev. 5 (4): 58 (I can't find this one, not helped by nobody saying the full name of "Pl. Rev."!!)
• Krivenko, D. A. 2023 (Dec). New combinations in the genus Oreomecon (Papaveraceae). Novitates Systematicae Plantarum Vascularium 54: 97–100.

Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@MPF: Certainly helps. The new species are in IPNI, but not yet in POWO or Hassler. I will add them later today. It will leave Papaver with a rump group. Still no help with my Rosa request on the Pump. Andyboorman (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@MPF: Pl. Rv. = The Plant Review, formerly The Plantsman published by the RHS and not featured on Scholar, as well as being exclusively for RHS members. Grr! Andyboorman (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Aye, that's annoying! As far as I can tell from the listings on powo, it's just one page, so I doubt it's anything more than a simple list of comb. novae - MPF (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@MPF: I, hopefully, I will have a copy in a few days. It seems to be a couple of pages of the new names in an article about the nomenclature and classification changes in Papaver, There is a lot of interest in this genus amongst the RHS and members and there will be a need to explain these changes, which no doubt will appear in the latest Plant Finder. I will prompt Kew about the lack of movement regarding Krivenko's work, but I assume that it will involve the changes to less well known species and the raising of three subspecies to species, as well as the alteration of infraspecifics in the type species. Andyboorman (talk) 07:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I suspect POWO may want to take a while deciding over Krivenko: he looks to be making every Papaver sect. Meconella name ever published available in an Oreomecon combination, regardless of whether it is distinct or not, so POWO will probably want to consign many of the names to synonymy, rather than accept them uncritically. - MPF (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@MPF: You have made a very good spot. Kew advises going with POWO as it is for now. They also commented that the combinations have been made with a minimum of analysis and that the Russians are notorious for over-splitting. Andyboorman (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, on the last point!! - MPF (talk) 07:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Abelia parvifolia

Hello Andy. Please have a look at this edit of the Abelia parvifolia page. Is it correct?

Also, some sources still say that it's a synonym of Linnaea parvifolia Graebn. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 29: 129 (1900) rather than a synonym of Abelia uniflora R.Br., in Wall. Pl. As. Rar. 1: 14. t. 15. (1830). All in all the synonymy is a bit messy in this case. :-) Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC).

It looks like the accepted species circumscription has changed since my 2019 edits. I will revisit, but Abelia parvifolia seems to be accepted by most. I have made a start by editing Abelia Andyboorman (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Tommy Kronkvist: Definitely, the move to expand Linnaea has lost favour, except on Commons. See Wang at al. (2015) in the references here Linnaeoideae and also English WP. Andyboorman (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to add, "lost favour, except on Commons" isn't really true: it's just that wikidata's tentacles have made updating anything at commons a right faff. It takes about 3 hours tedious work to get a category there sorted properly. Updating a genus of ten species is several days' work. So Commons has fallen very badly out of date since wikidata took over. - MPF (talk) 09:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Checked up, Commons was actually up to date! - MPF (talk) 11:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Might be up to date but it appears that there is a circular redirect going on! Np idea where Commons got their synonymy from. Andyboorman (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see what you mean! I thought it was Commons:Category:Linnaea that was out of date, but it's Category:Abelia parvifolia. I'll deal with it. - MPF (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all done then. Andyboorman (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Would I be right in guessing Abelia macrotera is a non-correctable error for macroptera? - MPF (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

According to this entry from BHL, the basionym is Linnaea macrotera, so any use of "macroptera" is an error. Andyboorman (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that - but the basionym is presumably a typo for "macroptera", although that doesn't make it correctable to that - MPF (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood. If there was a proof that macrotera was a typographical error then indeed it would be correctable under ICN Art 60. However, it appears that we can not clearly assume there is an error. However, as you point out, macroptera is much more common than macrotera, but both are acceptable botanical Latin. Andyboorman (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 22:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Dasiphora fruticosa

Hi Andy - I fear you've created a bit of a mess with your move of Dasiphora fruticosa subsp. floribunda to a heterotypic possible synonym Dasiphora fruticosa var. fruticosa. While this is in line with POWO's treatment, it is not with that of other authorities (e.g. GRIN, USDA Plants), and a separate Dasiphora fruticosa subsp. floribunda remains a legitimate, widely accepted taxonomic opinion. Could you undo your changes here please, and create a new set of pages for POWO's taxonomy? Also the alternative GRIN taxonomy should remain included on the parent species page, please. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Hi @MPF:. I am not sure that it is a mess to look to Kew as opposed to GRIN/USDA. Until comparatively recently the later did not claim to be a taxonomic authority and had disclaimers on their search results.. However, I think there is a major taxonomic problem that needs teasing out and will have a look through it. The reason is that if we accept Dasiphora fruticosa subsp. floribunda then it appears that we will have to completely dismantle the synonymy of Dasiphora fruticosa and it infraspecifics. Compared to Kew the US authorities is comparatively slim with their synonyms. The major problem, as I see it, is many US taxonomists prefer to use subspecies and avoid variety when accepting infraspecifics. I appreciate that WS does not take sides over taxonomic opinions. Andyboorman (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! Yes, dealing with the synonymy could be a problem; I see e.g. that GRIN treat POWO's D. fruticosa var. veitchii as a synonym of D. davurica. But "The major problem, as I see it, is many US taxonomists prefer to use subspecies and avoid variety when accepting infraspecifics" is absolutely not the case; it's actually the opposite, that many US botanists avoid subspecies in favour of variety. In the past, quite a few, notably the highly influential USDA chief botanist E.L.Little, outright rejected the use of subspecies in botany at all, making a proposal to the ICBN in the 1950s/1960s to outlaw it (which failed); this was in contrast to far more extensive European etc., use of subspecies rank, and a somewhat intermediate position in UK. In more recent years since Little's retirement, more US botanists came closer to an international viewpoint and started using subspecies rank, as in this case. I'm not sure what POWO's position is, but I have noticed a recent trend there not to use subspecies, which if true is a great shame: it goes against widely followed criteria as to which rank to use (see e.g. Christensen 1987 p.384 'Taxonomic concept', which has always been my go-to). The problem if different concepts of variety and subspecies are used in different regions, then taxa of ± equal distinction may get treated very differently depending on where they are from, rather than how they compare with each other. This happened a lot in the past when taxa that would be regarded internationally as good subspecies (or even species) were treated in the USA as only varieties; now it is beginning to look as though POWO are perhaps starting to make the same mistake?? - MPF (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Your text Hi Andy - I fear you've created a bit of a mess with your move of Dasiphora fruticosa subsp. floribunda to a heterotypic possible synonym Dasiphora fruticosa var. fruticosa. While this is in line with POWO's treatment, it is not with that of other authorities (e.g. GRIN, USDA Plants), and a separate Dasiphora fruticosa subsp. floribunda remains a legitimate, widely accepted taxonomic opinion. Could you undo your changes here please, and create a new set of pages for POWO's taxonomy? Also the alternative GRIN taxonomy should remain included on the parent species page, please. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Hi @MPF:. I am not sure that it is a mess to look to Kew as opposed to GRIN/USDA. Until comparatively recently the later did not claim to be a taxonomic authority and had disclaimers on their search results.. However, I think there is a major taxonomic problem that needs teasing out and will have a look through it. The reason is that if we accept Dasiphora fruticosa subsp. floribunda then it appears that we will have to completely dismantle the synonymy of Dasiphora fruticosa and it infraspecifics. Compared to Kew the US authorities is comparatively slim with their synonyms. The major problem, as I see it, is many US taxonomists prefer to use subspecies and avoid variety when accepting infraspecifics. I appreciate that WS does not take sides over taxonomic opinions. Andyboorman (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Initial research indicates that there are conflicting synonymies for a number of species across the genus when comparing secondary sources, which include GRIN/USDA, COL, EMD and POWO to date. For example Dasiphora fruticosa has no infraspecifics in EMD and COL and Dasiphora glabrata is a mess! I have to go off line but will continue by looking through local flora. Andyboorman (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
    • @MPF: I have not had much time to look at this, but it is clear that it is not a straight case of POWO versus USDA/Grin. Dasiphora fruticosa is widespread, after all. At the moment I am not confident enough to undo the changes as you suggest, as there are at least three differing approaches, which will require three different sets of taxon pages, including the main species page. These would be based upon; D. fruticosa agg. without infraspecifics, the POWO and then the US. I would now advise looking more closely at least China, Japan and Russia to see what they accept and I will do this tomorrow. However, it appears the whole circumscription of the genus is still very much "disputed". If you know anybody with enough knowledge of the shrubby cinquefoils who can offer advice please let me know. Andyboorman (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

      Thanks! Unfortunately, I don't; the only papers I've seen are quite old (some from when the complex was still included in Potentilla s.l.!). They are the papers that grin's taxonomy is based on though, I've not seen anything that supports powo's ideas (and they don't say much about what it is based on!). - MPF (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

      I have to disagree about the lack of sources for POWO, as they have a long list of printed sources, so checking will be a long job. WP pages are not very helpful either here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasiphora_fruticosa, as they are based upon GRIN/USDA, whose references are unhelpful including two pers coms. The additional references on WP for Dasiphora fruticosa subsp. floribunda are three local USA flora. Incidentally, The two hybrids on WS and WP derive from GRIN/USDA and are not found elsewhere except IPNI, as published names. I will keep digging. Andyboorman (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

      I don't think that's right about POWO's sources! The list of printed sources is just for distribution information, not taxonomic; the only taxonomic source cited is:

      • POWO follows these authorities in accepting this name: Govaerts, R., Nic Lughadha, E., Black, N., Turner, R. & Paton, A. (2021). The World Checklist of Vascular Plants, a continuously updated resource for exploring global plant diversity. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00997-6. Scientific Data 8: 215.

      ...which is basically a link back to itself!

      The two pers. comm. cited on the GRIN page are just for vernacular name details, so they too can be ignored for taxonomic purposes.

      Otherwise, the main article (on which GRIN's taxonomy is ultimately based) is Elkington, T. T. 1969. Cytotaxonomic Variation in Potentilla fruticosa L. New Phytologist 68 151-160; the only subsequent change to that is the genus transfer from Potentilla to Dasiphora (by Kartesz for subsp. floribunda). Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

      I have yet to read any of the references used by Kew, so can not comment on the names that are used. Andyboorman (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

      OK!! I've added the Elkington ref to the page - MPF (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

      Back to my original query - I think subsp. floribunda needs a page given that it is a widely accepted opinion; another of those cases where we need both options. To preserve the taxon's page history, I think the thing to do is undo your move and edits and restore it to the 12 August 2019‎ version, and then to paste your edits into a separate varietal autonym page (inserting into the new redirect the restoration of floribunda creates). I can easily do both, though it would leave the varietal autonym page listed in my contributions rather than yours - I don't know if there's any way of splitting off your edits to retain their history and user attribution? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

      I have added detail to its page. Hope this is OK.Andyboorman (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

      Thanks! I'd rather have kept the page history of subsp. floribunda together; now ¾ of it is on the var. fruticosa page and a quarter on its own page, but I guess I can live with it ;-) I'll give them a check-over and might make a few small changes / clarifications - MPF (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

      Thanks and sorry for not keeping the whole history. I have a few notes on the species page that you may want to look through. Given the complexity of the differing ploidy levels in other Rosaceae species, it is no wonder many botanists are abandoning infraspecifics. I also am sceptical that the black and white barrier to interbreeding postulated by Wang et al. (2029) is as cut and dried in the wild or garden as they state. As you have guessed I am favouring the broad approach, but that leaves the under-researched white flowered variants. In addition, it appears that that GRIN/USDA circumscription of Dasiphora davurica (Nestl.) Kom. (1932) is taxonomically incorrect, if it is conspecific with Dasiphora glabrata (Willd. ex Schltdl.) Soják, Čas. Nár. Muz., Rada Přír. 152: 19. (1983). I have added the relevant notes. Andyboorman (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

      Thanks! Doesn't surprise me about D. davurica, but I don't have any experience of the central Asian taxa so can't really comment.
      
      

Cirsium

Change of subject, now! Cirsium. Described by Miller here, with 13 species listed. Our page gives Cirsium heterophyllum (L.) Hill (basionym Carduus heterophyllus L.) as the lectotype species, but our page for that species does not include any of Miller's 13 names in its synonymy. Presumably it should include at least one of them? Going from Miller's descriptions, his #2 Cirsium bricannicum is the closest fit to C. heterophyllum, but that's far from certain. Any ideas, please? - MPF (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@MPF: Do you mean the list of species under Cirsium heterophyllum that I added to Miller 1754 as a stand alone BHL link on the Cirsium taxon page? Andyboorman (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, those 13. One of them must be the type of Miller's Cirsium, and therefore a synonym of Carduus heterophyllus L., the modern type of Miller's genus - MPF (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

So far, I believe, it seems that his Cirsium Anglicum = Cirsium dissectum, Cirsium maximum asphodeliradice & Cirsium tuberosum are both likely to be equivalent to Cirsium tuberosum (L.) All., (1785). I am still working on the others. However, I do agree that his Cirsium Britannicum the great English soft. gentle or melancholy is equivalent to Cirsium heterophyllum. Andyboorman (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Andy - another Cirsium problem! If I go to Cirsium vulgare, it is shown as belonging to Cirsium sect. Epitrachys. But that is a redirect to a separate genus Lophiolepis, of which Cirsium vulgare is not a member, neither here, nor at POWO. Any idea where it belongs? POWO doesn't give any sectional allocation. Pinging @Fagus: too as the synonymiser of Cirsium sect. Epitrachys into Lophiolepis. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I am in favour of ditching the sections unless I can find more current support for them. Thanks for pinging Fagua. Andyboorman (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

will dig a bit further on this one and get back. Andyboorman (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Would be nice to see what that Del Guacchio & al., 2022 ref (cited at Lophiolepis) says, but unfortunately it is unavailable - MPF (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I also tried a look, but well behind a paywall. However, a reference citing it lead to three gen. nov., also accepted by POWO etc. Andyboorman (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd been half-expecting a massive rearrangement of thistles would be needed sooner or later, I'll check out those 3 gen. nov. you mention. The spelling of Miller's Cirsium bricannicum [sic!] needs to be watched, I'd guess it isn't correctable, even if it's an obvious typo in his book. Good thing it's just a synonym :-) MPF (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379698320_Intergeneric_hybrid_origin_of_the_invasive_tetraploid_Cirsium_vulgare This] looks fun!! Cirsium vulgare an intergeneric hybrid . . . 😱 MPF (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

For species and infraspecific taxa Miller 1754 is a suppressed work, see here. The type designations of Britton in Britton & Brown, Ill. Fl. N. U.S., ed. 2, 2 are largely mechanical following the American code and thus supersedable, unless they have been affirmed in a later publication using a non-mechanical method (Art. 10.5 ff. ICN). Del Guaccio et al. 2022 is available through Wikipedia Library: https://www-tandfonline-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/full/10.1080/11263504.2022.2131924 --RLJ (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

---

I think it is fair to say changes are afoot! However, the removal of the sections on WS by @Fagus: is a good start. Cirsium vulgare is acknowledged as of hybrid origin, twp years ago "intersectional" now "intergeneric", but a name change is unhelpful on the grounds of nomenclatural stability. Ascalea Hill, Veg. Syst. 4: 14 (1762) is in the synonymy of Cirsium. However, the species needs more edits. I also not not think that any changes will impact the type. Thanks to @RLJ: for the Wikilibrary link and pointing out the Miller is partially suppressed. Andyboorman (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I think we probably will end up having to change to Ascalea for Spear Thistle eventually, but not yet; that paper I mentioned says a taxonomic revision is in prep. (p. 12: "Fortunately, the generic name Ascalea Hill is available for such a genus (detailed taxonomic treatment including hybrids will be given in E. Del Guacchio, P. Bureš, D. Iamonico, F. Zedek, & P. Caputo, in preparation)"), and I'd think it likely powo will accept it when it comes out, as they've accepted the other papers from the same study group.

I guess I already knew Miller 1754 was invalid (as he didn't use strictly binomial names), but I'd forgotten / not noticed it was this early edition we were looking at here. He only became fully valid with the 7th edition in 1768 with his belated conversion to Linnaeism😆 - MPF (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I think we will have to wait for the taxonomic publication, cited above. POWO have already rejected one of the intergeneric hybrids proposed by Del Guacchio & al., 2022that is Lophiocirsium, which they leave in Cirsium × grandiflorum, an unplaced name. I assume they are waiting for the paper. However, I can see these changes hitting the problem of nomenclatural stability given the widespread nature and high importance of this plant, compared to strict taxonomic purity. Time will tell. Andyboorman (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Hasn't stopped them accepting all those dubious Cupressus splits with all their car-crash collision with nomenclatural stability! And they're not even needed for strict taxonomic purity... - MPF (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@MPF: I assume you are referring to the use of the name Cupressus exclusively for the new world species, based initially on; Little, D.P., 2006. Evolution and circumscription of the true cypresses (Cupressaceae: Cupressus). Systematic Botany 31(3): 461-480. then expanded on by others? Andyboorman (talk) 07:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

That (well, the old world species; the new world split as Hesperocyparis), plus the splits of Callitropsis and Xanthocyparis as well. All the segregates would be better treated at sectional or subgeneric ranks (as the Gymnospem Database did for a while, e.g. 2018 version archive and 2021 archive - the 2021 version gives excellent reasoning, which remains valid, for this treatment); they are indefinable on morphology. - MPF (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Now that Gymnosperm Database follows the others, we can say that phylogeny has won! This paper is evidence of this dominance; Yang et al. 2022. Recent advances on phylogenomics of gymnosperms and a new classification. Plant Diversity 44(4): 340-350. DOI: 10.1016/j.pld.2022.05.003 .Nothing published since is contradicting these developments. However and unfortunately, this now leaves WS as the only scientific database holding on to Cupressus s.l. Andyboorman (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Until the next paper, anyway! And the Cupressus Conservation Project does not accept them, staying with a monophyletic Cupressus s.l. - MPF (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is now accepted by consensus across most researchers in phylogenetics, systematics and conifers that Cupressus s.l. is definitely paraphyletic not monophyletic. Its acceptance is one that depends on further work, whilst the options become clearer. Unfortunately for WS all this further work is favouring the dismantling of Cu s.l.. But I can not be bothered to get into an edit war dispute, but contribute by simply adding references to the relevant taxon pages. Andyboorman (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Synonyms

I have observed that the program that edits the synonyms automatically does not read them (its counter always gives 0). Do you know if it is a specific error or if they have changed the program?. Saludos. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by MILEPRI (talk • contribs) 08:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC).

You are right it is non-functioning I will explore further. Thanks for the heads up. Andyboorman (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Fries, 1838 template

Hi! I have a question regarding Template:Fries, 1838. It seems like the template's Biblioteca Digital link is dead. Do you happen to know of an equivalent alternative? I know that you haven't edited that particular template, but I ask you anyway since you've edited Template:Fries, 1835 which looks related. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC).

Stepping in here - the Biblioteca Digital link works fine for me just now; presumably just a temporary glitch - MPF (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@MPF: & @Tommy Kronkvist: Now works for me as well. Agreed a temporary blip - we hope! Andyboorman (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Cloezia

Encuentro el género Cloezia en las myrtáceas como género aceptado en POWO pero sin ningún dato en wikispecies. ¿Tendría información más amplia de este género?. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I am working on these genera. The tribes have also changed and Cloezieae is one of the new ones. If you want to use POWO for this genus, please go ahead. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Lamiaceae - 2 problems

Hi Andy - a couple of problems, one for you to ask POWO (presumably when they're back from the ICN conference!), one we should be able to deal with here (possibly!):

• Betonica officinalis. We list, from POWO, four subspecies and two varieties. Since varietas is a lower rank than subspecies, the two varieties must of necessity be varieties of particular named subspecies, not just of the species in general. But POWO doesn't say which subspecies the two varieties belong to (a serious omission!!). It would be tempting to say they are both varieties of nominate subsp. officinalis - but that is not safe, as one of the varieties (Betonica officinalis var. serotina) is from the same general region and habitat (higher altitudes of SE Europe) as one of the other subspecies (Betonica officinalis subsp. velebitica), so there is a good chance that var. serotina may belong within subsp. velebitica (or even be synonymous with it). Could you ask POWO for clarification as to what subspecies they think the two varieties belong?
• Lamium. We give two conflicting lectotype species, Lamium purpureum and Lamium album, and then point out that the former, though the older selection, is invalid under ICN Art. 10.6. Having just looked at Art. 10.6, I agree, the correct lectotype has to be L. album. Unfortunately, the two species are in different sections of the genus; currently we have L. purpureum in sect. Lamium, and L. album in sect. Lamiotypus. But if L. album is the correct lectotype, then sect. Lamium must be redefined to include it, with sect. Lamiotypus as a synonym of it, while the section with L. purpureum in, needs a new sectional name. Does such exist? POWO doesn't give any infrageneric classification of Lamium, so it might be best to drop the infrageneric system here too?

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I will have a look later. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@MPF: The easy one is Lamium. Mennema's 1989 classification can not longer be supported with any confidence and therefore the infrageneric classification on WS must be dismantled. Bendiksby (2011) is quite clear on this, citing both their own work and others. I am not aware of a more up to date taxonomy, but will investigate. He still cites both lectotypes, so I assume we leave these for now. ICBN (2024) may have something to tell us about situations such as this, as it is a major topic in their discussions. Hope this helps for now. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Sounds fine to me - MPF (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@MPF: Sorry to interrupt, but first of all, was Betonica officinalis L. var. serotina published validly? Its citation 'Nyman, Consp. Fl. Eur.: 577 (1881)' refers to B. officinalis, but with B. serotina Host just synonymized. No explicit combination was made there, so it seems invalid per ICN Art. 35.2 (ed. 2018) unless Nyman or any other worker made it explicitly in other publication. --Eryk Kij (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Ooof!! I guess that's also something to take up with POWO, we're not really in a position to decide on that (no original research!) . . . - MPF (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Eryk Kij: I agree with @MPF: and will take this up with POWO/IPNI early next week now that ICBN has completed. Andyboorman (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Eryk Kij: & @MPF: Betonica officinalis L. var. serotina is validkly published. I missed the notes here, which explain the notation used by Nyman. POWO/IPNI have asked me to put a note on his WP pages as they often get emails questioning the validity of some of his names. Please disseminate as well. Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@MPF: POWO do not usually circumscribe varieties and other infraspecifics to subgenera simply because the data is not always available. Our examples are a case in point. The variety names were published before the subgenera and were not included, as far as we are aware, in the descriptions of the subgenera. Therefor, it would be subjective to try and so they will just be circumscribed to the species. This is not uncommon apparently. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Nothofagaceae

I get to the Nothofagaceae family and find a note from 2019 with the latest references from 2014. Is there anything new in the dispute or should I leave it pending?. Saludos--MILEPRI (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

New Zealand botanists still insist on segregating Nothofagus, but this in not accepted by the wider community. So we have to leave the two alternate taxonomies for now. Best wishes. Andyboorman (talk) 10:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

See this link NZ Flora Andyboorman (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Your questionable edits and behavior

@Andyboorman:

• First of all, in article Salvia revelata, just as your templates were missing, others were missing
• Secondly, your date formats, a long time ago you told me, the dates are not abbreviated.
• Third, don't be threatening me (putting mayus letters on my discussion page), if I revert some of your edits it's because lately you have been reverting many of the ones I have made without justification, besides sometimes you change some rules, at your convenience and you can't decide which editions are valid and which are not, and so make up your mind, not to mention how immature is to set an editing limit, Greetings. AbeCK (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@AbeCK: Please settle down. I am not perfect I admit, but I spent time creating a template and then to see it removed without consultation and justification annoyed me. Use of abbreviations for months is usual and if I implied otherwise I apologise. I added a limit on the edit to allow things to settle. I apologise for offending you, but if you are happy to edit my formats then you should be OK if I do the same. There is only a outline format consensus limited to the more important things as outlined in the Help section and we both follow that. I do not usually edit formats only but add add data and sometimes change formats whilst doing so. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Andyboorman, On more than one occasion you have reverted my edits, wasting my time and effort in vain, one thing is correcting editions and another is imposing reverting edits when I have tried to follow edits made by administrators like you, and one-page histories so that the articles are up to date and look aesthetically good, so I'm not willing to waste my time completely reverting my edits randomly, if the edits are to correct, remove or enrich or quit content, without problems. I insist for second time, YOU NEED TO SEE THE EDITIONS PRIOR TO MINE because when I saw that article, it didn't have your template, much less the ones I put in, sometimes I edit like this without saying what I edited, so, either they are put in a forceful way, so my apologies, and if you give me advices I'll apply it in next editions, but I'll tell you clearly, so it's informed in an updated, concise manner, and sets the rules of what is edited or not, or rather I'll be the one who will report you for your behavior, and more so you being an administrator...without counting all the outdated information you leave in redirects even today, and with the already updated page available, I repeat, you still don't understand that this is the only way you will encourage misinformation on Wikispecies, likewise, I had not planned to edit my discussion page and on many occasions you have only tarnished it unfairly so I will ask you at least 2 things:

• Let me edit the page where this editing war took place (Salvia revelata)
• Organize and archive my discussion page like on your discussion page, since unfortunately I can't delete discussions...

AbeCK (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@AbeCK:The Primary Reference template on Salvia revelata is important, as it appears on other taxon pages. I added it after your edits so paraphrasing you YOU NEED TO SEE THE PRIOR EDITION. I created the page BTW and I will have to reedit again, for example it may require a section added. Formats are not that important taxonomically or scientifically, so basically I do not care about them and if editors want to go their own way so be it. Once I have added some important taxonomic/classification data later, I will remove the edit block and you can tinker with the formats, but please do not take out the Primary Reference template or {{Nadi}}. BTW it was agreed by consensus to use {{POWO}} as opposed to {{PWO}}, but I have not corrected all of my previous uses of the later. Do you want me to try and delete my original comment? Hope this is OK. Andyboorman (talk) 10:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

┌───────┘ @AbeCK and Andy Boorman: Please note that I'm following this discussion. The details included may prove important for the Wikispecies' community as a whole. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC).

Thanks @Tommy Kronkvist:. I really should have used {{Workpage}} to indicate edits in progress. Hopefully all is OK now. But I await @ABeCK: to start editing again. Andyboorman (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Tommy Kronkvist, Thanks for watching this discussion around here, I hope these details help somewhat on Wikispecies because unfortunately, as you've noted, there is no consensus about editing some things on Wikispecies, and @Andyboorman has been getting me in trouble into it on more than one occasion, editions with outdated information on redirections, incomplete dates in sources, templates without mayus letters at the start of commands, unnecessary white spaces in articles, reverting edits (making my time not worth the edits I make no matter how minimal edits were), and another deffects about his editions, and I didn't know about the consensus with the template you mentioned until now, Andy, I'll apply it, likewise, Andy, stop blaming me for supposedly eliminating things from your editions since my first edition in Salvia revelata, when I saw the article it was like in first edition of the article history: https://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salvia_revelata&oldid=9696915, I didn't make that, there was no template, any {{Nadi}}..., so if you accuse me again about edits that I have not made such as "removing templates" from start as you say when I didn't make, I plan to report you, @Tommy Kronkvist, I need help to made a report to Andy if he continues with those attitudes to me...about edits, this is not the first time he has falsely accused me for some edits that I didn't make, I wanted to put something like what Tommy did (but he did it better with more details and is fine, just some dates are incomplete I corrected them), but Andy reverted my stuff without justification, it's not about working alone, but, there is a difference between correcting and delete/revert like you do. I don't know what comment you are honestly talking about but I repeat, the least you can help me with is to organize my discussion page like the one you have, you have already made some calls for attention without justification to continue staining my discussion page (with archive files, like Andy one...), besides, unfortunately I can't delete discussions...Greetings and I hope a soon and nice solution to this. AbeCK (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Good morning @ABeCK: also @Tommy Kronkvist:

• I have deleted my original request on your Talk Page. Hope this helps.
• Also you can look at the Edit History of a taxon page and then compare revisions. This can be very helpful, but I am not going to labour this point.
• When I revert a redirection, it is because there is evidence either that there is a homonym involved or there are two or more taxonomic opinions and WS can not take sides, therefor a separate taxon page is required. Usually I add a {{Disputed}} to both taxon pages and notes. POWO is updated very regularly and so is useful, if in doubt I check with Kew.
• I will go on the Pump and advocate the use of {{Workpage}} to indicate that an editor is in the middle of editing a page and fellow editors to be careful when trying their own edits. Apologies for not doing this with Salvia revelata which I was adding to WS at the time.

Finally apologies for any offence. I will be doing little editing here, as I will be working with IPNI adding data, which I have often obtained by working on WS, so will be leaving you more or less in peace, but please do not take offence if I, or others, improve your work. It is done with the best intentions! Andyboorman (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Andyboorman, it's okay, I'm glad our editions are ok and at least things have been clarified, just be careful with the rules and modifications that you highlight being an administrator on WikiSpecies, the problem is not editing, modifying adding or removing content from articles, the problem is reverting edits and wasting time and effort in vain, that was what bothered me, I just hope it doesn't happen repeat this, anyway thanks and I also apologize for the reverts and missing some edits. Greetings. AbeCK (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Turkish Salvia

There are Turkish sources written for salvia species in Turkey. I will research. I will add.--Fagus (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Most kind and many thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

Did you delete Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by accident, or was there some other reason you deleted it? Monster Iestyn (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Accidental sorry. Not had my porridge! Andyboorman (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Ipomoea paper

Hi Andy - thanks for adding the resgate link to Template:Eserman et al., 2024. Is there any way of indicating that the resgate link is to an unpaginated, unreviewed draft, rather than the paywalled version of record? I don't suppose it'll make much difference in this instance, but it's something that happens quite often, that a non-final version is the only one publicly available. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Will do. Andyboorman (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

​ I've added author links for 4 of the 11 mentioned authors. However, both the doi and ResearchGate links says that there are a total of 21 authors of this paper. Is there a reason for why not all of them are mentioned in the template?
–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC).

Hi Tommy. I think the problem is that not all the "authors" are contributors, most appear to be supporters. This was highlighted by the committee during their gentle admonishment, whilst accepting their recommendation. However, I think in this instance we should be content with author links for the top 5/6 authors and add et al. after the 11 already on the template. However, I am content with consensus.

Interestingly, it seems that the recommendation has been left on the books pending the outcomes of further research and the ongoing debate between the those who are content with an expanded definition of Ipomoeae encompassing most if not all of Ipomoeeae with an improved infrageneric classification and those who want a more radical dismemberment of the genus and tribe. We await developments. Andyboorman (talk) 09:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)