User talk:Andyboorman/Archive 1

Latest comment: 10 years ago by Orchi in topic Greetings

Orchidaceae edit

Hello Andyboorman, could you give the scientific source of your used genera list of the Familia Orchidaceae please. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Orchi, the list was simply generated from Wikipedia, as a starting point, hence all possible errors and synonyms some of which I managed to deal with. I realise that GRIN and WCSP have good lists but these are difficult to cut and paste then modify for Wikispecies. Hence my comments about needing to cross check. Big project for a big family!! By the way The Plant List may help with their csv files which can be easily wiki-formatted using macros in Word or Excel.

Hello again Orchi, I have modified the orchid genera using a list from GRIN and have added a link to the Reference section. I hope this is OK with you.

Hello Andyboorman, I saw it and made a link direct to Orchidaceae with the possibility to exclude synonyms and cultivars. We should in Wikispecies not have the same genus list with species (or nothospecies) and cultivars.

Hello Orchi, Thanks for tidying up the reference. Totally agree with Wikispecies policy. I was just trying to be helpful by adding the genera, as it seemed strange with such and important family to have so few species at the family level. Hopefully others agree. I got there in the end I think! I will move on unless you want me to add some details for perhaps the more obscure species. I use WCSP for this and the same format as the main contributor. What do you think?

Hello Andyboorman, I think also, we should use the taxonomy of KEW gardens. With the work "Genera Orchidacearum" 1 - 6 is there in the moment the most actuell taxonomy.

Hello Orchi, most definitely cross check using Kew and "Genera Orchidacearum". Do you think we should keep nothogenera? There is at least one that links from the generic list down to it own page. Not really Wikispecies policy but maybe be useful with such a promiscuous family. I am easy either way, as Kew makes it easy to identify the genera concerned from their basic generic list. I will go with your advice.

Hello Andyboorman, thanks for your info. I think, we should keep nothogenera, when they are natural hybrids. I don't know, whether wikispecies is a place for cultivars. By the way, it is difficult in the moment to create a current and complete list of genera in orchids. I hope "Genera Orchidacearum no. 6" with corrections and supplements will be issued soon.

Hello Orchi, thanks for your comments and advice. I will go through the GRIN/WCSP list and edit out synonyms and non-natural nothospecies. Kew have done a fair job at revising Orchidaceae, but as you note it is difficult to create a generic list based upon contemporary phylogeny, as consensus is only just emerging. Fertile infra-generic hybrids run counter to key principles of monophyly. But it is a bit of a gap on Wikispecies, so getting something up that can then be modified as consensus is reached is at least a start!

Hello Andyboorman, thanks for your engagement in orchids!! I made little changes by Kew-gardens and formatting. (I'm a friend of similar formatting ;-) ). Good cooperation!! Greetings. Orchi (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Orchi, I saw what you did for Bletia after I added the synonyms and a few other bits. I will follow your format and other ideas for future additions. I am also learning more and more about some of the Wikispecies concepts, for example I did not realise that there was a typus template and how to use the [[|]] markup! I will revise my other contributions as these look very professional. By the way I have now crossed referenced GRIN and WCSP generic lists with many of the individual genera from WCSP. I feel there are some gaps mainly for the natural infra-generic hybrids which will need working on. At least the a big chunk of work has been more or less completed! Thanks for your kind words and looking forward to future cooperation.

Hello Orchi, I am a bit concerned about the infra-familial classifications used on the Orchidaceae site. There is wide spread acceptance for the five sub-families, but Higher Epidendroideae has no formal recognition and is indeed polyphyletic. I do not think it should be on Wikispecies. Likewise the tribes, sub-tribes and other minor classifications, are often constantly altering as genera are revised. Perhaps we just have to accept that the 'Unassigned' categories will increase for the near future? What do you think? I have noticed that Oncidium has very recently been revised by Kew to include Odontoglossum. Are you happy for me to work on this?

Hello Andyboorman, in the five volumes of "Genera Orchidacearum" there is no more "Higher Epidendroideae". I do'nt know, whether there is a resurgence in the volume 6. I agree with you, here to work without "Higher Epidendroideae". In the question of Odontoglossum, Laelia and Sophronitis (Cattleya) and others, I think, the last arguments are not written. Last friday I met qualified orchid botanists in Germany. They do not agree Kew in this opinion. We should prefer in wikispecies (and commons) the actuell KEW taxonomy. Your way, to redirect Odontoglossum to Oncidium shoud be the good way.

Hello Orchi, I have combined "Higher Epidendroideae" with "Epidendroideae" as we discussed. I agree that Wikispecies cannot favour one view over another, so I continue with the use of redirect as I have used before. I think with such important genera we should also tag a note explaining why we have done this. The reference list needs to include some evidence as well. Should be straight forward. I also notice that some of the tribus and sub-tribus need a tidy up mainly to remove multiple occurrences and have made a start.

Hello Orchi, the more I look through the Orchidaceae pages the more unhappy I am with the Sub-Tribus use of Alliance. This is not a recognised sub-family rank according to the ICBN. It also seems to be causing a degree of confusion with some genera appearing in a number of different places below the level of Tribus and Sub-Tribus. Can you advise, please?

Hello Andyboorman, with the Alliances I have my problems also. The taxonomy of Orchidaceae in commons I sorted by Genera Orchidacearum vol. 1-5 (nearly complete).

Hello Orchi, glad you feel the same about Alliances. Matching Wikispecies and Wikicommons using 'Genera Orchiacearum', APGIII and WCSP is the way to go, I feel. Your Wikicommons work is excellent and their are some really great pictures as well that will provide superb images! I will do some work in the next few days and look forward to your feedback.

Hello Andyboorman, thanks for your commitment. I will change bagatelles in your work only. (In the past I learned many things by the editing and formatting of user:Uleli here in wikispecies.)

Hello Orchi, thanks for the tip regarding Uleli's templates most useful. I think I have more or less got rid of Alliances, but need to check down at the species level. There is still a degree of confusion at the Tribe and Subtribe levels with some genera appearing in at least two locations. I will do my best!

template:WCL edit

Hi Andyboorman! I have reversed your latest edit to the template as this made hundreds of records show the wrong year Uleli (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC).Reply

Hi Uleli, Sorry about that. I will stop playing around with templates constructed by others and concentrate on content! I will keep an eye on WCL and WCSP and check for errors. Your redirect seems to be working, but I will look at the dates as well.

Thank you. I realized you did the same thing with Template:IPNI. Your changes will effect many past edits. After your alteration the records in the articles makes no sense anymore. Please, if you have an opinion, take on a discussion first... your point can absolutely be the wright way to go. But changing templates can cause a mess. And please don't feel offended, I also make mistakes from time to time. But thanks to others these have been corrected. Uleli (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Uleli (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Andyboorman, I made a little proposal (by templates) on the page of User talk:Uleli . Orchi (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Uleli and Orchi, I will comment on Uleli (talk)

Orchidaceaedata edit

Hi Orchi I have completed the much of the missing data for Tribes and Sub-tribes. It is not perfect, but much better than it was. Would you be able to peer review my additions? Fell free to add, delete and amend without checking back with me! Unless, of course, you feel that you really do need my input. Andyboorman (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

  ...I'm glad to see your work and hope, that we reach a very good result in this taxonomy together. Thanks und best greeting. Orchi (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Caladeniinae edit

Hi Orchi I have been adding details of New Zealand and some Australian genera to Wikispecies, you would be so kind as to review if you have time? There is disagreement for some genera and so I have left these alone for now not wanting to offend New Zealand orchidists! See - this very good site New Zealand Orchid Checklist

Also as a consequence, I have decided to allocate the unassigned genera in Diurideae. Pheladenia and Ericksonella have been assigned to Caladeniinae in light of the evidence presented in Hooper, S. D. (2009) Taxonomic turmoil down-under: recent developments in Australian orchid systematics, Annals of Botany 104: 447 –455. Calaena had previously been assigned to Drakaeinae and so I have deleted it from the unassigned category, this sub-tribe needs references! Hope this meets with your approval. Andyboorman (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Andy, I think all your changes are correct and I assumed all to commons also. The current list of KEW say for all mentioned genera, that they are accepted and they will follow in "Genera Orchidacearum".
By the way I'm very glad, that now two friends of orchids help in Wikipedia. Excuse me, when I change sometimes like a "stickler for details" (I hope, I translated the german word "Kleinigkeitskrämer" correct). Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Lectotypes edit

Hi Orchi, thanks for your positive comments and also for being a stickler for detail - better translation than pedant!

I came across this paper which may help for some genera where the type species is obscure -

It has been useful already. Unfortunately it is not complete, but easy to cross reference to WCSP, if required. I have completed New Zealand and many Australian genera and I am moving onto South Africa. Its a long story, why! All the best Andyboorman (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Andy, your paper for typus species edited by Lankesteriana is very good. I converted it in a *.doc file with the possibility of copy and paste. Here Aa (Orchidaceae) and here Bulbophyllum#Name I tried to find a way to embed the infos of Lankesteriana. I look forward to your proposals to involve these informations. All the best. Orchi (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Orchi I prefer the use of the term lectotype as it is more precise than typus. Andyboorman (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Andy, in german we say: "A picture says more than thausend words". Perhaps you will be able to generate a sample of your proposals e.g. in the genus Acampe. Orchi (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Andy, you see little changes and tests in the genus Acampe and some questions and answers with User talk:Uleli#Language in wikispecies.
And now I build a template as short link to your offered page: [1]. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have had a look around at your suggestions. Excellent! Andyboorman (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Genera Orchidacearum edit

Hello Andy, a little question: Do you have "Genera Orchidacearum" at your's disposal? All the best. Orchi (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Orchi I do not have my own copies but borrow volumes I need from the British Library. I can get a copy in a few days. Do you have a specific volume in mind? Andyboorman (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Andy, unfortunately only I have older books with taxonomies of Paphiopedilum e.g. (Cribb 1987) or (Braem 1988). I'm interested in the latest taxonomy of Paphiopedilum. I thought "Genera Orchidacearum vol. 1" could help. In wikispecies and several Wikipedias are older taxonomies in subgenera (?) and sectiones. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Orchi, can you get hold of this paper? Araya Chochai, Ilia J. Leitch, Martin J. Ingrouille and Michael F. Fay (2012) Molecular phylogenetics of Paphiopedilum (Cypripedioideae; Orchidaceae) based on nuclear ribosomal ITS and plastid sequences, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 170(2), pp, 176–196. Article first published online: 5 SEP 2012 | DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.2012.01293.x. I have only read the abstract but it looks just what you need. Andyboorman (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Andy, thanks for your research. I'l try to obtain this article. Orchi (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Bromheadia edit

Hello Andy, I changed the tribus in Bromheadia in commons according to your way (from Cymbidieae to Vandeae). Thanks, best greetings and a good day. Orchi (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Greetings edit

Dear Andy,
I wish you a Merry Christmas and all the best for the new year 2013.
Thanks for your good work! I hope, we will be a good team in orchids further.
Few days ago I was glad to see, that the user Dalton Holland Baptista from Brazil is back in Wikipedia after nearly three years.
He is a very good expert in orchids, works for KEW and gave us wonderful photos in the past.
I hope, we can work together soon again.
All the best. Orchi (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Seasons Greetings edit

Dear Orchi,
Thanks for your kind thoughts. I hope you also have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
I look forward to carrying on working on the orchid pages in 2013. I think we have great progress over the last few months.
Take care. Andyboorman (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Angraecinae edit

Dear Andy,
I changed the subtribus of Rhipidoglossum. Dalton knows, that the subtribus Aerangidinae in "Genera Orchidacearum" will be become to Angraecinae. (I trust in Dalton).
All the best. Orchi (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Orchi, Thanks for the information and I have edited the main Orchidaceae and sub-tribe pages. I have a couple of papers supporting the re-circumscription and I assume that the latest volume of "Genera Orchidacearum" in press will detail this and other changes. For the moment do we preempt the changes? Can we assume that the change will just mean the merging of the two sub-tribes and not result in a re-evaluation of Vandeae? Has Dalton any more information or an opinion?

Have you seen Stevens latest Orchidaceae material on APGIII? Worth a read and also has some updated sources.

Regards. Andyboorman (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Andy,
personally I think Dalton has in his opinion many informations. In the past, he always had the right way, even if KEW not had changed the own online infos.
Maybe you look here in the pt-Wikipedia. [2] Dalton had there given a source. For me it is to difficult to read all the english texts.
Do you have a link to "Stevens latest Orchidaceae material on APGIII"? Greetings. Orchi (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Orchi I have read the paper Dalton cites and agree with him that we could use Angraecinae for all genera in both Angraecinae and Aerangidinae sub-tribes. I will do this and add a couple of papers in the reference list. I suggest we leave the other sub-tribes for now, unless Dalton has some advice. I am sure there will be changes involving other genera!

[3] is the link. You will have to go to Steven's APGIII work via the Asparagales link on the left then down to Orchidaceae. I have pulled out his list of phylogeny and classification references (updated Dec 2012), which I could send you via email (or can we attach files in these discussion?).
Andyboorman (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks edit

Dear Andy,
Thanks a lot for your work with up to date specifications by KEW here. I see, that I have to do many corrective actions in commons and other WPs.
It's a great pleasure to work together in orchids with you and Dalton.
Cheers. Orchi (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nothostele edit

Dear Andy,
you changed Nothostele from subtribus Cranichidinae to subtribus Spiranthinae. Genera Orchidacearum 3 say on page 40: Cranichidinae. Do you have infos with more actuality? (I own the indexes only!)
Greetings. Orchi (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Orchi,
I followed the information in this, more recent, paper;
Batista, J.A.N., Meneguzzo, T.E.C., Salazar, G.A., Ramalho, A.J. & Bianchetti, L. de Bem (2011) Phylogenetic placement, taxonomic revision and a new species of Nothostele (Orchidaceae), an enigmatic genus endemic to the cerrado of central Brazil, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 165(4): 348–363.
The full text is not available online, but the abstract gives enough detail and the Journal is somewhat definitive! For such a small genus I took the decision and hope that I have not caused too many problems! WCSP has added the new species N. brasiliaensis. I have also just altered the classification of Galeottiellinae, but this follows Genera Orchidacearum. Hope all is well. Andyboorman (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Andy, ....o.k. and we wait on the updates in Genera Orchidacearum 6 and look again. Orchi (talk)

Hello Orchi I think there will be a number of updates and that is why the delay in the publication! I do not think there is a problem in implementing changes that will be in Vol 6. Maybe! Andyboorman (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Redirects of synonyms edit

Hello Andyboorman,
perhaps you are interested in a tool script by User:Rillke. You can read the use in my (bad) english here: User talk:Uleli#Redirects of synonyms.
I use the tool since yesterday and I save many time.
Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Orchi
Thanks for the tool works beautifully! Best wishes. Andyboorman (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

....thanks to Rillke! Cheers. Orchi (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Agrostophyllinae edit

Dear Andyboorman, is there no tribe in the akteulle literature for Agrostophyllinae? Cheers. Orchi (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dear Orchi, I have contacted Kew to see if there are any up to date recommendations about Agrostophyllinae. I am also expecting a recent paper that may help with this and a few other queries, for example with Polystachyinae. I am not really happy with what I have done with the tribes and subtribes of Epidendroideae, but it does seem that Agrostophyllinae is being retained and so I have made the changes you can see. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dear Andy, I am just visiting an Orchid Congress in Dresden. Monday I will be back. Thanks for your actions. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dear Orchi, Enjoy! If you can get any feedback for the orchid pages this may be useful. Andyboorman (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dear Orchi, I have heard back from Kew and they are recommending that we place Agrostophyllinae in Vandeae in spite of the morphological differences. Genetically it seems that this sub-tribe is in the 'Vandoid Clade' to quote. They also have indicated that there will be further revisions to the classification of Orchidaceae, but still are recommending we use Chase's 2003 classification and Genera Orchidacearum for now. Best wishes Andyboorman (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dear Andy, in questions of taxonomy I was not successfull in Dresden. But I had the opportunity to visit two good lectures. Steve Manning's (from England) lecture about the Pleurothallidinae. Very interesting (with humorous drawings). The lecture by Dr. Baumbach about the genus Maxillaria was very extensive in history and informations. The president of the German orchid society (DOG) promised me, to spend pictures of rare orchids in the future for Wikipedia. I hope, it becomes good for Wikipedia. In question to Agrostophyllinae I change the genera in commons like your proposual here. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dear Orchi, it seems that you had an enjoyable and successful conference. I have had some more feed back from Mark Chase at Kew. It seems that they will be publishing an updated sub-familial classification for Orchidaceae in the Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society later this year hopefully. In the meantime we are advised to carry on with Chase's 2003 classification with some modifications, such as that advised by Dalton for Vandeae. The more we make commons parallel to species the better! All the best and Happy Easter Andyboorman (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

New link to KEW (beta) edit

Dear Andy,
just I saw the new link you set on Collabieae. I hope this way will help us. In the moment I spend my time in Mallorca searching orchids. The internet connection in the hotel is very, very slowly; so I can not work and help here in the evenings. Ophrys, Serapias and other orchids are in great number to see. In the next days I hope to photograph Neotinea maculata, which is in bud in time. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Dear Orchi,
What a great holiday! I am jealous to say the least. Hopefully you got some great photographs as well. This new site is interesting and more or less follows Kew and what we are doing with Wikispecies. It has been a help with some of the newer genera not in Genera Orchidacearum and I have made some of the changes already. I do not think it is as up to date on all things - you may have seem that I did some changes for Imerinaea and Polystachyinae, which I have now reversed, as emonocot did not incorporate the evidence for which I found and confirmed with Prof Chase. I was a bit hasty here. I will go on the site and contact them before making any other major changes in classification! Regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Dear Andy,
thanks for the new template! The holydays in Mallorca were very interesting. Unfortunately the Neotinea maculata was faded at the end of our trips. Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 10:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply I saw your info. Perhaps we can create a new template in the future with "eMonocot" and "KEW" together (including the old KEW links). Cheers. Orchi (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

.....please have a look to the "Template:WCSP". I integrated your perfect Link as test. Orchi (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Bromheadia edit

Dear Andy,
what shall we do with the tax of Bromheadia and Bromheadiinae? (
Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Dear Orchi,
I would recommend we keep this where it is based upon the paper, Górniak, M., Paun, O & Chase, M. W. (2010) Phylogenetic relationships within Orchidaceae based on a low-copy nuclear coding gene, Xdh: Congruence with organellar and nuclear ribosomal DNA results, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 56, pp. 784–795. This is clear on the molecular evidence. This paper also places Imerinaea in Eulophiinae in contradiction to which uses the older Cymbidiinae.
When it comes to Agrostophyllinae and Adrorhizinae, I have only got communications from Kew which suggest that these tribes will be combined in the future, but no there is no other evidence such as a paper. Perhaps in this case the changes you have made, based upon, should stand? Does Dalton have any suggestions? Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dear Andy,
thanks for your detailed answer. Unfortunately Dalton has not visited WP since march, but I will write him in Portuguese WP.
New points:
User:Uleli reverted my test, to connect the KEW link with O.K, but it was a actual quick link in orchids (for me).
What do you think about distribution info generally? (e.g. tests here: [4] and here: [5]
What do you think about genera synonyms? E.g. Aceras in the page Orchidaceae. Can we consist it so?, give we synonyms another color?, create we a synonym list or erase we the name?
All the best. Orchi (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Analogous to your - template I created a template directly to genera or species with the taxon-number. (Template:Emocotdir)

Dear Orchi,
I can understand User:Uleli as the dates of access are wrong, but it was a quick way of including Emonocot!
I have no real preference for the font sizes used, but it is better English to just use Distribution for 4.
Synonyms ought to be deleted from the main Orchidaceae page, I feel. This page will get huge if we add all synonyms surely? Lets keep it simple. The synonym lists are found under the genera and also if a users searches for a synonym they will hit the correct name through the re-directs. Perhaps we could add instructions for users to use the search facility if a name they are looking for is not on the list?
Your template works well
Best wishes Andyboorman (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Cultivars edit

Dear Andy, what shall we do with the cultivars e.g. × Brassocattleya. In commons I began to separate the Nothogenera × Laeliocattleya from the cultivars Category:× Laeliocattleya cultivars. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hello Orchi, I think the term Cultivar (C.V) should be reserved for cultivated varieties such as x Brassocattleya 'Ernesto Alavarce', where 'Ernesto Alavarce' is the cultivar. This is both its correct horticultural and botanic uses. That is what you have done with commons I think. Looking at your five Cultivars of × Brassocattleya, x B. tramandahyana is a synonym of × B. litoralis and the others are hybrids derived from horticulture with no natural distribution or botanic authority. Do we want to include them in Wikispecies at this stage? Personally I think it over complicates the site and moves it too far towards the more generalised Wikipedia. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hello Andy, I agree with you completely, that the manmade hybrids not should be treated here in Wikispecies. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Gratulation edit

Dear Andy, with your great work and power all genera and nothogenera of orchids are constructed in wikispecies now. Thank you very much!! Cheers. Orchi (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Dear Orch1, not forgetting all your great work as well! Andyboorman (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Aporostylis edit

Dear Andy, you put the synonyms of Aporostylis bifolia in Aporostylis. Do you have a specific reason or was it a little "copy and paste" slip? Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Dear Orchi, thanks for pointinmg this out - "copy and paste" slip!. Hope all is well. Andyboorman (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Pescatoria klabochorum edit

Dear Andy,
I changed Pescatoria klabochorum from a synonym to an accepted species. By the way: MGB says Pescatoria klabochiorum.
Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Distribution edit

Dear Andy,
what do you think about alphabetical sorting in "Distribution"? (also in Neottia cordata)
Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Dear Orchi,
I think it would be a good idea and have tried but not always successfully. I like the idea of sorting by continents as well. RegardsAndyboorman (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

....sorting by continents is a good idea also. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Malaxis edit

Dear Andy, thanks for the distribution. (I was too lazy!!) Greetings. Orchi (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Dear Orchi, no problems I wrote a macro in Word to do the hard work after copy and pasting from Emonocot or other resources. Seems to work OK! Regards Andyboorman (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Refs formatting edit

Hi Andy - nice work on adding the APG reference papers; just a small point that wikispecies reference formatting is slightly different to that used on en:wikipedia: (a) no quote marks round article titles, (b) fullstop after the year, and (c) volume number not bold (i.e., the same format as used by most scientific journals such as Am. J. Bot., etc., and unlike the arts journals formatting used by en:wiki). Thus:

  • Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (2003). An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG II. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 141: 399–436. pdf file
  • Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (2009). An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG III. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 161: 105–121. pdf file

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hi Just modified existing formats. I usually use Wikispecies formats as you outlined, so a bit of an over-site. Will do some corrections if not already completed by other users. Do you wish for all journal and book titles italicised? Andyboorman (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, thanks, that looks best - MPF (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

By the way WCSP still has Acorus calamus var. americanus Raf., Med. Fl. 1: 25 (1828) as an accepted name, but not by Wu, Z. & Raven, P.H. (eds.) (2010). Flora of China 23: 1-515. Missouri Botanical Garden Press, St. Louis. Just a thought! Andyboorman (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Yep, always a tricky one with disputed taxa; but Flora of North America, GRIN, and USDA Plants Profile all treat it as a separate species; with it being an N American taxon, I think it best to follow the dominant local preference in this case. en:wiki also so treats it. - MPF (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Battle of the secondary sources! However, in general I think we should aim for the best consensus otherwise therein lies chaos. Maybe as I am UK based I always tend to head for Kew, WCSP, Genera Orchidacearum and their developing on line off shoots like E-Monocot, GrassBase etc.! Do you have an opinion on format of angiosperms above family level? I am happy with the site using a clade based system following APGIII, but for example, I do not like the term Eurosids and the like, plus a few other gripes. Their is a formal taxonomy available is there not? Any thoughts? Any others I could contact? Andyboorman (talk) 08:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yep, always tricky. My overall preference is to go for majority opinion in the taxon's native area, thus UK/European sources for a European species, US sources for N Ameican species, etc., but with some exceptions (e.g. the way US sources almost completely reject any use of the rank of subspecies in woody plants, I don't agree with that as it often leaves clear subspecific taxa ranked only at variety due to "political" prejudice against subspecies by one prominent cataloguer). Of APG, yes, I'm inclined to follow it fully for supra-familial classification (as it is based on clear genetic evidence of relationships), but also with a strong preference for formal ranked names over unranked clade names (the German Strasburger system may be a good example to follow in this). It's nice that APG III has done away with APG II's "eurosids", as that always reads to me as "euro-sid" rather than the intended "eu-rosid". So good riddance to that clade name! Sorry, not sure who else to contact; there's always the village pump, though that seems rather quiet these days (I get the impression there's not very many people working on wikispecies at all, though). - MPF (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
You are right about Species having gone rather quiet over the last few months! I have been helping out a couple of people with specific projects such as Orchids. But other than that! Looking through some of the earlier work there are areas that need a lot of work. For example Poaceae - there have been major changes since 2008/2009 resulting in a consensus that has left a good number of genera and species as synonyms. (See Aciachne and Danthonia for my initial approaches) However, to make the required changes will take time. I sense this is the situation across the site and may explain the loss of contributors. Likewise other sites have come on stream, for example, GrassBase and e-Monocot which could also put people off getting involved or maintaining involvement. I am going to have a think about the higher level classification over the next few days. I will get hold of the latest addition of Mabberley's Plant Book and see what he is using - its a start and Steven's (APG III) advises this as well. Any more thoughts? Andyboorman (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Greetings edit

Dear Andy,
I wish you a peaceful and Merry Christmas and for the New Year 2014 all the best for you. I hope we see us in „our orchids“ again.
Cheers. Orchi (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Return to the user page of "Andyboorman/Archive 1".