User talk:Lavateraguy

Sega Internal Studios & Video Games

This article is an elaborated version of the entertainment side of Sega where as the article you are suggesting this should be merged in with is of Sega Corporation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cube b3 (talk • contribs).

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear Lavateraguy: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! JoJan 19:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

commons - unidentified flowers from Indonesia

This message to reply yours in commons. Thank you, I forwarded your message to someone in wikipedia id who knows about flower. Hopefully he can provide the exact name since you already identify it. Thanks again Serenity id 05:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! You have 100 points, I've checked 'em and googled 'em miself. It turns out not so difficult after all, will upload some more now that I know someone can actually identify what I took blindly :p

Now, my next project is to identify their name in Bahasa Indonesia. Check on it once a while will ya! Serenity id 13:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darkthrone

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Darkthrone, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Argyriou (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks. :) Rhanyeia 15:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random Smile!

WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 22:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bessey system

Hi Lavateraguy, Thank you very much for completing this. Berton 14:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lavatera arborea synonymy

Hi Lavateraguy - I note from your Lavatera arborea page that this has the synonyms Malva fastuosa Salisb. and Lavatera eriocalyx Steud. If the species is to be transferred to Malva as suggested by Ray and with M. arborea unusable, should not one of these epithets be used, rather than Ray's new name Malva dendromorpha? Or are they also both invalid or later homonyms in Malva? - Thanks, MPF 23:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Red Link Recovery

Hi. I noticed your contributions to the WikiProject Red Link Recovery. It's very nice that you help in this project. Please remember that to keep the list tidy, you have to remove suggestions that have been dealt and not just strike them. Strike links that you checked and the suggestion doesn't apply for the specific case. Friendly, Magioladitis 18:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

prod of U.S.A.)

I noticed that you proposed deletion of this redirect. I created this redirect around when I made the correction here. This redirect was created in anticipation of having anyone else make the same typo. Please see the deletion policy outlined in WP:R and let me know if you still think it should be deleted. Thanks, Lisatwo 01:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Credit name on links to malva pages?

Howdy, I added "malva pages" links to the External Links pages of three articles i worked on, malva, malva sylvestris, and lavatera arborea. On the latter two, I credited it as "Stewart R. Hinsley's Malva Pages: Malva sylvestris, extensive information on cultivars, subspecies" and such. I wondered if you preferred not having your name there, out of modesty or privacy or something, or if it's ok. Your name is on the website itself, and it seemed like crediting an author of a book reference, but since it's an external link the wording is totally flexible. The website is awesome by the way. :-) Best regards, -Agyle 07:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alyogyne

Thanks for the fix on that page; [1] If you are interested in the genus, have a look at this image. Cheers Cygnis insignis 18:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loch Ness map

I have replaced the Loch Ness map. Thanks for pointing out the error and sorry for the delay in response. - P.K.Niyogi 00:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pinnule

It went to Wiktionary (pinnule). ♠P M C♠ 00:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scotophilus

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Scotophilus, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/classification/Scotophilus.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 11:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't hesitate to remove the tag if you find yourself in that situation again— bots are useful, but dumb and two articles that look the same is enough to get it all riled up. :-) This is good usually, but when you're working on taxa it can get confused easily. — Coren ^(talk) 14:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skimmia ref

Hi Lavateraguy - from Huxley, A., ed. (1992). New RHS Dictionary of Gardening. I've added the ref. If you can improve on detail from the two floras, please do. - MPF 00:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nepeta x/X/× faassenii :)

Interesting. The question is which one should be the redirect then... for some reason that didn't pop up on the search before (though a "hotlist of missing articles" list links to Nepeta X faassenii also. I'll merge the content and redirect to the older one, but honestly I have no idea what the NC is for hybrids these days (it's been argued back and forth for at least the last 2 years).

Even more interesting: look at the original stub for the other one... looks like I actually created that stub too sometime last year ;0. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cellana strigilis bollonsi

It was a typo, I do that occasionally. Thanks for fixing it. Cheers GrahamBould (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meso Philippines

Hi,

I took the info box out of Meso Philippines, since that is not a genealogical family. It is merely a geographic convenience, as are so many 'branches' of Austronesian. Ethnologue and Ruhlen are not reliable sources, they're both merely hodgepodges of miscellany, much of which is of truly bad quality. (Khoisan, for example: turns out several of the languages in Ethnologue don't even exist, and they've started removing them, but still haven't fixed the horrendous classification.) Most decent refs will discuss which 'branches' of AN (such as Central Philippines) are actually thought to be valid nodes, and which are just labels of convenience to reduce the complexity of handling the family.

kwami (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baraminology and Heliantheae

Thanks for cleaning up a dubious reference. I found that reference when I was putting out one of those trawling nets looking for online references, and I could tell at the time that it was part of some unfamiliar school, but I obviously didn't read it too carefully. A quick look at Baraminology makes it much clearer what is going on. A fascinating subject, actually (in terms of religion and how people come to grips with new paradigms), but I agree, that paper doesn't shed much additional light on the relationships within the Asteraceae. Kingdon (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malvaceae

Thanks for copyediting. That rapports in place of relationships must be fun for you! Same word in Italian (rapporti). Keep your eye on my edits! Aelwyn 16:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I supposed botany was OK because this part is a translation of Judd & al. from Italian back to English (how funny). Bye! Aelwyn (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err... you're simply right (GAH, am I that dangerously idiot?). I will correct it next time, unless you prefer to to it yourself. Rosaceae may be the next. Yawn! It's getting a bit boring, all family articles need a revamping! Aelwyn (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claypole

I thought that name was suspicious, but it was listed in the genera list on the Eurypterid page., and even had a species listed under it. I think it may be legit, I dunno though. I'm going to refrain from acting until I'm more certain. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the "P." subgenus is "Pterygotus," I have no clue what the "A." one would be. I was just copying and pasting from the main Eurypterid article. Sorry I can't be more helpful. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was annoyed that the article was species-level anyway. Sorry, it's just that I was moving as much information on species from that list in the main article as fast as possible. Sorry. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malvales of Australia

Cheers, I'll have a look. Hesperian 04:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:flower photographs

I doubt it is hibiscus.. although it's pentamerous, the way the petals are connected is much different. And it's difficult to tell the size of the flower from the photograph; it's only < 2 inches in diameter. Then again, I studied botany more than 7 years ago and you actually seem to be researching on Malvacea so you probably know better. I had photographed the flowers at home (in India), so yes, identification will be difficult. :-/ Thanks for the quick response. I think the blue flower belongs to Fabacea (or is it Papilionacea?). - TwoOars 13:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a very thorough explanation. And H. micranthus does look a lot similar. Now I feel stupid for second guessing you. :P If you do find out for sure what species it is and if the species has an article on wikipedia, please feel free to add it, or let me know and I will. I guess uploading the pic to commons would have been a better idea. Thanks again. :) - TwoOars 17:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red taxon names

Thank you for the information on the red taxon wikilinks. It helped me understand that if someday someone did create an article it would make wikilinking much easier. I give you this

RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

for thanks.

--RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CAM plants

Hey, just a quick note of thanks for improving the list of CAM plants! Much appreciated. Verisimilus T 11:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of genera of CAM plants (for verification)

Aster, Kleinia, Notonia, Senecio, Acanthostachys, Aechmia, Ananas, Araeocassus, Billbergia, Bromelia, Canistrum, Dyckia, Guzmania, Hoplophytum, Neoregelia, Nidularium, Orthophytum, Puya, Quesnelia, Tillandsia, Alluaudia, Didieria, Euphorbia, Monodenium, Synadenimum, Geranium, Pelargonium, Arachnis, Aranda, Aranthera, Brassovora, Brassolaeliocattleya, Bulbophyllum, Cattleya, Dendrobium, Encyclia, Epidendrum ,Laelia, Lanium, Oncidium, Phalaenopsis, Pleurothris, Schomburgkia, Sophrontis, Vanilla, Oxalis, Portulacaria, Calandrinia

Political divisions for where plants live

Using politically defined areas to illustrate and report where plants live is a cumbersome situation. I do this because:

I think it is cool to have the species that grow in a location show up in the 'what links here' list of the places they grow
The maps that are available are separated by politically defined lines
The sources of where they are distributed are in politically divided areas.

I have tried not to let my gardening background interfere with the articles I start or expand here. It is not a difficult task. That being said, I really miss the USDA zone map when it comes to mapping or mentioning worldwide distribution of plants.

There are two things that I would like that caused me to write this text here.

All of the politically defined areas and where they should be in a list divided by area
- What I have now is nothing I am willing to defend. It is a melding of GRIN, the CIA, some people who have differed with my pasted placement and I joined a few Russian areas when trying to work with Asia. Worse yet! I am a flat map person -- in my brain. I really think that there is something wrong when I put England and Norway in the same European area. Perhaps if I compared latitudes it would feel better.
A useful world zone map for plants. I think that would be difficult but not unattainable. Start with the average gulf stream and add altitudes. Then overlay the political divisions on that. SVG format for graphics makes this an attainable and maintainable goal.

Anything that you can add to this or correct me on should be helpful to me when I take this to the commons graphics lab to see if I can get any of their SVG whiz kids there to help or make these maps. The world map that is there already is a great map! It validates after only a little editing (it is already too big for the validator to accept paste from -- url only). Most of the larger islands are there and can be selected individually -- which is also a pain. Problems I have had with it are Russia and the United States. I have an article started about a plant that only grows on its own in New Jersey, on that world map, all of the United States will be highlighted. I might have enough experience (with inkscape) that I can import more divided maps into the world map and make it work -- dunno yet about that.

My problem right now is that I probably am going to make more flawed distribution lists because I have nothing definitive to go on.

Thanks for your cleanup on Senecio cineraria. -- carol (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great PDF! It is very similar to the Ecozones and mostly it is an improvement. The subdivisions of the continents were exactly what I needed. The ecozones map divides Mexico (what looks like between mountains) and puts Northern Africa into Europe -- I have a theory that the Spanish sailors were wearing clothing made of seeds; I read in a book that a boat from Scotland was using seeds for ballast and that is how the plant got into Canada -- so the joke about the clothing is a joke, but the sailors taking seeds from Spain to Northern Africa isn't. It is interesting that the plant map follows political lines also, heh.

It would be nice if we could get a Canuck and a New Zealander involved with the gathering of the resources -- are there any other countries which are remnants of the European dynasty that I have forgotten here?

Right now, if I could raise someone from the dead, it would surely be John A. Gilruth the article doesn't mention that he was the person to put together the information about Senecio and kin poisoning livestock. Arthur Robertson Cushny took it to the 'people who matter' in England -- but that was several years later. I wouldn't mind seeing a movie about all of this, it is quite interesting and the characters seem strong. He was a bacteriologist who had the balls and knowledge to say that a problem was not a bacteria. Heh, I hadn't read the article (still have only scanned it) -- I am starting to like him even more from that....

Thanks for that 153 page Map, it is what I needed! -- carol (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sails

Hello. Saw you've created a stub for Black Sails. I'm not sure this is necessarily a notable hill in WP terms. We've shied away generally from pages on subsidiary tops which are variously only Hewitts, Nuttalls or Birketts. You'll note that the subsidiary tops box on Wetherlam carries data on Black Sails.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but it is difficult to forsee a full article on Black Sails ever being written which doesn't simply duplicate that for Wetherlam. And just creating stubs doesn't seem the point when many more notable hills need better articles. I can illustrate this best by saying that Black Sails is on my to do list because its a Birkett, but I can't imagine me or anyone else climbing it as the main objective of the day. Feel free to disagree, that's what WP is all about. You might want to take this up on the British and Irish hills wikiproject, link at WP:BIHILLS. regards Bobble Hat (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the reply. I reckon a redirect back to Wetherlam is best. Just want to avoid hundreds of stubs appearing- they make the deletion people rather trigger happy. cheers Bobble Hat (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argyrodendron / Heritiera

Hi Lavateraguy! You write in Argyrodendron a recent molecular study shows Argyrodendron to be distinct from Heritiera. Do you have a reference to the study? Krasanen (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I found the abstract. I think the Argyrodendron article could include the reference. It is strange that the two genera are still clumped in the FloraOnline of NSW. Krasanen (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subclassis

Perhaps you could explain the problem to me. I just did that. I can just as easily undo that. It is not an idea I have strong feelings for, I just like making the taxonomy boxen pretty. -- carol (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Senecio rupestris is a synonym of Senecio squalidus

Senecio rupestris is a synonym of Senecio squalidus I moved your post on this issue to the main RfC talk page. If you find any more, please do the same, and thank you for taking the time to check the work. There still remain all of the articles Carol didn't start! --Blechnic (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dud links for insects

I have started to figure out what makes a good reference for a plant or not (at least the welcome citation list is getting shorter). I have a great deal of respect for what appears to be the deletion of a url by someone who might have the same shortened list for dependable online resources.

Hmm, that was a lot of words for what should be: "Invasive.org not good, eh"? -- carol (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.invasive.org/browse/detail.cfm?imgnum=0023039 <-- one click away. -- carol (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.invasive.org/browse/detail.cfm?imgnum=0023040 <-- the deleted page linked to two different ages eating from the same plant -- carol (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a problem : "Okay, I won't argue -- I don't think that the bugs know the difference though" - copyright etc.. problems are easy enough to deal with, but if every detail has to be confirmed, it would seem easier to start over. She has done a good job of finding sources but I am becoming fearful of the way they have been used. Hardyplants (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also an apology

You gave me that article link for the plant maps and I credited some one else. I am really really sorry about that, I try to keep these things straight. -- carol (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repaired as much as I can: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants&diff=221416363&oldid=221410113 -- carol (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing thank you

		For Excellence in Editing
		Thanks for knowing that Senecio jacobaea and Senecio squalidus are not only two different species, but that facts about one cannot be freely interchanged as facts about the other. By so doing, you have, imo, improved the quality of biology articles on Wikipedia. --Blechnic (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pentaphylacaceae

What am I supposed do now, you give me stilts to get across the cactus patch - then come along and cut one leg off so I can't use them...All kidding aside I don't know if any more can be done until there is more data to work with. If you see something that needs fixing let me know I will do my best. Take care. 21:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Senecioneae

Why on earth should 1819 be piped to Philomatic society? Because that is the organization that Alexandre de Cassini published the work that created the tribe Senecioneae in. The Bulletin des Sciences par la Société Philomatique de Paris. I cited the reference to this and everything. I am sorry that the encyclopedia uses some weird pipes. -- carol (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I forgot to put the citation there. Sorry. -- carol (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malvaceae

Some templates were just made at the commons to use for Malvaceae and Malvaceae species. Category:Malva and Category:Malva sylvestris are an example of them in use. At your leisure, if you could look them over -- any changes that need to be made or if one or another of the taxonomy systems should not be included, or whatever. Thanks. -- IP Editing allowed 01:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pelser's 2007 Taxon article

I don't have immediate access to the article, but I could get a pdf of it for you in a couple days. Another college near mine has it and would send it via ILL. It's too bad JSTOR's online access only goes up to 2004. Let me know if you'd like me to get that article for you. --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amomum

Wow, you're great. One thing: can you keep some of the syn.s in the list, just since they do appear a lot in old books and some websites? We could do it in parentheses after the real names, saying something like "formerly A. tsao-kuo" or whatever. Badagnani (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning copyright problems

Hello, Lavateraguy. Thank you for addressing the copyright problem at Atemoya. I have merged the temporary version you created into the existing article and placed a note at the article's talk page warning editors against restoring the copyrighted material. While we sometimes do replace articles with new versions created in temporary space, we can only do so when the new version is completely written from scratch. If it uses language from the older version of the article, we can't delete it, or we find ourselves in the strange position of violating the copyright of our contributors. :) This is because contributors to Wikipedia do not release copyright to their material, but only license it under GFDL, which secures their right to authorship credit. An intact article history addresses that.

Forgive me, please, if I am overlinking or overexplaining. In working at the copyright problems board I encounter this situation often enough to have developed a bit of a "form" response. I never know how experienced the contributor I'll be talking to is, and I'd rather overexplain than underexplain. :)

Anyway, again, I appreciate your work on this article and your help in resolving this copyright problem. Please feel free to drop me a line at my talk page if you'd like to discuss the matter further. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kamaadalataru tree

Hi!Lavateraguy,

The name of the above referred tree has been quoted in Sanskrit hymns. Since you are a very knowledgable person in botony and all related scientific fields, can you please tell me the botonical name of this tree. As regards use of Category Environment in Mahwa article is concerened, since in India it is the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoE&F) which deals with all subjects related to forests and its conservation, apart from all other environmental issues.--Nvvchar (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mergefrom template

Thank you for the tip on the mergefrom template (I was unaware of its existence!) — Robert Greer 22:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I found a mergeto template that can be used with mergefrom for compleat nonambiguity. — Robert Greer (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Curtis (botanist)

Thanks for your input with regard to "Genus Curtisina" - I was struggling a bit. I'm way outside my comfort zone, as I normally write about footballers. Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passiflora

Totally. See WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that personally, I'd like to see such galleries to become more frequent on Commons. They are most helpful there, because on Commons we have to eschew long text and it's multi-language, whereas on Wikipedia they add eyecandy but mess with the layout, add little information, and are hard on non-broadband users.

In this case it was harder than usual (Passiflora is one of my favorite plant genera), but I tried to keep a representative selection of flower shapes & colors. As you can see, I picked only spp. which have no articles yet, so that people may be enticed to write them (the average Wikipedian seems to hate redlinks and wants to turn them blue, except when they come as a big block). I didn't scientifically study this, but it seems that taxon articles get created quicker when you add a few images only - to bluestub 5 redlinks is maybe one evening's work, but to bluestub a whole gallery of redlinked images takes days, so ony the hardcore editors will start such a task. What I can definitely say is that I have observed redlinked taxa turn blue more quickly when a few images are added to the right of a taxon list (when I observe this, I'll change the images to redlinked ones if there are any left ;-) )

But as it stands, there are still too many people on Commons who have declared war on Galleries and want to force their one-size-has-to-fit-all approach down people's throats. Or rather, the throat of Commons:ToL. Organisms can't do without galleries on Commons, it's too vital that there can be annotations to content... but we have this one bot on the loose, tagging images by the thousand and asking people to kill the galleries they might be contained in; this has already destroyed many days' work. But I digress.

If you really want mega-galleries on Wikipedia, you might set up a separate page, such as Visual gallery of Passiflora, instead. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility that might be used more often is to put galleries on "List of [genus] species" pages, see Category:Taxonomic lists (species). Some ppl say they ought to be nothing but bare-bone lists like List of Salticidae species A-C, but I think this is also not really cool with WP:NOTREPOSITORY as it's basically just a parsed "[collection] of public domain or other source material"...

If there is excessive image content on Commons, a 4-image gallery or so after each section can really liven up a long list, or see List of extinct birds and List of fossil birds which some folks and me keep up to date - I am very happy that we're getting more and more images for it.

I'm gonna redo Masdevallia these days, and put the spp. in a list organized thus. We have loads of content on Commons, and I think this is a good case to fiddle around with, see how it looks, whether to use galleries or just thumbnails... Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Arguably, adding galleries to a "List of..." page kills WP:NOREPOSITORY from both sides: neither is such a gallery a stand-alone feature, but it directly and completely pertains to the text content. Nor is the text a stand-alone collection of trivial uncopyrightable information, but it has additional informative content to spice it up and put some meaning to it, even if it is a "sea of red" at present.)

Soooo....... Masdevallia and List of Masdevallia species are done. The former is not ideal layout-wise, as regards the gallery, and I had to take the information at face value (it is decidedly underreferenced) - but it is far better than it used to be. Still, as you can see:

the gallery illustrates the text it accompanies.
between the two articles, I think I managed to put up a photo of each and every sp. of which we have photos at present, and IMHO this is a Very Good Thing.
Also, there is quite some space left in the List for photos of additional species, if they arrive some day.
there is no gallery that simply stands there and looks pretty but nothing else, all the while disrupting the flow of reading and containing no further information.

Some would argue that the List should have no taxobox; I think it's nice to have it there, for readers who arrive at the list from Category:Lists of orchids or in particular Category:Taxonomic lists (species). But otherwise, the taxobox photo can just be inserted as thumbnail, to kill the whitespace if the box is removed.

Another article where I was faced with the need to accomodate a wealth of images is Chaetodon. If this genus is split up, the galleries will be quite helpful.

Such an approach can also be adopted when you have a List of Species and very much image material for the genus - simply add a 4-image gallery below or at the top of each letter, instead of putting a column of thumbnail images to the right. This way, it is possible to include a wealth of images without disrupting the "flow" of the article too much. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned articles by project

Hi, you expressed interest in the tool for listing of orphaned articles by project. The underlying tool isn't done, so these aren't ready to be put on project pages, etc. But the basic wrapper template is {{lonelypages}}.

Template works (as far as I know), and the underlying tool functions (but still being worked on.) You are welcome to experiment with it, provide feedback on the template, help improve the wrapper template/documentation, etc. Please don't publicize it or put it on project pages, etc. until underlying tool is ready. Zodon (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4 versions of an old print of a painting, 2 names each of different families

Know of an expert? -- Dr CyCoe (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kasai rex

Hi! The main article is Kasai rex, not Kasai Rex, because it is a Latin language name, like Tyrannosaurus rex.--Againme (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Novon typification journal article

That was a really good read.

I will just leave that understated little statement. Thank you! -- Dr CyCoe (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"See also", not "See Also"

Please. Look at this edit. WP:MOS says you shouldn't use so many capital letters. You shouldn't capitalize an initial letter merely because it's in a section heading. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annan

Yes, sorry about that. I should have previewed my changes and spotted the grammatical error. I do think there's too much mention of build(ing) in the sentence in question. What do you think? Also, see my comments at Talk. Have you an opinion on that? Mister Flash (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scots SSSIs

Hi. Thanks for your message. My Scottish geography is a little hazy - can you give me a bit more background on why the River Tweed might not be in the Annandale and Eskdale Area of Search? In the meantime, I'll try to track down my original source and see what that says. Thanks SP-KP (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monocotyledon‎

I added a working reference for the biomass sentence. Thanks for pointing out the problem. Hardyplants (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Girt dog of Ennerdale

In response to your claim of inconsistency: "The mature Thylacine ranged from 100 to 130 cm (39 to 51 in) long, plus a tail of around 50 to 65 cm (20 to 26 in).[26] The largest measured specimen was 290 cm (9.5 ft) from nose to tail." (Taken from Wikipedia- 'Thylacine.') No weight is given as to what 290cm (9.5) foot Thylacine would amount to. Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.135.250 (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy confusions :S

Darn! That explains why the references that pointed to one side did not include the genus in a specific taxonomic ordering but just in the Porifera phylum (which I should have caught but I let slip!) while the other set of references include the genus and all of its taxonomy. I will go ahead and modify my bot request about the creating articles aspect (this is proof enough that things get quite complicated in this field!). If it is no pain, would you be willing to take a look through my contributions page (I gained an interest in this taxonomy stuff from 8 march to present) and make sure I made no major errors as in the case of Aaaba. I will have to divide that page up into the Sponge side and the beetle side (or split them into different articles if you think that would be appropriate?). I guess a problem with doing the articles from the websites listed is because it is very hard to gain access to the original publications without special connections (i.e. university/library access to articles pre 1950) and a major reliance/faith is expected from the websites that extract the info to do so without problems and without clashes between a species or genus clashing with one of the same name.Calaka (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment on WikiProject Talk Evolutionary Biology

Hi,

I was wondering what the term sensu 2 met. I looked up "sensu" and learnt what "sensu lato" and "sensu stricto" meant. I'd be grateful if you could educate me on this one. AshLin (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed explanation. It helped me understand the context of the articles better. AshLin (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malta

Thankyou. You are a splendid fellow. --Ibn (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our Tropical Fruit Problem

Hi Lavateraguy, I'm just beginning to realise the extent of the problems across at least 4 IP addresses - at least they're consecutive and not simultaneous. I'm finding apparently novel specific names in synonyms along with overloading articles with images, on top of which I've now been sworn at for the first time on Wikipedia (it was one of the P. flavicarpa edits).

There are over half-a-dozen IP addresses involved (I think 8, so far). I infer that he's using an internet connection that doesn't provide static IP addresses. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to do the redirect rather than ask for deletion as 1) I couldn't face shepherding the article through AfD, and 2) I thought it reasonable to have something in case someone else searches for it.

I was amused earlier this evening when we were both fixing up Anonidium mannii at the same time. I kept getting edit conflicts with you every time I saved. Shows we're thinking the same way - just using different sources. It's my partner who is the botanical taxonomist by profession and even he was startled by the concept of the authority being L. ex Mart. !! With respect to the apparently novel synomyms, he's suggested leaving them given this guy is in Singapore as there may be some obscure Chinese publication that hasn't appeared in IPNI, Tropicos, APG III or ICBN. It's a pity Mabberley doesn't go down to species level very often - we can't afford a copy of Kubitzki's volumes.

Nor does Kubitzki. (I have volume 5.) I'm an amateur botanist - my claim to fame is establishing Malva arborea (L.) Webb. & Berthol. as the current name for Lavatera arborea, rather than one of the other alternatives - but I don't understand all the minutiae of the ICBN.

IPNI's nearly complete (every now and again I find an obscure synonym that's not there) for species. I'd guess that Tropicos is pretty much complete for the Neotropics, but its coverage of the rest of the world is incomplete. APG I/II/III doesn't say anything about species, except implicitly, and ICBN says very little (conserved and rejected names).

The suggested explanation of the spurious synonyms isn't tenable. You pretty much can't have a synonym due to a botanist who died before the species was described. My willingness to assume good faith has pretty much been strained past breaking point. For example most species of Carica having been moved to the more recently described genus Vasconcellea, leaving the type species Carica papaya as the only species. He's edited Carica on two occassions, giving two different spurious names in Vasconcellea for that species. That ain't possible.

Much of his oeuvre could be put down to Dunning-Kruger syndrome (I have a suspicion he's a preteen, or several such), exacerbated by reckless guesswork, and a failure to understand that what applies to one species of a genus doesn't necessarily to another. He was at one point adding images of the wrong taxon to articles (even an Aquilegia in a Passiflora article), but he's seems to have got past that, even if he's indiscrimate in adding images. I noticed that you reverted one instance of putting a vernacular name in the name field of a plant taxobox, citing WP:FLORA; he's done that to a lot of articles, which I let pass because I didn't recall what the policy was.

Another fault is that he doesn't engage other editors. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well. I guess we just keep on sitting on this guy's edits once the block is over. At least I'm learning about tropical fruit! Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative, I believe, would be to go to RfC. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks re: Passiflora

Thanks for that. :-) I'm no Passiflora expert, but these IP edits from Singapore are random, disorganized, and need patrolling. Your efforts on keeping those pages in check are appreciated! Hope all is well. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 23:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's also been making similar edits on Annona and Artocarpus and other genera. I'm worried about Passiflora racemosa - I was looking for substantiation of the claim that it was edible, and found substantially the same text at www.floridata.com. Lavateraguy (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that L. ex Uribe was an error for L. Uribe - he doesn't seem to understand his sources. Lavateraguy (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I blocked this IP for another week due to the disruptive edits. I know s/he gets assigned multiple IPs; I guess we'll just have to remain vigilant. I'd love to get new accurate contributions on Passiflora species, but the user won't engage and doesn't seem to want to understand how to improve her/his article creation and editing. Not sure what to do beyond the usual watch/warn/clean-up/block cycle that's been happening. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 00:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you're definitely right about Passiflora racemosa, the text was ripped from the floridata site, so I just got rid of it. Rkitko ^(talk) 00:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a new and worrying departure. I did dispose of one copyvio fragment earlier, but that appeared to be inadvertent. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you use your administrator powers and dispose of Tetrapathea, which is a spelling error for Tetrapathaea. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. Rkitko ^(talk) 12:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that the edits from Singapore are random and disorganised that bothers me - it's that a large proportion are wrong, gratuitous or fictional. Most of my edits for the last month have been cleaning them up, and I've been letting image additions and changes to taxobox name fields go by. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP address notes

121.6.167.15

Dulcis foetidus

Hi. About the article Dulcis foetidus, what alternative page name would you suggest? 69.3.72.249 (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Asteraceae genera

Thank you very much for your work Lavateraguy. This is a real workgroup! Flakinho (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xenon/Fluorine compounds

The table you give at Noble gas compound is incomplete. For example the XeF₅ and Xe₂F₁₁ ions exist, as do a wide variety of other compounds (e.g. perfluorophenylxenone tetrafluoroborate (C₆F₅Xe.BF₄^-), or nitronium tridecafluorodixenate (NO₂.Xe₂F₁₃^-)).

The nature of the product of xenon and platinum hexafluoride is uncertain. It is thought to be a mixture of various compounds included XeF.Pt₂F₁₁^-. As far as I can tell there is no (other) evidence of a chemically stable Xe ion (as opposed to the dixenon ion Xe₂). Lavateraguy (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. The xenon-platinum hexafluoride adduct has its own article, due to its complexity and its importance in history. We can and should refer to it in tables like this one (nature uncertain: see xenon hexafluoroplatinate). It's not my table, but one I removed from the fluorine article where it was cluttering things up, by overexpanding the too-large noble gas compounds section. It needs addition of not only the compounds you mention, but (considering where I moved it) also compounds of noble gases with other elements as well (which are so rare that all together they probably don't number as many as are already in this table). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Xenon_compounds and also the long list of compounds in xenon including fluorine-free oxides and other stuff. S B H arris 21:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tristis

Hi, Thanks for all your useful contributions over at the tristis discussion - they're much aprpeciated. You mentioned that the list omits 150-200 plant taxa. I'm interested in how you know this - is there a book or another web source which in effect does what I was trying to do with the tristis page? Thanks SP-KP (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

paradoxically teleological phrasing

I've got a headache now after working that out. Thanks for removing it anyway. Imc (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raphanobrassica

Egads, you're right! I'd tried quite hard to establish whether Raphanobrassica or Brassicoraphanus were legitimate names, but had completely overlooked article H.9, which says that no description is required. If you want to get in contact by email (my email address is on my web page), I can send you the item that you mention in the Cruciferae newsletter. It is puzzling that Brassicoraphanus Sageret isn't listed in IPNI. Nadiatalent (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Windermere

Thank you. I have always referred to it as 'Lake Windermere' but, thinking of Ullswater and the like, I now realise that I have been wrong. It's always good to learn (better when you learn new things).

Having consulted an expert (who has a cottage near the lake) I am informed that the body of water is called 'Lake Windermere'. As stated, 'Windermere' only refers to the town.

Paleopolyploidy

	Tails up award for reducing human chauvinism
	Thank you for your efforts on behalf of those with thumbs that are less well adapted to the more commonly available computer keyboards. Nadiatalent (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About polyploidy in vertebrate evolution, as a plant-oriented person, I'm inclined to say "duh, how could anyone expect that palaeopolyploidy could possibly not been a major force in early vertebrate evolution?" However, I don't know the literature about it at all. Nadiatalent (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brassicoraphanus

I just noticed something rather shocking, given our previous efforts to sort out Raphanobrassica and Brassicoraphanus: IPNI says of the latter "nom. inval. A statement of the names of the parent genera or subdivisions of genera lacking." This is a harsh aspect of the rules; he says "le chou-raifort, produit du radis noir fécondé par le chou", so, indeed, it isn't enough. Sageret, M. (1826). "Considérations sur la Production des Hybrides, des Variantes et des Variétés en général, et sur celles de la famille des Curcurbitacées en particulier". Annales des sciences naturelles. 8 (294–314). Nadiatalent (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bassenthwaite Lake

Hello, Lavateraguy. You have new messages at Talk:Bassenthwaite Lake.
Message added -- Trevj (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Crassulacean acid metabolism

Hi, I notice that you've made some comments at the talk page of Crassulacean acid metabolism, which I've recently been re-working. I'm by no means an expert on this subject, so I'd welcome comments/checks on what I've done. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New fern initiative

I have laid down plans for a project to improve fern coverage at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pteridophytes/Northeastern America Initiative. Since you've contributed some material on Asplenium trichomanes, I thought you might be interested. Choess (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malvaceae ID

Do you know what species this is? It's photographed at Springfield near Port Denison, Western Australia.--Melburnian (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the photograph I'd say that it's not Malvaceae at all. I'd suggest Solanaceae and Datura (or Solanum) in particular.

I can't make out enough details to be sure, but the flowers appear to be sympetalous, not choripetalous. I can't see the details of the androecium and gynoecium, but the androecium is usually more prominent in Malvaceae. Malvaceae sensu lato is broad enough that it has a variety of leaf venation pattermn, but the leaf venation pattern in the photograph is not what I'd expect. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I was on the wrong track. I think this may be Ipomoea carnea subsp. fistulosa, recorded as natualised in Western Australia--Melburnian (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gampi

Hi, I see you added a taxobox to Wikstroemia retusa, but I'm not sure why it refers to W. Indica - is that just an accident from recycling a taxobox?

Yes.

I see that the Gray ref given doesn't include "Gampi" as a synonym, so not sure quite what to do about the article: perhaps needs to be split into one about W. retusa, and another about "Gampi" which might look more like a dab page.Pam D 09:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gampi is a vernacular name, and therefore wouldn't be shown as a synonym. But I've identified that W. canescens is a different species, and that there is also a W. ganpi. It looks as if there are several species of Wikstroemia used in paper-making, so there may indeed be a use for a dab-like page. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, have you finished now? If the article is stable I'll split it into your content about the plant and mine, with the original sentence, about "Gampi". Thanks for your work on this! PamD 09:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm still tracking down the details of nomenclature. The Diplomorpha is Diplomorpha Meisn. (a synonym of Wikstroemia), rather than Diplomorpha Griff. (a synonym of Sauropus), so you link to the latter is (IMHO) in appropriate. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've now made a dab page at Diplomorpha to reflect that (it previously redirected to Sauropus). Let me know, here or on my talk page, when you're done, and I'll re-create Gampi (using the proper {{copied}} to preserve edit history). PamD 09:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. When you recently edited Aerva javanica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Merrill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A (very) belated Barnstar for you.

		The Nessie Barnstar
		For exceptional service to the Cryptozoology project.Angry Mustelid (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Larryleachia cactiformis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peduncles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation for taking a short survey about communication and efficiency of WikiProjects for my research

Hi Lavateraguy, I'm working on a project to study the running of WikiProject and possible performance measures for it. I learn from WikiProject Plants talk page that you are an active member of the project. I would like to invite you to take a short survey for my study. If you are available to take our survey, could you please reply an email to me? I'm new to Wikipedia, I can't send too many emails to other editors due to anti-spam measure. Thank you very much for your time. Xiangju (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Activated debates - Bedworth

Hi Lavateraguy. I invite you to feedback on my views in Talk:List of names in English with counterintuitive pronunciations, with the other editors. Adam37 (talk) 10:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Author citation dates in plant taxoboxes (above genera)

I have been adding dates to taxobox authorities for plant families and orders. I had seen this done in a few taxoboxes, and I am working on citing all of the authorities for plant families and orders. A discussion had taken place about this before, here, although the focus of this discussion was on all taxa, inlcuding genera and species. As you participated in a past discussion, and are actively editing Wikipedia now, I am posting this link in case you wish to comment.

Thanks. --AfadsBad (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Acer laurinum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C. mixta and argyrosperma

I see you made this redirect. Have these always been two names for the same thing or was mixta once thought to be a totally separate species? At Cucurbita they are still listed separately. PumpkinSky talk 00:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About monographs

Hi, I wanted to respond to your statement at the now very active discussion at WT:PLANTS, but that discussion has moved on to other matters, so it seemed better to bring the matter here. I agree absolutely that monographs are the best sources, and it is very unfortunate that some people see (some of) them as primary sources that should be avoided in the same way that primary medical research should be avoided. Even those works that describe a lot of new taxa are usually of a revisionary nature (which would be why we refer to them as revisions), though, of course, that is open to abuse by people who just want to attach their names to possibly spurious taxa. I hope that for the simple synonym lists and species lists that the databases will act as a substitute for the real monographs, and that the monographs can be cited for other things, such as characteristics of a taxon. I've been trying to do a bit of that, so far just pointing to original descriptions (which sometimes have wonderful illustrations), and haven't been reverted. The databases have an advantage in that (at least in principle) they can incorporate corrections such as spelling, recently conserved/rejected names, and whatever repercussions come from forgotten and then rediscovered literature. TPL does seem, from what I've seen so far, to be much improved over the previous version. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion none of the plant databases are adequately reliable. TPL, for example, is good on some groups and not so good on others. Tropicos is pretty good for the Neotropics, but not so good for the rest of the world. As I've just written at WT:PLANTS, in general you need to engage in synthesis to get as far as a species list. But there are exceptions. (I suspect Arecaceae of being one.) Lavateraguy (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought about boldly adding something at WP:PLANTS about species lists, but it is rather a different situation from a synonym list. WP:Tree of Life briefly mentions putting a list of subordinate taxa into the taxobox, but that's a different matter from compiling the list. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glossary of scientific naming, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Forma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:List of gelechiid genera

Template:List of gelechiid genera has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magioladitis (talk) 07:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rheumatism

It might have been in [2]. I'm sure it said something about it somewhere.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New user right

I've enabled the autopatrolled feature for your account, since it was requested for you at WP:PERM/A by User:Dr. Blofeld. Thanks for your work! EdJohnston (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rosaceae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rosa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Lavateraguy. You have new messages at Nmcke's talk page.
Message added 20:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Male or female epithet for tree genus

Referring to the interesting talk page discussion you were involved in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants, section Additional information about Hydnocarpus wightiana, are the matters discussed reflected in any WP article? If not should they be? I am not a botanist, so don't know where might be appropriate, but I found in article: Botanical name the sentence A binary name consists of the name of a genus and an epithet. Might this be the best place to expand with an "epithet" sub-section which discusses the assignation of gender, covering elements of the talk page discussion such as:

"It is often argued that trees with genus names ending with -us are to be treated as feminine (Quercus petraea, Fagus sylvatica, etc.)...a widely held botanical tradition" and "the "female tree" rule"..."The feminine tree rule is a modern invention, unknown to the ancients. Pliny the Elder would have said "Quercus albus" instead of "Quercus alba." Botanical Latin is not Classical Latin, but Latin altered to fit more recent concepts, in this case 18th Centuries concepts of gender. Whether or not Linnaeus invented the idea I'm not sure, but he adopted it and others followed his lead".

I'd be willing to have a go myself, but am entirely ignorant on the subject of botany and on any suitable sources.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Plural infragenerics

Hi Lavatera guy. I'm not sure what to do about this, but there is a problem with this edit, which produces the statement "A genus name (and hence a species, infraspecies name or infrageneric name) is singular in Latin." Actually, Recommendation 21B.2 states that the name of a subsection or lower-ranked subdivision of a genus is preferably a plural adjective (in practice, series are commonly used and plural). Perhaps the "hence" needs to be removed, as well as infrageneric name. I wonder, though, if the whole thing would be better trimmed down to just the statement about wikipedia norms. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Links to proposals?

Could you please link me to some of the formal proposals you were referring to, with respect to what rank the Taxon Magnoliopsida (the group of all angiosperms) should hold? I am genuinely interested in any recently proposed ranks, and I could learn something new while also making progress toward settling that thread. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chase & Reveal (2009) rank it as a subclass (Magnoliidae) (in the class Equisetopsida containing all embryophytes). The reduction of land plats to a class was also advocated earlier by Lewis and McCourt (2014). using the name Embryophyceae. Embryopsida has also been proposed for this clade at the rank of class. (Equistophyceae, at first google seems to have been used solely for the narrower group of horsetails and allies.)

USDA is a recent example of angiosperms being ranked as a division (phylum). Googling Magnolophyta will find plenty more historical examples.

Finding examples of angiosperms as a class is made difficult by the widespread use of Magnoliopsida for dicots, but these course notes from Argentina provide an example.

Google Scholar finds quite a number of recent papers using subdivision Magnoliophytina (treating Spermatophyta as the division). Lavateraguy (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acis trichophylla

I think the account I've written at Acis trichophylla#Taxonomy is consistent with the sources given there, although it may need to be changed again if IPNI takes a different view. Please have a look at it for me. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could always add the works by Schousboe, Brotero and Herbert to the references. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Since I always told my students not to add references to sources they hadn't read themselves (though I suspect they didn't always follow my prohibition), I'll need to locate them online first. I'll have a look tomorrow. I find this historical taxonomy fascinating, but I suspect there are very few readers who share this view! Peter coxhead (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both IPNI contact addresses have now bounced as undeliverable. (Perhaps they need to clean up their inbox.) Unless you had more success it looks as IPNI won't be taking a view. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had a bounce message back yet, but I do have the e-mail address of one of the principal people there, so I'll try that if I get one. WCSP has updated their accepted name to use "Sweet ex G.Don" since I e-mailed them.

Another issue is that WCSP has "Acis trichophylla (Schousb.) Herb., Amaryllidaceae: 331 (1837), nom. illeg." But when I found the Herbert source, it referred the name "Leucophyllum trichophyllum" to Bot. Reg. 7 544. This is here, and the name "Leucojum tricophyllum" [sic] is referenced to Brotero, not Schousboe. So I think the WCSP synonym should be "Acis trichophylla (Brot.) Herb.", which means it wouldn't be a legitimate transfer from Leucojum to Acis if the Don one isn't. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally worried by the absence of the automatic acknowledgement from IPNI. Technically speaking I haven't received the bounces - I've received spam reports (false positives) about the bounces. So there's a risk that you've lost the bounce to an overactive spam filter upstream.

It looks as if "Acis trichophylla (Brot.) Herb." could/should be added to IPNI. (I presume that you're passing your observation to WCSP.) Lavateraguy (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I passed on my observation to WCSP; Rafaël's response was to delete the synonym "Acis trichophylla (Schousb.) Herb." altogether. Since he treats Acis trichophylla Sweet ex G.Don as derived from Brotero's name, then Herbert hasn't created a new name but is using the WCSP accepted name.

So I edited the taxonomy section yet again! I have now taken up your suggestion and added the Schousboe, Brotero and Herbert references, although Herbert isn't as relevant now. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'll eventually have time to finish the article rather than keep revising the taxonomy! Peter coxhead (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Euro Med database recognises both Acis longifolia (from Corsica) and Acis trichophylla (from Portugal, Spain and Morocco), and gives Acis trichophylla Rchb., nom. illeg., Iconogr. Bot. Pl. Crit. 8: 703 (1830) (absent from IPNI) as a synonym of the former. Consequently I an concerned that the references used for the description in Acis trichophylla do not in fact refer to that species; if so, and provided you can handle botanical Spanish, you can take a description from Flora Iberica, which also gives a more precised description of the Iberian distribution. Alternatively there's Flore d'Afrique du Nord (vol 6.) in French.

The Euro Med database has the same taxonomic confusion around Acis trichophylla as IPNI and WCSP. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The three books I used all recognise Leucojum longifolium as a separate species, and agree on the distribution of Leucojum trichophyllum as excluding Corsica, so I'm confident that their description is of the right species. I've had a look at Flora Iberica (I'm ok with botanical Spanish); the only real difference is in the pedicel length, which is given as "up to 60 mm" in Flora Europaea, but only up to 46 mm in Flora Iberica. I'll modify the description a bit.

I'm never sure how much detail to include in a Wikipedia description of what is a fairly obscure species; I usually leave out most detailed measurements.

I've now got the bounce from the IPNI e-mail, and have e-mailed someone there about it. In a way it's a good thing if they didn't get my first e-mail, because things have moved on since then.

Note that the Euro Med database got its taxonomy for Acis from WCSP, so naturally has the same issues as it did before Rafaël Govaerts' update. I still think that Don thought that Sweet was using Schousboe's name... Peter coxhead (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any of those books, so I couldn't tell, but I found "as Leucojum longifolium" a little worrying. (I've got one Matthews book, but it's a different one, that goes into less detail, and doesn't mention this particular species.) The good thing about all the old literature being online is that you can check out the nomenclatural history rather than relying on tertiary sources; the bad thing is that only half the modern literature is online. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it's particularly annoying that a lot of recent taxonomic material is published in Phytotaxa, most of which is not freely available (and my university doesn't subscribe to botanical journals). Peter coxhead (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also Taxon, though at least the proposals for changes to the code are OA. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although at least old volumes of Taxon (currently up to 2013) are in JSTOR, if you have access (as I do through Cambridge alumni), whereas old volumes of Phytotaxa continue to have many locked articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it should now be "[email protected]", although the website doesn't seem to have been updated. I'll compose a revised e-mail. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lavatera acerifolia

I'm sorting out old slides for a talk on the flora of Tenerife. I have one labelled "Lavatera acerifolia". It seems to be a Malva now, but it's not clear to me what the epithet is. Here it's acerifolia; elsewhere it's canariensis. I guess this is something you can help with. :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't looked at the original publication, so I wasn't able to exclude the possibility that there was some reason for declaring it invalid, but Malva acerifolia Nutt. ex Walp. (1842) appeared to have priority over Malva acerifolia (Cav.) Alef. (1862). Checking my files, I was missing that volume of Repert. Bot. Syst., and Biodiversity Heritage Library is also still missing it. But Google found a copy at archive.org, and Walpers places the species in Sphaeralcea, citing Nuttall's manuscript name in synonymy, which would make it invalid (Nuttall didn't effectively publish it, and Walpers didn't accept the name), unless Nuttall did publish it subsequently. (Sphaeralcea acerifolia is nowadays considered conspecific with Iliamna rivularis.)

Nuttall was working on contributions towards Torrey and Gray's Flora of North America. This also refers to the plants as Sphaeralcea acerifolia, referencing Nuttall's manuscript name. This is dated earlier (1838-40) that Walpers, so if either validated the name Torrey and Gray would have priority.

So, I guess that M.F. Ray didn't check out the original publications (they were rather less accessible back then), and someone has recently noticed that he didn't need to introduce a nomen novum. (Quite a few of his nominae novae have failed over the years.)

You can check with IPNI whether they agree with my analysis. Lavateraguy (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have a couple of queries running with IPNI already, so I'm happy to accept your view and that of Plants of the World Online that it should be Malva acerifolia (Cav.) Alef.. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well on trying to write up the taxonomy at Malva acerifolia, I came across other oddities in IPNI, so I have queried these. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just dropped off a note to IPNI as well. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite confident that the nearest relative is Malva subovata (Lavatera maritima), they're morphologically similar, both are self-incompatible (which I don't think is the case for any other Malva), and they hybridise readily. I'd have to remind myself of the molecular data, but it didn't give me cause to question this sister group relationship in the past. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's another set of slides I need to re-label if what I've always known as Lavatera maritima is now Malva subovata.~~, which I see that Plants of the World Online agrees with here.~~ Looking at your website, particularly [3], it's not clear to me whether there is any way that Lavatera and Malva can be distinguished in the field. It seems yet another example of when genetic differences don't correlate well with morphological ones, causing problems for field botanists. (It's much worse with fungi, of course.) Looking again, I see that Plants of the World Online puts all of Lavatera in Malva – [4]. Hmm...

Both from looking at the changes recently made to IPNI and from an e-mail from Kanchi Gandhi I see that they have accepted the analysis we put forward. I've tried to summarize this at Malva acerifolia#Taxonomy – do please have a look at it.

By the way, I copied my e-mails to IPNI to the e-mail address you give here, but they bounced, so I assume it doesn't work. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Malvaguy"?? :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Email for that domain was withdrawn about a year ago; I've changed most of the references, but I must have missed that one. I sent an email to your BCS email, so you should be able to use the address from that.)

Over the last ten years of so botanists have mostly been grasping the nettle and sinking Lavatera (and Althaea sect. Hirsutae) into Malva; the alternative is lots of fiddly little unstable genera. It's worse than the cladogram I show - more recent work presents a decent case that Malva alcea originated as a hybrid between Malva moschata and Lavatera thuringiaca, though a more complicated history isn't excluded.

The statement that Alefeld transferred the species to Lavatera is misleading; while he was the first botanist to treat this as a species of Malva, the consensus didn't shift until M.F.Ray's publications.

One can probably manage a diagnosis for Malva, starting with introrsely decurrent stigmas; one just can't use epicalyx characters beyond epicalyx present.

Lavatera still does service as a vernacular name. Lavateraguy (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fasciculate-flowered Lavatera clearly form a clade with the ruderal mallows - that is the easy bit (which Ray did, except for Lavatera abyssinica/Malva aethiopica) of fixing the taxonomy. Malva subovata and Malva acerifolia seem to form the sister group to that clade; after that it gets messy. Lavateraguy (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I revised Malva acerifolia#Taxonomy to note the non-acceptance of Alefeld's transfer; I agree this was needed.

I didn't get an e-mail from you (I've checked carefully, including the junk mail box). Could you try again, please? Peter coxhead (talk) 07:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formatting

Hi, I noticed your comment about reference formatting at Allotropes of carbon, and I completed the reference. In future edits, you can use citation templates as I did (e.g. {{cite journal}}) directly in wikitext or one of two semi-automated gadgets: refToolbar, which can be turned on in preferences, or Citation bot, activated remotely from that page. All that needs to be done then is filling in parameters. I hope this helps! ComplexRational (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Loch Ness

Hi Lavateraguy. The link is this one, can't you reach it? The book of Oxford University Press is a just a collection of tests, and the relevant passage is .... (Loch Nis in Gaelic) ...., page 60. Of course a book about Gaelic toponymy could fit better in the article.--Pampuco (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grades and guilds

You wrote that grades and guilds are no longer used in determining classification (in taxonomy, which has been revolutionized by DNA analysis). What are grades and guilds? I know what grades are in guilds, but that has to do with organization of crafts and craftspeople into apprentice, journeyman, and master, and I don't think that is what you meant. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I want to make sure you know I'm not dismissing your question at WT:PLANTS ... it's a very good point, and it's fine if people at WT:PLANTS or WT:Copyrights see things differently. I was thinking myself of not drawing any special attention to Stearn ... until I decided that I wanted to go the Featured List route. They have an iron-clad rule there that I need to be able to explain the rules for what is included or omitted in the list, and the rules can't feel "made-up". - Dank (push to talk) 19:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, long day :) - Dank (push to talk) 19:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the "this has been discussed before and the consensus was against it" ... if you mean pages of the form T. rex, I would be fine with that ... do you remember where it was discussed? - Dank (push to talk) 19:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember, but I expect WT:PLANTS or WT:TOL. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only including half of the items from his list may make the copyright question go away (but I am not a lawyer), but it makes calling it Stearn's list questionable. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wedded to the page name. In the text, it's already an FLC rule that I have to be very precise about how the list is derived ... so if the text is wrong, it needs fixing (and I just thought of a criterion I need to add to it). - Dank (push to talk) 20:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of Hibiscus rosa-sinensis

I've had on my to-do list for some time trying to sort out Hibiscus rosa-sinensis and make it less of "gardening article". GRIN puts it in tribe Hibisceae, subfamily Malvoideae. Naturally, I went to the Malvaceae Info web site to cross-check, but nothing relevant there. So I thought I'd check with you whether there's any reason to doubt GRIN, and whether you know of a good reference for the tribe. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Endemism in the Hawaiian Islands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kokia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Loch Fleet (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Loch Fleet (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library

As a Wikipedian, you can get by many paywalls (including Taxon/Wiley) if you use The Wikipedia Library: https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/. You do need to have 10 edits a month to qualify for access. Plantdrew (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calendula palaestina

Thank you so much for your help on this page: your time is much appreciated. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 08:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]