AbeCK

Welcome to Wikispecies!

Hello, and welcome to Wikispecies! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• Help:Contents provides a good introduction to editing Wikispecies.
• Templates are there to help you to follow our syntax and formatting standards.
• Have a look at Done and to do.

If you have named a taxon, then it is likely that there is (or will be) a Wikispecies page about you, and other pages about your published papers. Please see our advice and guidance for taxon authors.

If you have useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at Wikimedia Commons. This is also true for video or audio files containing bird songs, whale vocalization, etc.

Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) and the date. Please also read the Wikispecies policy What Wikispecies is not. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Again, welcome! Andyboorman (talk) 10:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Taxonomic problems.

The 2010 paper synonmising Pennisetum and Cenchrus has resulted in complete taxonomic nonsense, which unfortunately has been blindly accepted by online authorities, such as POWO, Hassler and World Flora. MBG/Tropicos is much more circumspect. WS can not make original research and at the moment does not allow taxon pages for comb. ined. I was hoping that by now that the 8/9 Cenchrus sp. ined. would have been corrected, no such luck. Therefore, I apologise for reverting your well meaning blanking and redirecting of Pennisetum. Given the problems we need to raise this at the pump and ask the community for their opinions regarding taxon pages for comb. ined.. It worth noting that IPNI will not accept comb. ined., as there is no formal treatment that follows ICN. Please I beg patience. Andyboorman (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Pump Discussion

Hello. I have started a discussion relevant to the above on the Pump. Please contribute if you wish. Andyboorman (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Blitum antarcticum

Hello AbeCK, I had to revert your edits on Blitum antarcticum. According to recent molecular phylogenetic data in Sukhorukov et al. 2018 and Sukhorukov & Zaika 2022, this species belongs to Blitum, not to Oxybasis. The databases are not yet up to date. Kind regards, Thiotrix (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Just heard back from POWO and they will be updating very soon and @Thiotrix: is correct. Andyboorman (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

New Taxon Bars

These seem to be identical to the links. Can you justify this please, as WS is not going to get rid of its Reference Section? Is it a WD driven initiative? Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Andyboorman, a few minutes ago, I've expanded verified links about this hybrid on Wikidata, they were outdated in various things (synonym and accepted name), greetings. AbeCK (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Salvia

By removing synonyms from the list of synonyms is somewhat confusing. It does not follow the references cited for example. It just seems to be based upon personal preferences. Can you justify these edits? Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 07:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I have briefly updated the list of synonyms for this genus. There are probably more out there but this is most current to date. References are provided, so it is not original research or personal preference. Andyboorman (talk) 07:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Andyboorman, sometimes in my editions adding, deleting or modifying details, like in Salvia 's synonymy, I not only usually compare different taxonomic databases (especially those that are most updated such as POWO, GBIF, WFO, CoL, IPNI and W3BTROPICOS), also, if there is opportunity and availability, I usually consult the original sources of the scientific names that are mentioned, and I work on this, maintaining fidelity to the original sources. Another editing problem should be homogeneity in the information offered in Wikispecies with which I not only depend on one source but on several, I suggest you edit based on this.

For example, I leave you the sources where the synonym Aethiopis appears. I hope it's helpful and I hope you take it into account. Having justified this, I'll proceed to eliminate some names that are at the beginning of the synonymy since they are nothing more than unnecessary and confusing spelling mistakes, sometimes, taxonomic databases get these details wrong, so be careful, and don't put templates discussing correct name, isn't necessary, greetings.

• Salvia sect. Aethiopis Benth., Labiat. Gen. Spec. 195, 222 (1833) - https://bibdigital.rjb.csic.es/medias/3c/ed/0d/09/3ced0d09-a4df-4fdb-8747-ba1df76a7750/files/BEN_Lab_Gen.pdf
• Aethiopis (Benth.) Opiz, Seznam: 11 (1852) - https://books.google.com.au/books?id=F1M-AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
• Aethiopis (Benth.) Fourr., Ann. Soc. Linn. Lyon, n.s., 17: 134 (1869) https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/237522#page/172/mode/1up

AbeCK (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@ABeCK:

1. Aethiopis (Benth.) Fourr., Ann. Soc. Linn. Lyon sér. 2, 17: 134 (1869) is an isonymm of Aethiopis (Benth.) Opiz, Seznam 11 (1852) according to IPNI, as it was published later using the same type. However, it is still a synonym. Some editors add an extra indent for isonymns.
2. How do you decide whether or not a spelling mistake is an orthographic variant? Unilaterally doing so is original research and is forbidden under wiki rules. If the "spelling mistake" is printed or published, for example in POWO or a printed source, you can not just delete it on your own initiative. At the least you should take your thoughts to the Pump.
3. You can not favour one source over another unilaterally. This is original research. If a source, such as POWO or IPNI, by consensus, is favoured then this gives it more weight. They are 99.99% correct and far better than local flora, books or papers. Of course they are not perfect, but I contact them directly, if I suspect an error. They reply and either explain or quickly correct their data.
4. Please do not be upset if your changes are reversed or improved by another editor, particularly if it appears that you are making changes based upon your own thinking (OR). You can use the Discussion Page to explain yourself, but I would expect to see citations backing up your changes.
5. As POWO (and Hassler) does not use subgenera and sections these, and similar synonyms, can appear on both the genus and infrageneric taxa pages on WS. Taxonomically they are synonyms of the genus and so really should appear on the its page. Therefor, should not be deleted off the genus taxon page, if another editor placed them there in good faith, as that editor is taxonomically correct and you could end up in an edit war. In addition, infrageneric classification can change, but taxonomic change is less likely. See my edits on Salvia, where I have updated infrageneric classifications.
6. Finally WS is primarily a taxonomic database with classification and should follow taxonomic rules and conventions. I have made this error myself! This is where you can find the the current rules. They will be updated in due course.

Thanks for your edits and hope this helps, sorry to be a pedant, but it comes with being a taxonomist. Andyboorman (talk) 08:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

1. There is no any problem using isonyms. I understand that while both names refer to the same type, No modifications there, maybe isonym word after scientific names.

2. In Orthographic Variants, I prefer to write scientific names using the original sources, they do not usually get the names wrong, the taxonomic databases, yes, at least I appreciate that you appreciate the fact that these editions that I make are not vandalism

I appreciate the guidance on handling spelling mistakes. I'll ensure to avoid unilateral decisions and consult relevant sources or the discussion page when unsure if a spelling variation should be considered an orthographic variant. Your advice on consulting POWO and other authoritative sources is valuable.

3. Thank you for explaining the importance of adhering to established sources like POWO and IPNI. I understand the need to avoid original research and will ensure to rely on these consensus sources, and contact them directly if I suspect any errors, but we should do a new consensus about it, besides idk ho to contact those taxonomic bases about errors.

4. About reversals and changes by other editors, I appreciate the reminder to use the Discussion Page for clarifications. I’ll make sure to support any changes with and be open to adjustments made by other editors but is necessary create a new consensus here.

5. About the placement of synonyms on WS, but sometimes I put the basonyms of the synonyms about a genus or a species, IPNI and POWO sin by omitting these details, especially the latter one, I'll use discussions to express this, just I hope, you o not reverse my efforts like you do, for example, any other edition, no problems.

6. I appreciate the reminder about WS being a taxonomic database and adhering to taxonomic conventions, I didn't know about it to this moment. I’ll review the current rules and aim to align with them in some of my edits, Thanks!

Thanks for your detailed feedback and for your understanding, I hope to be in a consensus if is necessary, I just hope that you not only let me know this feedback, but also other administrators, who I also rely on to make edits. Greetings. AbeCK (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Manuel Quirós Calvo

Hello AbeCK. In January this year you created the author page Manuel Quirós Calvo here at Wikispecies, stating that the IPNI standard form for his author name is Quirós . Earlier today you changed that to Quirós Calvo. The same is true for the equivalent Wikidata item Q124365641. You created that one in January too, and earlier today you changed the corresponding author abbreviation there as well. However, the "botanist author abbreviation" identifier you added to Wikidata is unreferenced, without any cited source. Also, it seems that this author isn't listed by IPNI at all, neither as Quirós^(verify) nor as Quirós Calvo.^(verify)

Hence, can you please add a verifiable reference in regards to Manuel Quirós Calvo's standard (IPNI) botanist author abbreviation? Thank you!
–Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC).

Hi, @Tommy Kronkvist, yes, of course, let me explain how I started creating Manuel Quirós Calvo article here and in Wikidata and the modifications to it that came later and recently.

As you correctly point out, there are still non-formal records of this author (for example, in IPNI), and the few existing ones contain a spelling error in their name, which may cause confusion. However, I have corrected this mistake in the articles I wrote for both Wikispecies and Wikidata (more details below). I created these articles based on my own research, starting in January 2024, as you also noted. I began by editing the article on Casimiroa edulis in Wikispecies, focusing on its synonymy and its original sources and other little relevant details. Specifically, I created the articles while reviewing the scientific name Casimiroa sapota var. villosa, a synonym of Casimiroa edulis, linking the authors of each scientific name of this species.

This research led to the creation of these articles with the abbreviation I initially found: Quirós. I have only corrected this today with the confirmed abbreviation Quirós Calvo. It turns out that this author only has one accepted taxon and the one I mentioned before: Casimiroa sapota var. villosa, which he described with Maximino Martínez and the original source of this scientific name can be found here Anales del Instituto de Biología de la Universidad Nacional de México Vol. 22: 69, fig. 28 & 29 (1951). (Review the section called "LAS CASIMIROAS DE MEXICO Y CENTROAMERICA" from this link). The full name of the author is misspelled here as Manuel Quiroz Calvo, which is where my research began. After searching for more details and information starting from here on Google, I found the correct name; Manuel Quirós Calvo, who appears (only mentioned or as a direct author) in various publications from the university where he studied, some of which can be found on Google Books.

I expanded my research on this name, and W3TROPICOS confirmed the information, listing Manuel Quirós Calvo here. After comparing and combining all the data and the information I found, I concluded that the author is Manuel Quirós Calvo (1904–1953), a Costa Rican botanist educated at the University of Costa Rica, where he graduated in Biology. Initially, I thought my research would not yield results, and that my articles might be deleted, but to my surprise the Wikispecies article went unnoticed until now, and before that could happen, someone added the author to the Wikidata article using the Harvard Index of Botanists, which you can see here, though it includes the aforementioned spelling mistake.

Finally, a few days ago, I reported this situation to both IPNI and POWO (especially, IPNI due I got a more timely response than POWO), asking if they could add this author based on the detailed information I provided here. Not only did they confirm and expand on my findings, but they also informed me that the author would be added. Today, they even stated to me by e-mails: "Many thanks for pointing out the error. The records in IPNI have been amended and changes should be visible on the website within 24 hours."

I'm unsure how POWO and IPNI operate, as I previously submitted feedback and requested changes for other scientific names, which they also accepted, yet I haven't seen the updates reflected. I don't know if the changes take longer than 24 hours to appear or if there are other delays. To summarize everything, there is or will be a record of this author, and I invite you to ask IPNI and POWO about this situation and they will assure you and confirm (with evidence included) everything said above if you have doubts. I used the following e-mail adresses to contact them:

• ipnifeedback@kew.org (IPNI)
• bi@kew.org (POWO)

I realize I sometimes rush when editing Wikispecies, Wikidata or even Wikipedia, but I’ve noticed that many rely solely on IPNI and POWO for verification, when information should occasionally be compared and questioned more rigorously. I hope this situation helps make edits on Wikispecies more stringent, consistent, and reliable. I understand that my work has been questioned before, but I want to emphasize that I don't edit with the intent to disrupt or damage the work done on Wiki projects. I still have much to learn, but I believe the work I do can contribute to meaningful changes in future editions, creating more accurate, objective, and dynamic spaces.

Thanks for your questions and comments. I’ll be attentive to any further inquiries. AbeCK (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tommy Kronkvist: Just to expand a little. The IPNI database may take 24 hours to update, but it can take a few more days for the changes to go public, as they only update the interface on a more or less weekly basis. I add pending to my WS entries where I know changes are about to happen. Andyboorman (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@AbeCK: Thank you for your intellectually rigorous investigation and comprehensive explanation. Good work!

Note to @Andy Boorman: It's actually the same here at Wikispecies, in regards to the databases run by the MediaWiki software. The process is a lot faster than a few years ago, but occasionally there can still be several days until all newly added data has been ground through all of the "database mills" and entered into the logs, and is made public. As for Quirós Calvo, we'll just have to wait and see. Thank you both for your replies. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC).

Hi there, @Andyboorman and @Tommy Kronkvist, I hope you're okay, I bring you an update from IPNI; finally Manuel Quirós Calvo already has an official registration there, and you can check it, currently, reaffirming the most recent information in articles about this author in Wikispecies and Wikidata. It fills me with satisfaction and joy that my work in general has been very worthwhile in this case, I hope that significant editions like this continue, and that it can even be applied in Wikispecies without problems or obstacles in future. Anyway, thank you both very much for your comments and support. Greetings. AbeCK (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. I too find IPNI good collaborators. Andyboorman (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Monizia edulis subsp. girana

Monizia edulis subsp. girana J.A.Carvalho & F.Fern., Webbia 69: 31 (2014) (epithet as giranus) is in IPNI and also in POWO as an unplaced name. It should not redirect to Daucus edulis in my opinion and also WS is not usually interested in unplaced names. Might be worth trying to read the protologue or look through a flora of Madeira. Andyboorman (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Subgenus

Do you have any information for the possible subgenus of Artemisia avarica? I am trying to allocate blue links. Thanks for any help. Andyboorman (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Andy, unfortunately, I haven't been able to find more information on which subgenus the Artemisia avarica species could belong to, even on some Wikipedia pages to which this species is linked, there is nothing relevant, perhaps checking the maps of distribution of this species something can be achieved, but as if that were not enough it seems that the original source from which this species comes is not available, I'm still looking for an available source, greetings. AbeCK (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back. Andyboorman (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Siphonoglossa

Just to point out that Siphonoglossa was recently dismantled across a number of genera, including; Justicia, Dianthera and Thyrsacanthus. I left the species just in case a number of Siphonoglossa were left unallocated to other the other genera. Andyboorman (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Page Move

I have moved the page named Justicia angusta to the page named Dianthera angusta. The move option should be on your tools side bar. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

However, something has gone wrong. My error I think and I will sort it. Andyboorman (talk) 10:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I moved it 30 seconds before, and it looked good. But where is it now? --Thiotrix (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I think we cross moved!! What a weird coincidence. I have made a page feel free to edit it. Chuckles galore. Andyboorman (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Citing of taxon names according to their Code

Hello, please cite taxon names in disambiguation pages (e.g. Faba) according to their zoological or botanical Code. A citation of a plant like a zoological name "Faba Mill., 1754" looks unprofessional. A botanical name (plants, fungi and algae) concists just of genus/species name + IPNI author abbreviation. Neither comma nor year are part of the name. You may add the year for additional information, but please avoid the comma and add it in brackets. Thanks, Thiotrix (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)