User talk:Andyboorman/Archive 5

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Andyboorman in topic Abrus pulchellus

Thanks for the edits on Lagunaria patersonia

Very helpful MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Could you help me please?

Dear Andy,
a) I would like to divide the category Commons:Category:Unidentified Orchidaceae in commons.
What form would you suggest? e.g. "Unidentified Orchidaceae by genera" or "Unidentified Orchidaceae sorted by genera" or better suggest.
b) Where can I find the translations in Wikispecies e.g. of { {int:Synonyms}} etc.
Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Orchi: I would suggest a range, for example, "Unidentified Orchidaceae Genera", "Unidentified Orchidaceae Species" and so on. The later would of course be under their generic category.
I do not know about int:Synonyms could @Pigsonthewing: or @Tommy Kronkvist: help? All the best Andyboorman (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hello Andy, thank you for your proposals. (English terms are better controlled by you). Greetings. Orchi (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hi Andy and @Orchi:
  1. I agree with Andy's suggestion of using "range names" but – even though it's only a formality – I suggest using lower case letters for the ranks, i.e. "Unidentified Orchidaceae genera", "Unidentified Orchidaceae species" etc.
  2. For translations of individual terms in our interface like {{int:Synonyms}} etc, please see Wikispecies:Localization. Feel free to add translations of the missing, red-linked items! Other pages that might be helpful include Special:LanguageStats and Special:SearchTranslations, as well as the templates {{Translatable template}} (a.k.a "TNT") and {{Dynamite}}.
Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC).Reply
@Tommy Kronkvist: and @Orchi: Thanks Tommy. Agreed lower case for ranks. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Andyboorman: and @Tommy Kronkvist:. ....thanks for your help. Done in Commons. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Tapinanthus globifer

Hello Andyboorman, you moved Tapinanthus globifer to Tapinanthus globiferus, because you think the name was unreferenced. But look at Tropicos where the name is corrected to globifer. This is according to Melbourne ICBN Art. 32.2.: the masculine form of the adjective is "globifer" (globifera, globiferum for feminine and neutral form). So I guess Tropicos is right, although most other databases are still citing the original but errorneous spelling. There were also two wikidata items, which I joined (and I hope this will be correct for wikidata, as they often prefer to store several items for the same thing...). Cheers, --Thiotrix (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Thiotrix: Tropicos is not always right or follows consensus and in this case does not cite the articles and seems to just make an auto-correct. I have had a good look at the Articles cited not sure I agree with an autocorrect. "Fer" can be a verb meaning bearing or carrying or an adjective meaning wild, as in "ferox". In this case I assume that the authors were alluding to the plant "bearing a globular" inflorescence or some other distinctive feature - need to read and translate the protologue. "Globifer" or indeed any of its forms, e.g. "globiferus" are not translations from Latin, but appear to be adjectival compound epithets (Art 60.8). "Fer" is a verb and has no gender just plurality. In this case it seems that original spelling holds unless there are compounding errors or other orthographic problems. Matching the masculine "us" for the genus is fine surely? Any way, this is only opinion and IPNI has not made the corrections for this and any similar epithets. I go with INPI over all other secondary sources of this nature, unless completely convinced of an error. I would suggest taking this to the pump for a wider set of opinions - there are some really good plant taxonomists here. Andyboorman (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Why do you think that globifer is not a latin word? I can find it in latin online dictionaries. IPNI knows several species ending globifer, named by taxonomists with good latin knowledge. But there are also several species ending globiferus. The protologue of Tapinanthus globiferus refers to A.Rich., which means it bases on Loranthus globiferus A.Rich., though not explicitely cited. Its protologe says: "Corolla tubulosa unciali, basi abrupte in globulum pisiformem inflata", these are the globular structures at the base of the flower corolla. --Thiotrix (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Thiotrix: Well I get no results from any online dictionaries except that it is likely to be compound word! IPNI indicates that they are OK with both options and also include "globifera" and "globiferum" on a species epithet search. It looks like as far as they are concerned the original publication or basionym is what counts and matched to the genus. I have had another incidence pointed out to me and that is Micropus globiferus basionym of Psilocarphus tenellus var. globiferus (Bertero ex DC.) Morefield, Madroño 39: 156. 1992 see Tropicos here. However, their article citation seems bizarre and they also go for another accepted species namely P. chilensis. In addition, a Google Scholar search shows a big fat zero for T. globifer - just a thought. I would still go with IPNI, but if you email them they will reply with a considered opinion in my experience. Andyboorman (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
In A Grammatical Dictionary of Botanical Latin, it seems that -fer,-era,-erum (adj. A suffix) is classical latin, but they note: "the ending -ferus in the nominative masculine singular is less often used than -fer" .Maybe this means it seems to be acceptable. I will follow your advice and email with IPNI about their opinion. --Thiotrix (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the link - interesting page and very clear. IPNI has more ferus than fer, but I guess that this is an historical preference by the taxon authors. I look forward to reading what IPNI have to say. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 08:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
That was fast! Thanks for your advice of asking IPNI. They have already answered and updated to Tapinanthus globifer. For other taxa named globiferus they will consider a possible change (if the name means "globe bearing" then globifer is correct, but meaning "wild", then -ferus is correct). By the way, they added the missing basionym author, too. They told me, that there are thousands of combinations without parenthetical authors in IPNI, because in the beginning they were not recorded, and the work of updating is still ongoing.

Excellent we will follow IPNI. Thanks for the below as well - I use it and just wanted to pass it around to a couple of editors who now need it due to their contributions. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

An addition to the topic below: for automatic redirects, you just need to add one single line to a User:Username/common.js page: importScript('User:Rillke/createRedirects.js');. It is not necessary to copy the complete code, and so you will always use the current version. Cheers, --Thiotrix (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Fixing E.Hossain

Hi Andy. Could you take a look at E.Hossain I think IPNI shows that this entry needs moving, needs a new default sort, and .... I was reluctant to touch it for fear of making a major mess. MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Margaret. I think you are right and will have a look later today. I am not a big creator of taxon authorities, but my main approach is to follow IPNI in order to keep consistency. Wikidata should also follow this as well - this whole set of categories seems to be designed to help out WD in my opinion. I tend to be a redlink filler for taxa and to get a lot more scientific papers and robust secondary sources onto WS. By the way I have a neat process for getting synonym redirects automatically created. I will try and figure how to get it over to you and a couple of other newbies active here. Cheers. Andyboorman (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Banksia or Dryandra

Hi Andy. On Australian endemic species I follow APNI, and thus you can see for Banksia acanthopoda (A.S.George) A.R.Mast & K.R.Thiele, this species was formerly accepted as Dryandra acanthopoda, but now has the APC (CHAH) tick of approval as Banksia acanthopoda, based on the Mast & Thiele publication. On Australian endemic species, IPNI usually follows APNI but has not always caught up (I think this is the reason for the difference), and similarly it is not always the case that the northern hemisphere sites are in sync with APNI. (I haven't touched this stuff, nor read up on it, so can't make a general comment. I am strictly an amateur here, with an interest in the history of botany and linking species to their publications.).... MargaretRDonald (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I also check Plants of the World online which always lists accepted species for a genus (and there is a third site, whose name is not to hand which I also check...) When POW and CHAH are in agreement, I am reasonably happy. MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thanks seems like a done deal then! I will do the work later today. Andyboorman (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply


I suggest blocking spam-only accounts indefinitely. (Obviously, the underlying IP address should not be blocked that way.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Done thanks for the suggestion. Andyboorman (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Just wondering

(First post copied from User talk:Fagus#Just wondering.)

Hello Fagus. What is the reason for adding {{}} to various entities in templates, such as Template Salviinae? It does not appear to have a function. Andyboorman 10:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

It has a function. Taxonomic rank translates into local languages. --Fagus (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Fagus: I thought in science we all used the same scientific terms for taxon ranks. If that is not the case then I suggest you ask, via the pump, for someone to write a bot to automate the process. Otherwise it will become a massive undertaking. Cheers. Andyboorman 11:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Fagus: I advice against using templated entities for ranks in the Taxonavigation section, such as for example the {{Subtribus}} template in the {{Subtribus}}: [[Salviinae]] code string in the {{Salviinae}} template. A better way is to use "int:" for translations, like this: {{int:Subtribus}}:  Salviinae
We already use it for section headlines, as in for example =={{int:Publications}}== where it works well.
Please note that "int:" is a MediaWiki magic word and not a template, even though it is formatted in almost the same way. Using the magic word requires the taxon ranks (and their translations) to be added to Wikispecies:Localization, but that shouldn't pose a problem. There is also an extra bonus with using "Wikispecies:Localization", since we would then be able to see all of the translations on a single page, rather than in each and every separate "taxon rank template". –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC).Reply
@Tommy Kronkvist: I understand. Sensible. how will we do it. Could you help.-Fagus (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Fagus: Give me a day or two and I'll sort it out. :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC).Reply
@Fagus: Is there any particular reason why you have chosen to specifically use anchor = fr within the {{TranslateThis}} string of the templates? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC).Reply
@Tommy Kronkvist: I saw a few examples. and I did it. I saw it was successful. there is no special reason. --Fagus (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply


Hi Andy, I am struggling to get a template for such things as {{Trithecanthera}}. I can see that it has been done, but not how to do it. MargaretRDonald (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply


/Archive 4 Hi, Andy. Oliverella is a legitimate Loranthaceae (Oliverellaː Govaerts et al.) but the page, Oliverella, redirects to Echeveria. Could you fix this (I think, improper) redirection? MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@MargaretRDonald: Oliverella sorted. Add a post later. Andyboorman (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, Andy. (Looking forward to the how). Regards MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@MargaretRDonald: Lets give it a go. When I first clicked on Oliverella above I got this couple of lines right at the top of the Echeveria taxon page;

(Redirected from Oliverella)

Oliverella was in blue, a clickable link, so I clicked and saw;

#REDIRECT [[Echeveria]]

I got rid of this and - well have a look through the revision history here. Hope this is understandable. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dealing with synonymy

Hi Andy. I can see that others have dealt with synonymy by using redirects, but I have no idea how to go about this. In particular, I would like to delete the current page for Muellerina eucalyptifolia and redirect this page to Muellerina eucalyptoides. I was hoping that you might both do this and indicate to me how you achieved it. (That would be fantastic.) MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@MargaretRDonald:. I have made the redirect as asked. Firstly I opened both pages, went to edit then blanked Muellerina eucalyptifolia and used the #REDIRECT [[]] wikimarkup, which you find at the bottom. I finally copied Muellerina eucalyptoides into the square brackets in the redirect code. On the Muellerina eucalyptoides I checked that Muellerina eucalyptifolia was in the list of synonyms. I have also made some additional edits before checking that the redirects had been made using the redirect tool that I mentioned to you a week or so ago. Then it was publish changes. Big tip use the edit history tool. Hope this helps Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Andyboorman:. Thanks, Andy. Very helpful & kind of you. (I will get there - eventually) MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
@MargaretRDonald: You are very welcome and you are very much getting there! Andyboorman (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation / redirection and associated wikidata...

Hi Andy. I moved the page Thyridia to Thyridia (Nymphalidae) and then wrote a disambiguation page, because of Thyridia (Phrymaceae) ... However, the wikidata page for the new Thyridia (Nymphalidae) page is named Thyridia and refers to the butterflies... I am not sure what needs to be done with respect to the wikidata item associated with Thyridia (Nymphalidae) MargaretRDonald (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

You do not have to do anything about the WD items. WD has two entries differentiated by their Q numbers - see here and here. The WD links on the left hand side of the taxon pages automatically pull up the correct WD pages. Good work with the disambigs and creation of the new page for the butterflies. It is what I would have done as well. Andyboorman (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Issue no

Hi Andy! You partially reverted one of my edits. I will leave it now as it is. Anyway, generally I only use issue numbers in reference templates, when each issue has its own pagination, starting again with page 1. If the issues are bound into one volume, the issue numbers would not help anything to locate a certain publication in a library – page number is sufficient in any case. One the other hand, issue number would be distracting in reference templates like Bentham (1851), where one publication is continued through several issues within one volume. Such kind of serialised publications is rather common in the older literature. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Franz Xaver:. I take your points and pun. I guess I usually follow the format as used in the paper itself, assuming that is how the publisher and author(s) wish to see it displayed. No big deal I guess. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Chamaeleon (Asteraceae)

Me agradaría que revisase Chamaeleon (Asteraceae), que he revisado según CatalogueofLife pero que otro compañero lo mantiene como Carlina según EuroMed, anulando lo que he realizado. Lo dejo pendiente hasta conocer sus comentarios. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

He contribuido mis pensamientos sobre este asunto en la página de discusión de RJL. Está en inglés así que si necesita aclaración, envíeme un mensaje aquí. Saludos. Andyboorman (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply


Can you source me. Why should be included in the genus Centaurea? Recent academic studies show Cyanus genus. I think genus Cyanus should stay. --Fagus (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Fagus: Most of the handful of the recent academic studies that show Cyanus as a separate genus come from Bulgaria, Turkey and Iran, but there are many botanists in this area who maintain the synonymy. The majority of others in Europe, USA etc prefer to subsume into Centaurea as one of the three subgenera. The only reliable secondary source that maintains the separation is Euro+Med and even Global Compositae Checklist notes "Usually included in Centaurea L.".

There are numerous academic studies that prefer the synonymy for example;

  • Hilpold, A., Garcia-Jacas, N., Vilatersana, R. & Susanna, A. 2014. Taxonomical and nomenclatural notes on Centaurea: A proposal of classification, a description of new sections and subsections, and a species list of the redefined section Centaurea. Collectanea Botanica 33: e001, pp. 1–29. DOI: 10.3989/collectbot.2013.v33.001 Full text PDF from ResearchGate. Reference page.  and of course since the publication of the definitive
  • Susanna, A. & Garcia-Jacas, N. 2009. Cardueae (Carduoideae). In Systematics, Evolution, and Biogeography of Compositae. Vienna: International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT). ISBN 978-3-9501754-3-1. pp.293-313. Reference page.  it has been difficult to maintain the separation. See their reference lists for more information. I can source more for example Hilpold et al., 2014. Phylogeny of the Centaurea group (Centaurea, Compositae)–geography is a better predictor than morphology. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 77: 195-215, but I have not made the templates!

I appreciate that synonymy or separation are taxonomic opinions, but it seems to me that the consensus is for the synonymy, but I am open to persuasion that is why I included you in the discussion. By the way @MILEPRI: has been making relevant redirects in Cyanus, please refrain from an edit war. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK. I was convinced. do you need help ? --Fagus (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Fagus: @MILEPRI: Any help appreciated, cheers. Next problem is going to be Hieracium and Pilosella and this one has very little consensus as far as I can see! Andyboorman (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply


Recién comienzo a editar la familia Aizoaceae, observo mucha controversia entre editores y no deseo crear taxones que luego debo rectificar, le agradecería me indicase una referencia actual válida que me sirva de guía. Como siempre agradecido. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi @MILEPRI: Prueba esta lista Es del sitio web Angiosperm Phylogeny y a menudo voy allí cuando comienzo un grupo contraversial. Mesembryanthemoideae tiene un solo género Mesembryanthemum y Hassler sigue esto también! APW tiene muchos papeles si estás interesado. Espero que esto ayude. Saludos. Andy


Dear Andy,
Kew has changed "Emonocot" total.
All links by the "template:Emonocot" to Emonocot to the genera or species in Wikispecies (and Commons) are no longer functional.
Today I asked User:Liné1 (expert!!!) to find a way to use the templates furthermore:

"Salu Liné1,
First of all thank you very much for your very kind words!!
I'll try to explain the theme in short sentences:

  • KEW has changed „Emonocot“ total.
  • in the past the link for e.g. Anacamptis was: Anacamptis
  • now the first page is: [1]
  • the next following link is: [2]
  • in the past was used the id number of KEW by Emonocot.
  • now is the id number of IPNI in use.
  • Therefore the "Templates:EMonocot" in Commons and Wikispecies are not in function more.

Can you find a way to connect the names of a genus or a species by ignoring the old ID number of KEW in the tempates? e.g. ({Emocotdir|2013|May|20|8565})

I hope, you understand my explanations. Cheers. "

Another major change concerns the presentation of the distribution of the plants:
Emonocot shows no longer as „WCSP“ the botanical regions by: „References: Brummitt, R.K. (2001) TDGW – World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions, 2nd Edition“,
but only in an alphabetical list by countries.
Please could you ask Rafaël Govaerts, if this simplification remains? Cheers. Orchi (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear Andy,
...with the very good knowledge of User:Liné1 could the links to EMonocot be restored in Commons. I copied the changes in Wikispecies and now the old links are in function furthermore. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 10:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Dear Orchi thanks for dealing with this. I will ask about the distribution data in due course. Cheers. Andyboorman (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Dear Andy,
although I am not an expert, you see, I have written a small program to translate the abbreviations and numbers on the pages of KEW into the "nadi-form"; only for "Native to:" and not for "Introduced into:"
Cheers. Orchi (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Drepanocarpus lunatus

Dear Andyboorman. Thanks a lot for adding 'Drepanocarpus lunatus' and the other synonyms! Best regards. Sommerluk (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply


Le informo que he incluido la especie Conopodium brevifolium en el género Conopodium, ya que figura en CatalogueofLife como válida provisionalmente. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Tenga en cuenta que en la PUMP acordamos que WS no debería tener una página de taxón para taxones provionally aceptados, ya que aún no han sido formalmente validados. A menos que el nombre esté en uso fuera de WS, COL u otras fuentes secundarias, excepto tal vez Flora local. Debe agregar una nota y una referencia, no solo un enlace a la página COL. Andyboorman (talk) 09:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

E.Z. Tron

Hi Andy. Do you happen to know whether the (Russian?) botanist E.Z. Tron was (is?) male or female? It's not overly important in terms of taxonomy, however knowing the author's gender would help sort out a few quirks at Wikidata. Knowing the author's given name would of course be even better, since in most cases that also gives a good hint about the gender.

As a reminder you and I have come across that author name before, in regards to Muscari dolichanthum (syn. Muscari steupii) and categories for endemism (see your talk page archives and User talk:SKas). Thankfully all of that stuff has been taken care of a long time ago, and in a good way.

–Cheers, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC).Reply

Sorry I can not help here. I have also had a look around, but very little evidence on the net. Probably need to go to Kew or similar and ask a specialist archivist. Cheers. Andyboorman (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
I sort of guessed it, but thank you very much for your efforts! I too had a very hard time finding any useful information about him/her, even i Russian. I figured I might ask you anyway, since you have a lot more knowledge, experience and are better updated than me about all things botanical. I wont be heading over to Kew anytime soon, but I guess I might have a go at the University of Uppsala Botanical Garden, since after all I live in Uppsala... Many, many years ago I knew their current garden director fairly well, but back then we mostly discussed limnology and ichthyology rather than botany (also, he didn't get employed by the botanical garden until years later). We haven't met for quite a while so I think I'll pop in and say hello. I might persuade him to give me the grand tour of their library, and with some luck perhaps I can find some data about our elusive E.Z. Tron there. Also, the Botanical Garden is right next-door to the (very understaffed...) UPS Herbarium, and perhaps they have some information as well. Not very probable, I know, but we'll see. Cheers, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC).Reply


Note: This discussion was started here.
Show species and genera italic. --Fagus (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Now I know where that comes from thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Reply


Observo que el género Mackinlaya figura en wikispecies en la familia Apiceacea y en Kew y Catalogueif Life como Araliaceae. Agradecería me indicase el actual taxón que tiene validez. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

COL sigue WCSP para que sean lo mismo. El consenso de la mayoría es que Mackinlaya y sus parientes pertenecen a la subfamilia Mackinlayoideae de las Apiaceae. Vea las referencias que tengo y proporcionaré en las páginas de los taxones Apiales, Apiaceae y Mackinlayoideae. Voy a enviar un correo electrónico a Kew para preguntarles la razón por la cual aún mantienen su punto de vista más antiguo y, si es necesario, investigar más. Debemos mantener las cosas como están, pero tal vez escriba una nota explicando que Kew y Col mantienen la visión anterior de Apiales en este caso. Saludos. Andyboorman (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@MILEPRI: Rafaël Govaerts ha corregido la circunscripción familiar. Fue un descuido, que nos sucede a todos! Atentamente Andyboorman (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Me pondré en contacto con Michael Hassler sobre este y algunos otros asuntos. Andyboorman (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Reply


Hi Andy! Do you happen to know which specific scientific journal named Calyx that is referred to in Curio repens (L.) P.V.Heath, Calyx 5(4): 136. (1997)? I know of two magazines going by the name of Calyx, but one of them is a Canadian medical journal specialized in paediatrics and the other is a U.S. magazine exclusively publishing literary works written by women. None of them seems particularly prominent within the field of botany... –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC).Reply

Hi Tommy. The botany Calyx was a shorted lived rather obscure privately published journal in Brighton via Sutton under Whitestone Cliffe, North Yorkshire, UK. It was dedicated to some aspects of African succulents and cacti, as far as I am aware it never had an ISSN. It was primarily the vehicle for English botanist Paul Heath who according to IPNI authored many plants names, including artificial nothospecies and varieties, during the early to mid 1990s. Not many of these combinations have stood the test of time, particularly as the journal was obscure and of course the taxonomy of Cactaceae is rather difficult and is still emerging. He really came to academic prominence when he was the first to advocate the segregation of succulent Senecio, particularly describing Curio P.V.Heath (1997) and under the rule of precedence his gen. nov. was accepted. His work on this was some 15/20 years ahead of mainstream academia. That is pretty well all I know without more extensive digging. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC):Reply

Apocynum venetum

Apocynum venetum aparece como válido en Kew y como sinónimo de Poacynum venetum en CatalogueofLife. ¿?.--MILEPRI (talk) 08:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@MILEPRI: Lo consultaré con Kew. Sin embargo, han puesto todo Poacynum en sinonimia con Apocynum. Sugeriría que Kew no está convencido por la evidencia presentada por Mavrodiev, Laktionov y Yu.E.Alexeev prefiriendo mantener una posición conservadora. WS hace lo mismo y Kew es más autoritario en comparación con COL, en mi opinión. No haría cambios en Apocynum que implique cambiar la sinonimia. No puedo leer ruso pero algunos de los expertos en Kew do! No utilice el término Type specimen, ya que no tiene sentido en el contexto en que lo usa, por lo tanto, utilice las Type species aceptadas. Usted tiene un error molesto aquí. Olvídate de que Tropicos ha introducido esto, por favor. Atentamente Andyboorman (talk) 10:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)Reply


Fernaldia aparece en Kew y Catalogue of Life como sinónimo de Echites y en wikispecies aún continúa como taxón válido. ¿Hay alguna modificación actual, o debo redirigirlo?. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

La propuesta de Morales et al. (2017) ahora ha sido aceptado. Entonces transferiré datos y haré los redireccionamientos. Gracias por la información. Andyboorman (talk) 10:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hydnoroideae + references = Aristolochiaceae?

Hello my friend. I saw that you're the creator of Hydnoroideae and its related Wikispecies pages, and want to give you a heads up on this discussion at Wikidata: 互助客棧#請求合併 Q132628 到 Q25414198. That's the Chinese headline, which in plain English reads "Request to merge Hydnoraceae with Hydnoroideae [at Wikidata]". Then the Wikidata thread continues with one (1!) sentence in Chinese, claiming that "According to APG IV, Hydnoroideae is now placed in the Aristolochiaceae family", citing data from this external page.

I see that our Wikispecies' page Aristolochiaceae (also edited by you) seems to agree with most the above. What's your take on all of this, from a botanical standpoint? So far mainly User:Brya and myself has contributed to the talks at Wikidata, and of course also the Taiwanese (i.e. not Chinese) user who made the request. The user has contributed with well over 1,500 solid Wikimedia edits since 2011, but unfortunately doesn't supply any "Babel" information about other language capabilities. Do you have any good references to add to the discussion at Wikidata? Preferably some very hands-on and straightforward ones, since obviously language differences might be an issue (although I really don't know if that's the case). As far as I can see the external link presented by the user is good enough, but in my opinion it's rather cramped with data and not very legible.

–All the best, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC).Reply

It is a bit late tonight , but this is the reference we tend to use as a starting point PDF. Botanists will now use Hydnoroideae as a sub-family of Aristolochiaceae and any reference to Hydnoraceae is as a synonym or replaced name. APG IV is just following consensus not leading it. I have now removed Hydnoraceae from the family list of Piperales, as its inclusion is confusing, but I will now need to add Nickrent et al. (2002) to the reference list to complement Naumann et al. (2013), in due course. Wikidate is a different kettle of fish if they wish to include all possibilities or concepts, as Brya points out, then Hydnoraceae is a legitimate concept, as a validly published name with a history of acceptance. Not sure this helps, particularly as I can not read the contributions as I need to log in tomorrow. Also have a look through Parasitic Plants Connection Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Tommy Kronkvist: I have had time to reflect and do a bit more research. Using Hydnoroideae or Hydnoraceae seems to be more of a taxonomic opinion than a done deal, so to speak, but this plant group is definitely in Piperales and close to Aristolochia. However, APGIV and APW seem to reflect an attempt to close consensus, but the use of Hydnoraceae is still common see here [3]. Given that, a search for Hydnora on Scholar finds a predominant use of Aristolochiaceae as the family name example here for the later research articles, i.e. post APGIV (2016). For WS my advice is to follow APGIV, but WD can adopt a more relaxed approach I guess, as Brya seems to advocate. Does this help? Feel free to post my reasoning on WD if requiured. Andyboorman (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thanks a lot for your help Andy! I'm rather tired today, since "yesterday" I made my last edit to Wikispecies at 6:01 this morning... However I will soon be fit for fight again and will make good use of your thoughts and references. I like the PDFs you refer to a lot, and not only for this particular Wikidata issue. I'm sure they will prove very useful in many other cases as well, when checking other sources, updating or creating new WS pages, and such. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC).Reply

Replacing a template

Hello, can you please explain why?--Rosičák (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Rosičák: I'll take the opportunity to answer while we're waiting for Andy Boorman and his reply. I hope you don't mind? :-) For quite some time now there has been a community consensus not to use the {{Tysp}} template, together with a whole row of similar templates such as for example {{Holotype}}, {{Lectyp}}, {{LETS}}, {{Moty}}, {{Nomen}}, {{TG}}, {{TGN}}, {{TS}}, {{TSL}}, {{TSN}}, {{TSNO}} and {{Type}}. This issue has been discussed several times over the past few years on different talk pages, noticeboards and other Wikispecies fora. Unfortunately the outcome of those discussions hasn't very often trickled down to the actual template pages, and the help pages for those templates often does not mention that the templates are unrecommended. This is of course bad and should be corrected, but there are a lot of template help pages to update... There are some templates that has been updated to state that they are "formula non grata", such as the above mentioned {{Type}} template but also for example {{Syn}} and {{Zfg}}, however in most cases that information is missing. We really should try to take care of all this and do a major "cleanup" of the help pages for almost all of our templates, but sadly no one seems interested in taking on the task... At some point we should take this matter to the Pump again, but I fear not many users will show a great deal of enthusiasm when it comes to doing the actual work...
I know that my explanation doesn't cover the whole scope of the issue, but I'm sure Andy will have some useful information as well. Best wishes, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC).Reply
@Rosičák: and @Tommy Kronkvist:. I can only add a little to the great explanations offered by Tommy. These templates were seen to be useful as they linked to the glossary. However, it was pointed out that this was not really required in a taxonomic database that assumes some basic knowledge. In addition, the codes can cause problems, but this is not my expertise, so can not comment further. As Tommy pointed out we decided to dispense with them wherever possible and I guess now is the time for a clean up, as they seem to be creeping back as well meaning newer contributors come across them and think that they are a good idea. I was a fairly big user of {{Tysp}}, but now edit them out as I come across them. So my edit you mention was well meaning and following consensus, apologies if I offended. Finally there can be a problem with less taxonomically experienced editors when it comes to handling the differences between {{Holotype}}, {{Lectyp}}, {{LETS}}, {{Type}} and the like. Basically it was advised to stick to a simple Type species: and Type genus: with no template. The {{Syn}} and {{Zfg}} were introducing unwanted formats and also prevented the use of bots and some useful updating codes, again they should not be used.
As Tommy said we need to go back to the pump and revisit the help pages. @Rosičák: Feel free to initiate a Pump Discussion Hope this helps. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply


@Fagus: Brilliant and thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Reply


Me encuentro con Leucocasia que no aparece en wikispecies. ¿Debo editarlo como perteneciente a la tribu Colocasieae? Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@MILEPRI: Sí, está estrechamente relacionado con Alocasia, por lo que estará en la misma tribu. WCSP lo acepta también con un poco de vacilación. Aclamaciones Andyboorman (talk) 12:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply


Me encuentro con Thaumatophyllum que no aparece en wikispecies y en Catalogue of Life aparece como sinónimo de Philodendron goeldii. ¿Debo editarlo como perteneciente a la tribu Philodendreae? Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@MILEPRI: Sí, esta es una propuesta reciente por lo que puedo ver. Pertenecerá a Philodendreae hasta que se muestre lo contrario. Deberá obtener los datos de este documento si desea continuar con la propuesta de los autores. WCSP tiene solo la especie tipo aceptada. Sakuragui et al. 2018. Recognition of the genus Thaumatophyllum Schott− formerly Philodendron subg. Meconostigma (Araceae)− based on molecular and morphological evidence. PhytoKeys (98): 51-71. DOI: 10.3897/phytokeys.98.25044. Philodendron también tendrá que ser editado con los 29 redireccionamientos necesarios creados. Buena suerte y saludos cordiales. Andyboorman (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply


Me encuentro con Adelonema que no aparece en wikispecies. ¿Debo editarlo como perteneciente a la tribu Homalomeneae? Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

That is correct see here Homalomeneae. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply


Good day Andy,
I wish you festive holidays and for the year 2019 all the best for you.
May bring us all the new year a peaceful coexistence.
Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply


Gethyum merece una clasificación de no estándar, Vd sabe que el nombre de Melica Muñoz schick no está aceptado en este wiki--Penarc (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Penarc: La categoría no estándar se refiere al diseño de la página, no al taxón. Parece que hay dos opiniones con respecto a todo el clado, incluyendo Gethyum. El consenus mantiene su sinonimia con Solaria sensu Ravenna. Algunos botánicos chilenos prefieren segregar al menos una especie. WS suele ir con la visión conservadora, pero puede acomodar ambas vistas con notas apropiadas y referencias a artículos científicos. Voy a ver esto pronto. Atentamente Andyboorman (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Upon the matter of Solenostoma synonymy

Hi Andy! Do you happen to know whether Jungermannia paroica (Schiffn.) Grolle is a synonym of Solenostoma paroicum (Schiffn.) Schust. (i.e. Shining Flapwort), or perhaps the other way around? Please see the Wikidata talks at Requests for deletions: Q15348443 for details. Thanks! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk)‚ 12:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC).Reply

@Tommy Kronkvist: Sorry I am not an expert in Bryophytes, but they do have the same basionym Nardia paroica Schiffn. A brief scan through suggests that an expert is needed, as the first thoughts are a lack of clear consensus! Regards Andyboorman 19:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
The WD request for deletion is incorrect in either case, since all valid taxon names – including the ones in synonymy – should have a Wikidata item (i.e. Wikidata "page"). Those that are synonyms should however of course be marked as such, and I guess that's really the problem at hand. On a further note, when checking I saw that ITIS lists Solenostoma paroicum (Schiffn.) Schust. as a synonym of Jungermannia fossombronioides Aust., and doesn't list Jungermannia paroica at all. But then again I guess that's ITIS in a nutshell... Anyway, I guess I'll abandon the subject and leave it to people better suited, since I'm certainly no expert on Bryophyta either. As always: thanks for your input! Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC).Reply


Encuentro el género Whiteheadia sin referencias de tribus. Lo he redireccionado a la subfamilia Scilloideae hasta tener referencia de la misma. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@MILEPRI: Gracias, he realizado algunos cambios y vinculado a la subtribu. Añadiré una referencia a su debido tiempo. Este es otro de esos géneros con dos opiniones conflictivas. Muchos botánicos sudafricanos consideran que Whiteheadia bifolia es un sinónimo de Massonia biflora. Pero esto aún no está resuelto. Saludos.--Andyboorman (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply


Right, it is Ok admit double ii in this epythet --Penarc (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Repository oddities

There seems to be some errors on the Museo Nacional de Historia Natural de Cuba (MNHNCU) page in regards to the Museo de Ciencias "Felipe Poey" (MFP, which redirects to MNHNCU). Please see the discussion at User talk: GabrielaMolinaHdez: Phyllophaga taxon names for details. Do you have any good data about all this, and/or can you verify or make the necessary corrections to the two repository pages? Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC).Reply

@Tommy Kronkvist: I am not an expert on repositories, but have done some research. It appears that @GabrielaMolinaHdez: is correct in that that they are different entities. Museo Nacional de Historia Natural de Cuba is located on the Plaza de Armas, Havanna and Museo de Historia Natural Felipe Poey is on the Patio de los Laureles, Havanna and is associated with the university. MFP then should have its own entry not a redirect. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

My revert

Hi Andy, I have no idea how that happen. Alredy reverted. Thanks for the advise.--Hector Bottai (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Fernandezia needs to be directed to disambiguation page

Hi, I believe your removal of redirect on Fernandezia page was inappropiate since there would be no way for a user to reach Fernandezia (disambiguation). I have initiated dozens of such redirects and user thiotrix has moved original page to the page with taxon followed in parenthesis by family name. I don't know exactly how to do this and administrator thiotrix has done this change many times before. If you are not sure as to how to do this, please contact user thiotrix and he will make the appropriate change. In this case all data and history needs to be moved from page Fernandezia to page Fernandezia (Orchidaceae) I am therefore reinstating the redirect. If you still have an objection to this, please contact thiotrix so that the problem can be resolved. Thanks Nytexcome (talk) 06:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Nytexcome: I did not realise that Fernandezia (Orchidaceae) had been created so apologies. I have blanked the Fernandezia page leaving the required redirect, as the data has been transferred and is not required there. I have also updated the tribe and family lists adding Fernandezia (Orchidaceae). Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Hello Andyboorman, sorry to move in this discussion. But it is not at all correct, that @Nytexcome: always copies & pastes all content from taxon pages that have to be disambiguated, here Fernandezia to Fernandezia (Orchidaceae). 1. he is not the author of the page, thus violating copyright. 2. by this way, all the edit history since 2012 is lost. The correct way is to move Fernandezia to Fernandezia (Orchidaceae) without leaving a redirect (and deleting the copyvio page). Then, Fernandezia (disambiguation) can be moved to Fernandezia. But meanwhile, you and @Orchi: have already modified the new, history-lacking page Fernandezia (Orchidaceae). Would you like to fix this? Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Hello @Thiotrix:. I am not happy about putting a redirect to the disambig on the Fernandezia (Orchidaceae) taxon page and prefer to deal with this through the homonyms. In addition, I am not concerned about the edit history of my original, but now redundant page. I am more interested about getting the visible page as up to date as possible. Perhaps @Orchi: is interested enough to deal with this. Finally, I did not think copyright was a concern here on an open edit wiki, so I was not bothered about @Nytexcome:'s well meaning copy/paste edits, but of course I did not realise that the new page had been created hence my revert mistake. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Reply


There are great morphological differences in Nepeta species. Therefore separation of sections is required. --Fagus (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Fagus: Evidence and sources please, we can not just take your word for it. Molecular evidence seems to suggest that morphological differences may have risen independently a number of times and all over the distribution range. As the situation is uncertain and fluid it will be best to dispense with sections, IMHO. Plants can be morphologically very labile after all and over focusing on morphology is not recommended. Anyway creating any taxon page without sources just creates unsubstantiated stubs, just like your section pages. It makes them vulnerable to taking them down, if not by me, but by well meaning others. Andyboorman (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Well what do you suggest? --Fagus (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Fagus: Ideally I would get rid of them, many of the species under the sections are not even linked, so not too much work. There are a huge number of species that do not currently appear under sections and the newly described combinations probably have not even been allocated a section - this will need reading up in the protologue. However, you must have got the sectional classification from somewhere, so at least provide us your source for evaluation. Andyboorman (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Re: Delphinium staphisagria to Staphisagria macrosperma

I have added the references. The first two papers support the name Staphisagria macrosperma Spach. The second paper provides molecular evidence, according to which Staphisagria is the sister clade to Delphinium and Aconitum.--Neux-Neux (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Neux-Neux: Excellent just what is needed I did make the reference templates, thanks, best regards and sorry if my post on your page seemed a bit brusque Andyboorman (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Gethyum M Muñoz I mean chloris chilensis appears not very interesting here I cite in other lemmae but it was thrashed

What is the best Ravenna combination or of Melica Muñoz? --Penarc (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Penarc: Gracias por esta consulta. Me ha alertado sobre una serie de cambios en los nombres que han sido retrasados, pero que no se han publicado formalmente. Ver Gilliesia como ejemplo. Tendré que deshacerme de la página de Solaria y agregar una redirección después de transferir los datos relevantes.
Las dos fuentes que cita están ahora desactualizadas. No recomendaría usar la primera ya que está fechada en 2000. El segundo ha sido reemplazado por Pellicer et al. (2017), Christenhusz et al. (2018) y Govaerts et al. (2018). Yo usaría Govaerts et al. como una fuente conveniente para todos los monocots.
Le sugiero que deje Gilliesiinae por ahora y eche un vistazo a los cambios, formatos, referencias, etc. ¡Puede ser un día o algo así antes de que termine todo! Por favor, siéntase libre de consultar con un editor de habla hispana y saludos cordiales Andyboorman (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply


I'm not using the SN template. old usage. I've revised the template. now, it is accordance in the format. No problem.. --Fagus (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Caesalpinia gilliesii

Erythrostemon Klotzsch emended E. Gagnon & G. P. Lewis maybe Caesalpinia gilliesii need a copyedit, also Erythrostemon genus --Penarc (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

You are right, but I will check with Michael Hassler as to why they do not accept Gagnon et al. (2016), but I know the reply will be that they follow ILDIS World Database of Legumes, but see here POWO. Andyboorman (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
caspitas¡ I folow GBIF--Penarc (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Penarc: Sus nombres aceptados para Erythrostemon están a medio camino entre Gagnon et al. (2016) y Hassler (2019), pero sin justificación de su razonamiento. No usaría GBIF como una fuente definitiva y, de hecho, no lo uso en absoluto. Otro grupo engañoso de taxones! Saludos. Andyboorman (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

My inference

Koenigia vs Persicaria I mean Kim & Donoghue Syst Bot 2008) as P nepalensis (Cephalophilon), and Ronse Decraine & Akeroyd (1988) (p.339) Thus we believe Koenigia to be an extreme evolutionary form of Persicaria section Aconogonon... --Penarc (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Penarc: En realidad estás haciendo dos inferencias. En primer lugar, Persicaria nepalensis y Koenigia nepalensis se refieren a dos plantas completamente diferentes. Con diferentes descripciones, autores y fechas. También tienen una sinonimia muy diferente. See here and here. Por eso uno no puede ser sinónimo de otro. ¡Las sinonias completas deben agregarse a las dos páginas independientes de taxones de especies!
En segundo lugar Persicaria section Aconogonon se elimina de Persicaria y se eleva al rango genérico incluyendo Koenigia. Este género tiene que ser nombrado Koenigia ya que tiene precedente sobre Aconogonon, ya que fue nombrado primero. Esto se puede ver en la página del taxón. Espero que esto ayude, no es fácil, lo sé. Andyboorman (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
thanks--Penarc (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Nothofagus duplicates

Hi Andy - what's your justification for reverting the redirection of the synonym? I've read the "whole s**show", and there looks to be a majority for treating the genus in its wide sense. I mentioned merging 4 days ago subject to no further comment, and no-one did. I made sure to check there was nothing in the duplicate page that wasn't also on the page I redirected it to. - MPF (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi @MPF: My problem is that New Zealand botanists wish to maintain their "sh*t show" bless them. Therefore I feel that WS can be mature enough not to impose one taxon one name in this and a few other instances. After all there is no mandate unlike, for example Acacia where African botanist (APD 2019) still tend to refuse to implement ICBN Melbourne (2011)! Apologies for missing your comments re merge must have missed it somehow. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks - though I don't see any evidence here (nor on Commons: they're all at Nothofagus spp. there) that NZ folk do so wish (I know it's not really relevant now that he's gone, but I did see that one NZ person at least does not favour the split). If it had been a matter of treating heterotypic synonyms on separate pages I might be able to live with it, but I really can't see any justification for breaking 'one taxon, one page' when the conflicting names are homotypic. Having duplicate pages really isn't a good idea, forks like this diverge over time with what they contain, which makes things worse. OK if I continue with the merges now? I'll also [eventually, when I can find time!] create redirects for all the new names which don't currently exist but which we should have (the red links at e.g. Fuscospora). - MPF (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I would very much prefer you left the pages as disputed. I am not so anal with one taxon one names as some folks. Later today I will add links to NZ sites, but until after diner! Andyboorman (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

───────────────────────── I have added NZFlora to Fuscospora as promised and one NZ person is not a botanist. If you think this is a problem wait for the ramifications of Christenhusz, M.J.M., Fay, F.M. & Byng, J.W. (eds.). The global flora: a practical flora to vascular plant species of the world. Special Edition, GLOVAP Nomenclature Part 1, Vol. 4. Plant Gateway Ltd., Bradford, U.K. 155 pp, see this review as an example The Cutting Edge, this paper - Cornejo, X. 2018. Notes on the neotropical Capparaceae: an answer to Global Flora. Harvard Papers in Botany 23(2): 179-185 PDF and this pump discussion. You may have also missed Leopoldia and Muscari Talk Page @RLJ: for more info. Life can be a mess or maybe its just reality! Andyboorman (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Author name change

@Andyboorman I have been so stupid to write my name as Theodorus Hendrikus Johannus Damen it should have been Theodorus Hendrikus Johannes Damen, how can I change that? Thanks Dracaenaworldwide (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The name is spelled Theodorus Hendrikus Johannus Damen on Wikidata as well. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Dracaenaworldwide: & @Dan Koehl: I think I have corrected as Theodorus Hendrikus Johannes Damen, by moving the old page, please check. I have also edited {{Damen et al., 2018}} and edited WD. All OK? Andyboorman (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Also have a look here copied from Franz's Discussion Page - Maybe, you are interested to read the following review: [4] Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC) @Andyboorman Super thanks for your help and fast response.Reply


Aetheorrhiza figura como sinónimo de Sonchus en varias publicaciones y parece que ha sido aceptado por Hassler. Me agradecería que me confirme este dato para proceder a la conversión del taxón. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@MILEPRI: Todavía no estoy seguro de que podamos aceptar esta sinonimia. Haré un poco más de investigación y te responderé. Así que por favor no hagas una redirección todavía. Saludos Andyboorman (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
La ortografía correcta es Aetheorhiza, ver aquí. --RLJ (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
@RLJ: @MILEPRI: You are correct Aetheorhiza Cass. (1827) v. Aetheorrhiza Rchb. (1828). Precedent rules. Andyboorman (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

───────────────────────── @MILEPRI: @RLJ:. Lamentablemente la investigación que he localizado no es definitiva. Kim et al. 2007 coloca este género como hermana del grupo que contiene la especie tipo de Sonchus que evolucionó posteriormente. Igualmente Launaea y Reichardia, que se mantienen separadas. Otros documentos reconocen que puede encajar en Sonchus o dejarse segregado y están divididos en cómo lo tratan. Euro + Med lo trata como un sinónimo, pero Hassler no lo hace. ¿Cuestionado? ¡Discutir! Por cierto que he colocado en la subtribu correcta. - Hyoseridinae. Atentamente Andyboorman (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

If Sonchus s.l. can include the stem succulent Thamnoseris lacerata why not this one? Andyboorman (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Link in article

Dear Andy, is this: Alfie Berenyi only scientific info or a placement for spam too? Regards. Orchi (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps @Neferkheperre: who originally created the author page knows more? Looking at the page history one can easily see that it's been once used for spamming, however I've deleted the spam link and as far as I know the original information added by Neferkheperre is legit? This would also include the reference template {{Schilthiuzen et al., 2019}} which Neferkheperre created less than an hour before and then added as part of the "Alfie Berenyi" page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC).Reply
@Orchi: @Neferkheperre: & @Tommy Kronkvist: This company seems legitimate and offers a range of nature conservation trips. It has been in some of the news outlets recently. However, there is always the risk of spam or advertising through their links, so beware. The chances of discovering a new plant would be unlikely, but a beetle is almost a gimme, assuming they go to the right habitats! Alfie is not a trained entomologist but the son of Simon Berenyi a UK citizen scientist who joined the expedition. They have a Youtube video! Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 09:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I used information presented in article to create Alfie Berenyi's author page. I just went back to original article, and all authors in the main title are authors of the species. Almost any article can be spammed, from my several years of editing here. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Neferkheperre: Did you look at YouTube video and article from sciencedaily? The journal article does not give him the title of Dutch entomologist, but easy mistake to make. No criticism of you by the way. I just got a vague memory of reading about this in one of the UKs broadsheet newspapers and dug a little more given the query by @Orchi:. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
….thanks to all for the review. I'm always a bit skeptical, when I see a link here, that leads to a page with advertising. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Adenocalymma comosum

Esta especie figura como taxón aceptado por Catalogue, IPNI, y otros, y como un sinónimo de Adenocalymma acutissimum en Kew. ¿Cual de los dos taxones debe ponerse en Wikispecies para ajustarnos a la opciòn correcta?. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi La combinación correcta es Adenocalymma acutissimum. Ver este documento aclarando la situación. PDF. IPNI proporciona todos los impuestos legítimamente publicados. Catálogo está un poco fuera de fecha, creo. Utilice WCSP para la página. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 08:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
@MILEPRI: I have completed the changes. Andyboorman (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Reply


Observo que ha cambiado la modificación efectuada en este taxón. Le agradecería que me informe si debo aceptar, como buenos, los datos de Hassler correspondiente a la familia Boraginaceae o si debo esperar a su actualización y mientras seguir con otra familia. Saludos--MILEPRI (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC).Reply

@MILEPRI: El problema es que la circunscripción de esta familia aún no está resuelta. El uso de Hassler para Anchusa dejó a dos especies huérfanas, ya que también se podrían considerar en Lycopsis. Sin embargo, este género está en la sinonimia existente de Anchusa, por lo que tuvimos una contradicción. Esperemos que haya consenso pronto! ¡Puede ser mejor transferir su trabajo a una familia menos controvertida! Saludos--Andyboorman (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

ISSN 0097-6857

Hi Andy, I have recently created my first ISSN page (Tropical Woods) and a couple of templates (Standley, 1932 and Pilger, 1906) in Wikispecies. If you have time to check them and have any observations, corrections, etc. I would be grateful. Cheers --Cbrescia (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Cbrescia: The edits look pretty good to me. Well done! Cheers .. Andyboorman (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Andy. Best --Cbrescia (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Robiquetia ilocosnortensis

Dear Andy,
could you please contact Rafael Govaerts to clarify the following question:
The new species of 2018: Robiquetia ilocosnortensis Calaramo, Cootes & Gaspar, OrchideenJ. 25(1): 41 (2018)
gives as co-author the abbreviation Gaspar. This abbreviation is reserved for Frida C. Gaspar, an Argentinian botanist (1920-2011).
The Co-author of Robiquetia ilocosnortensis is Kristel Gaspar from the Phillipines.
You find the original description in our WS article under References following page 38ff.
Thanks for your help und best greetings. Orchi (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dear @Orchi: I have contacted the lead author, but will also email Rafael Govaerts in due course. Thanks for the heads up and best regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply thanks. Regards. Orchi (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Orchi: The changes will be implemented on IPNI soon. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Andyboorman:....many thanks for your successful efforts. You have a good name in KEW. Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)Reply


Al comenzar la edición de este taxón, observo diferencias en la aceptación de las especies que contiene. ¿Debo aceptar como buena de lista de Brassibase o debo incluir una nueva más moderna?. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@MILEPRI: Sí, pero no elimine Thrapsi s.l. - La lista más larga. Ajustaré la lista a los s.s. Según la información más reciente, ya que afecta a otros géneros. Saludos.--Andyboorman (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)Reply


Al comenzar a editar este taxón, observo diferencias de opiniones en el número de especies que contiene. ¿Debo aceptar como buena la información de Brassibase?. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@MILEPRI: Me puse en contacto con Brassibase y actualizarán la base de datos a su debido tiempo. Haré los cambios que implementarán. Aclamaciones Andyboorman (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

nepalense OOP

Thanks very much your comment on Persicaria nepal... talk-page--Penarc (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

You are very welcome and thanks. TPL was good, but has not been revised since 2012 and now is accumulating many errors. I have stopped using it preferring Hassler. Andyboorman (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Canistropsis elata

Encuentro el taxon Canistropsis elata como sinónimo de Nidularium, pero en Kew se encuentra como Unplaced Name. Me agradaría conocer el lugar donde emplazarlo. ¿Conoce si le han otorgado un lugar definitivo?. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Todo el complejo de Nidularium está en revisión. Hay puntos de vista opuestos, pero la situación no se resuelve. WCSP está adoptando una visión conservadora y, por lo tanto, WS debería hacerlo. Recomendaría no crear una página de taxones para Canistropsis hasta que la situación se haya resuelto. Saludos.-- Andyboorman (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply


Encuentro que el género Werauhia no tiene tribu anotada y no poseo información que me lo indique. ¿Tendría vd. datos sobre la tribu que tiene asignada?. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC) Done it is in Tillandsieae Andyboorman (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply


Why did you block this account? It is not a vandalism-only account. Vermont (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Vermont: I did so under a request. This account is not a contributor here so I was not aware of any history. Apologies if this an error. A crat can help further for example @Tommy Kronkvist:. Andyboorman (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
PS look at the history of contributions for the talk page Perhaps he was hacked here? Andyboorman (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
I cannot see deleted edits on this project, but I have a feeling another account, possibly with a similar username, made those edits on the talk page. Oshwah is an administrator and oversighter on the English Wikipedia, thus requiring his account be secured via 2FA. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Vermont: OK I will unblock and see what happens and if more porn or spam is place on the page a crat or independent sysop can do a trace for authenticity and origins. Does that sound like a plan? Andyboorman (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Hello. Sorry to step-in uninvited into this conversation. My advice would be to protect User talk:Oshwah from being created (autoconfirmed level would suffice IMHO) and see if that deters the vandals that harass Oshwah from vandalizing on this project. Alternatively, edit filter rules could be set, but that is a bit more complex to code. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio (☎ talk) 20:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
@MarcoAurelio: @Vermont: No problems.Good advice and done. Andyboorman (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! Vermont (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

───────────────────────── @Andyboorman, MarcoAurelio, and Vermont: Thank you guys for solving this issue. User Oshwah is indeed a well seen user since many years back, and as noted by Vermont he's been appointed sysop, interface-admin, bureaucrat and/or oversighter etc. on several of the Wikimedia wikis, including being a global sysop and rollbacker (i.e. serving on almost all wikis). Unfortunately the edit history of his Wikispecies talkpage exhibit a sad record in terms of vandalism, and it's been hit more than a dozen times in 2018 and 2019 (a total of 30 edits, including reverts). The attacks have been issued not only from IPs but also from registered accounts; several of them using the word "Oshwah" as part of their user name. The majority of the offending IPs and accounts are locally blocked from editing Wikispecies, and in addition many of them has been globally blocked by Meta-Wiki stewards (i.e. not by Oshwah). Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC).Reply

Yep; LTA's love to go to projects with smaller communities to annoy people who blocked them on larger projects, like enwiki. We get a lot of that on simplewiki. I will note, however, that Oshwah isn't a global sysop or rollbacker. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
I must have plowed through one too many a log the last few hours, causing confusion... Checking again I see that you are correct (he's a global renamer though.) Not that it really matters, since of course his talk page shouldn't have to suffer from vandalism anyway, regardless of user groups. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC).Reply


Wrong title listed

Something has gone wrong with this edit. The page claims that it links to Calypogeiaceae in "World Plants: Synonymic Checklists of the Vascular Plants of the World", but the Calypogeiaceae is not a family of vasular plants. It is a family of liverworts, and the target page says nothing about Vascular Plants. I am not sure how to correct this problem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I located the correct template after a bit of searching. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
@EncycloPetey: You are absolutely correct. {{Catol-Hassler}} is the generic search but the results should come under the citation Söderström L., Hagborg A. & von Konrat M. (eds.) (2019). ELPT: Early Land Plants Today (version Jan 2019). In: Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life, 2019 Annual Checklist (Roskov Y., Ower G., Orrell T., Nicolson D., Bailly N., Kirk P.M., Bourgoin T., DeWalt R.E., Decock W., Nieukerken E. van, Zarucchi J., Penev L., eds.) . So a new template needs creating, I suggest {{ELPT}} as its title. Easy to create I guess if you are happy with this idea. Andyboorman (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
I used the existing template {{Catol-ELPT}}. No need to create another one. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply


It is not clear to me why you protected this page, because (a) I am an admin here, and (b) protecting a page in a content dispute where you are one of the participants is generally frowned upon. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. Just feel we should not edit/revert whilst vote is on with another editor caught in the middle. Is that OK? By the way I would like VN to go - it causes to many disputes. Mind you a few new editors come onto WS via VN then hang around contributing positively. Not trying to be a pain. Andyboorman (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Likewise. I also never do anything with vernacular names because they are so varied. In my field of bryology, there are very few vernacular names in English, and most that appear in guides were coined for that guide from a translation of the Latin name. But WS is probably stuck with them. I think the question is "How do we guide usage on WS, to best coordinate with projects such as Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Wikidata, where the vernacular names will also appear? --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Agreed, but I am not an expert on cross wiki initiatives being more concerned with accepted taxa down to robust lists of species for higher plants. Of course with lots of juicy scientific references given all the current phylogenetic and morphological work that has been published in the last decade. Andyboorman (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply


Dear Andy,
I see, you have removed my test.
I had hoped, that an expert will bring the template into the old function.
IPNI has gotten a lot better with many new informations. But now no connection at all.
My test did not have the dates, but the connection was made in vain.
Can you make a working software? Thanks and best regards. Orchi (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Orchi: The template still works to produce a single connection if you add the IPNI identifier code into the template. This was optional for the old site but compulsory for the new. See Cyphocarpus where I added 5669-1 after IPNI. Otherwise we get a list of all possible combinations, which is similar to the old wide search. I guess you were wondering whether or not we can restore the old tight search without the INPI identifier, I do not think this is possible due to the way the new IPNI search works. Have a word with Franz Xaver though. Your test removed too many search functions and we could not find subfamilies or tribes for example. Hope this helps Andyboorman (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
.....that was my trick. Not to enter thousands of ID numbers by hand.
Maybe you look at the article Bobartia or Cyphocarpus once. Orchi (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Orchi: These two approaches do the same thing, but it appears #property:P961 does not allow for names above the level of genus and species. I am not sure why! Try it out yourself. Andyboorman (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Got that one wrong maybe you are onto something! Andyboorman (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I follow Y

it is good, jet--Penarc (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Penarc: Mucho mejor. Pero NADI es incorrecto. Ver Hassler para la distribución correcta. Tendrá que leer Brummit para el diseño. Andyboorman (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply


En la revision del género Valeriana de CatalogueofLife observo algunas discrepancias, como por ejemplo que Valeriana supina no es un sinónimo según me informa el compañero [Réginald alias Meneerke bloem] y además la relación de especies es incompleta porque falta la inclusión de las especies aceptadas de las últimas letras del abecedario -s-t-v-w-x-y-z-, de las cuales algunas han sido aceptadas por IPNI. Lo que comunico para su conocimiento. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)Reply


En la revisión del género Allochrusa, observo que Catalogue of Life lo considera un sinónimo e IPNI un género aceptado. Lo dejo pendiente hasta conocer su clasificación actual. Saludos--MILEPRI (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Done, but see that Allochrusa lutea is waiting transfer. Please do not redirect. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply


Please block this range. Praxidicae (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Done for WS. You need to contact a Steward if you want a cross wiki block Andyboorman (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Hi Andyboorman! I change your block to include "cannot edit own talk page". Regards, Burmeister (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks @Burmeister: forgot that tick. Andyboorman (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Community Insights Survey

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Done Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply


En la revisión de Lychnis encuentro una nota que dice que el taxón puede ser aceptado y está en espera de últimas revisiones. En CatalogueofLife figura como sinónimo de Silene. ¿Debo entender que ya ha sido revisado y es un sinónimo o debo esperar su resolución?.. Saludos. --MILEPRI (talk) 10:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

@MILEPRI: Claramente podemos colocar que Lychnis es sinónimo de Silene. Sin embargo, la situación sigue siendo ambigua y, por lo tanto, ¡no tenemos que hacerlo! Sin embargo, si lo hacemos, entonces también tendremos que considerar colocar Eudianthe, Heliosperma y posiblemente Viscaria en la misma sinonimia, como lo hace Euro + Med pero esto es aún más ambiguo ver COL y PWO. Finalmente, Lychnis no se sentará cómodamente en ninguno de los dos subgéneros en la página del taxón Silene. Buscaré más, pero no por unos días. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 11:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Silene fortunei

Efectuado el traslado de este taxón desde Silene fissipetala según indica CatalogueofLife, observo una contradicción entre este dato y la referencia de Veldkamp 2008, publicado en Taiwania 53(4): 412 [5]. Lo que le informo para su conocimiento poir si hay que hacer alguna rectificación. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Creating redirects

Desde ayer Creating redirects no funciona correctamente, ya que indica que ha efectuado el traslado pero eso no ocurre. ¿Es un problema temporal o ha sido eliminado como herramienta?. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

@MILEPRI: Echaré un vistazo más tarde y te lo haré saber. Andyboorman (talk) 09:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
@MILEPRI: Changing Line 56 in User:Rillke/createRedirects.js to "token: mw.user.tokens.get('csrfToken')," will solve the problem. Saludos. -- Andyboorman (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
OK, ya funciona. Gracias. --MILEPRI (talk) 09:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply


En la confección de este género encuentro que es aceptado como sinónimo por Govaert (1995) y válido como taxón por Christenhusz, M.J.M., Fay, M.F. & Chase, M.W. (2017). Suypongo que la última revisión de 2017 será la válida pero para evitar tener que hacer rectificaciones, le agradecería me informase si existe alguna novedad para este taxón. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Tanto Govaerts (WCSP, 2019) como Christenhusz et al. (2017) agrre este género es sinónimo de Colchicum. WS debe seguir y una página separada no está justificada. Necesita expandir especies en la página del taxón Colchicum. In my opinion. Saludos.--Andyboorman (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply


Discussion migrated to User_talk:Skalle-Per_Hedenhös.

Closed here. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

MariusBot block

You blocked MariusBot which is my tool of doing repetitive chores on WS. You did this without noticing, warning or discussing the action with me. I'm asking you to unblock my bot, and to proceed in a more communicative manner to see how we can straighten this up. Mariusm (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Mariusm: When and how did I do this? I have no recollection of any dealings with a bot in the recent past. Give me a link, please. Andyboorman (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
See [6] search for MariusBot. It was on 15:55, 7 September 2019. Mariusm (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Mariusm: Of course I am with you now. See this discussion [7]. Does the bot still do this and have these all been cleaned up? Did you miss this problem and discussion? Andyboorman (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
This bot is not "running wild". I'm fully aware of its actions. I'm removing pages from orphaned status but it takes time. In any case, I'm not using it now for mining COL articles. So please unblock this bot! Mariusm (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Mariusm: This spat could have been avoided much earlier, if you had responded in September. The Orphaned pages is still useless as a resource. I will unblock, but will not apologise for circumventing a major problem. Dealing with plant orphans was one of my regular housekeeping jobs, but no longer. Andyboorman (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
The bot has a note about blocking it, if it causes problems, which is what I did when it was! Andyboorman (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
I fully agree with this action, If a Bot creates any type of problem, it should be stopped, until the problem has been discussed, and a solution has been found. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
All the species that MariusBot has created are valid, accepted species. The problem is that the respective genera are not yet updated, resulting in multiple orphaned names. I intend to attend to this by updating the genera pages, but this will take some time. While the discussion on this was carried out, I wasn't present on WS and I didn't realize the bot was blocked until now. A notice on my talk page would have made me aware of what is going on. Anyhow, thanks for the unblock. Rest assured this bot isn't going to add more orphaned pages. Mariusm (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Mariusm: Two lessons, for me find your talk page! For you, be careful letting your bot perform, whilst you are away from WS. You have a lot of work, which will help WS no end. Good luck and best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply


Surely your redirect of Gonocarpus to Combretum is an error? You probably meant Conocarpus. And on the same subject, Haloragis micrantha should actually be Gonocarpus micranthus.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

You said it! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Michael Goodyear:. With regards to Haloraginaceae, it seems that Kew and COL have accepted the proposals in Plant Gateway's the Global Flora (2018) particularly with respect to Haloragodendron Orchard. The synonymy of Glischrocaryon and Haloragodendron has not made it into the Flora of Australia as yet. The circumscriptions in Global Flora have not always gone down well with specialists. However, I have only a passing knowledge of Haloraginaceae, so can not make an informed comment! Have you any views? -- Andyboorman (talk) 11:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. As always the plethora of sources is very confusing to most users, and it isn't helped when people involved in Plant Gateway contradict themselves in the same year. Flora do not get revised very often. I will take a closer look at the actual evidence and get back to you.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
OK. You know me well enough by now, that my approach is 1st Evidence, and 2nd Usage. Statements about the number of genera in Haloraginaceae are all over the map, ranging from 7–11. However the last formal revision (Moody and Les 2007) established 10, adding two to the preexisting 8. The only source suggesting synonymy between Haloragodendron and Glischrocaryon is the key to Haloraginaceae genera on the APWeb, and there Stevens adds a ? ("Haloragodendron Orchard ?= Glischrocaryon Endlicher). At the end of this key, three references are provided - For synonymy, see Orchard (1990), in part, Kubitzki (2006b), and Moody and Les (2007). I have checked each of these and nowhere does any synonymy appear. As far as Flora of Australia goes, as you know, each State maintains its own Flora, and in each case the genera are distinguished. Haloragodendron and Glischrocaryon are distinguishable on both morphology and molecular data, but are in a sister group relationship as the "woody clade". As far as Global Flora goes, this is the project of Byng and Christenhusz. In both their recent monographs, the genera are distinguished. I therefore conclude that the entry in POWO is an error, and it should be drawn to their attention, since there is no basis for this. I will endeavour to ensure that WP reflects this. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Addenda: Even the most recent and more extensive phylogenetic analysis by those authors (Chen et al 2014) still shows the two genera as distinct, although genera in sister relationships are often candidates for merging. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Michael Goodyear: I have added both Chen et al. (2014) and Moody and Les (2007) to the taxon page, as well as resurrecting Haloragodendron and Meionectes. It often seems that Byng and Christenhusz have just forced the issue without undertaking or reference to any more work, which seems common throughout Global Flora, I feel. They have made the necessary combinations for Glischrocaryon and Govaerts and Hassler are just following I assume. -- Andyboorman (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

───────────────────────── Great. All too often the taxonomic is a mess without any coherence! Hopefully we can do better. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)Reply


Ha aparecido el género Distimake en las convolvuláceas que surge de especies anteriomente clasificadas en Merremia. ¿Debo añadir este género a la tribu Merremieae?. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Do you want to leave this one to me? Andyboorman (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Muehlenbeckia hastulata

Herrn Boorman somebody leave a risponse i.e. that the edition of Ulelli probably does not actual become, so I write M hastulata var hastulata, if it no good please delete otherwise the vignette with Standley --Penarc (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Fagus: PWO is incorrect and read the paper I linked to on your talk page, as it clearly removes the synonymy of Hesperis novakii amd H. odorata, as noted by Brassibase. Of course I do not own WS, neither do you, but policy is clear and removing data without justification is against policy. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Please don't write me again because I don't love you. Your attitude is not nice. You say you will block me. I am the one who has made numerous contributions to wikispecies. --Fagus (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Fagus: OK, but I will pass this onto another admin to deal with, as we are tasked with dealing with policy breaches. You can not stop communications on a Wiki, except by removing yourself from it. In general your contributions are appreciated and valuable, but sometimes you do stray into OR, by not adding citations for your edits. Easily dealt with, but not by arguing. Andyboorman (talk) 08:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)Reply


Dear Andy,
I wish you all the best for the coming Christmas days.
May the new year 2020 bring us peaceful coexistence and a successful time here and everywhere.
Best regards. Orchi (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)Reply


Al comenzar la edición de Zehneria, observo que figuran las especies descritas por Wilde, & Duyfjes, (2006) and Schaefer, & Renner, (2011). Hassler en su edición de 2018 de World Plants contiene 70 especies descritas. Me gustaría conocer, antes de comenzar, si están actualizadas y puedo aceptarlas como buenas. Felices fiestas. --MILEPRI (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

  • @MILEPRI: Mirando a través de Google Scholar, ha habido cambios recientes en la sinonimia y el número de especies. Haga una verificación cruzada de Hassler con PWO si están de acuerdo y luego use la lista de especies aumentadas. Felices Fiestas. Andyboorman (talk) 09:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
OK. --MILEPRI (talk) 09:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply


En la actualización de Cupressus (según Kew), hay varios taxones que han cambiado a Hesperocyparis. El compañero MPF me solicita que detenga la actualización porque Hesperocyparis sigue siendo un sinónimo. Le agradecería su opinión sobre este taxon en disputa. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

@MILEPRI: He agregado una discusión a la Pump. Por favor contribuya no tiene que usar el inglés. Andyboorman (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

please block

please block this ip for an extended period of time, they are a persistent xwiki vandal. Praxidicae (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

The IP is globally blocked by another admin. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Broken redirects with content

I'm fixing various errors from reports and we have ~1,500 broken redirects, including many like Brassica jordanoffii that were redirected by you but still have content on them and their target is a redlink. Can you explain what's going on here? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

That one is an error now corrected. Andyboorman (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Koavf: Also have a look at the Orphans Special pages. In most cases I have not got round to turning red link species blue, as I am ploughing through red linked genera. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
BTW In many cases the circumscription is still unclear! Bignonia flava could be Adenocalymma neoflavidum or Adenocalymma validum. Andyboorman (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
For sure, there's a lot to do. Take a look at my contribs and logs to see all the maintenance I've been up to. So many things where someone has blanked a page or made something with no content, no links, etc. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Maytenus macrocarpa

Hi Andy, Receive my regards. I wanted to create the page for the species Maytenus macrocarpa. A couple of days ago I uploaded some pictures at Commons for the species (see link). It is a very used medicinal plant in Peru known as Chuchuwasi and many researchers still use the scientific name Maytenus macrocarpa as it is shown in Google Scholar. In Wikispecies it already exists but with a redirection to Monteverdia macrocarpa. Maytenus macrocarpa figures as an accepted species in Kew and TPL, and Wikidata has the genus Maytenus but no Monteverdia. According to Biral et al. in 2017, 213 species of Maytenus passed to Monteverdia. I wanted to double check with you my plan:

  1. Create the item for the genus Monteverdia in Wikidata,
  2. Create a redirection of the category for Maytenus macrocarpa I created in Commons, and
  3. Create the species in ESWIKI.

What do you think? Cheers and thanks, --Cbrescia (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Cbrescia: It now seems that Kew are on their own. I would ignore TPLF, as it has not been updated for a number of years and it appears that PWO is now its updated version. See also here Tropicos, which also follows Biral et al. (2017). In addition, since 2017 Monteverdia figures prominently in Scholar for South American Celastraceae. Therefore, I would support your plan wholeheartedly. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Excellent, thanks and best wishes, --Cbrescia (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Acis orientalis

Hi, I'm replying here because RLJ understand the issues. The situation is this:

  1. Leucojum ionicum Kit Tan, Mullaj, Sfikas & Strid (2004) was the first published name.
  2. Acis ionica Bareka, Kamari & Phitos (2006) followed, based on a different type, and with an opinion that it was a different species.
  3. Leucojum ionicum Kit Tan, Mullaj, Sfikas & Strid (2004) needs to be transferred to Acis, as all Leucojum names have been. In Strid's view, it can't be transferred using the epithet ionicum because this would produce a homonym of Acis ionica Bareka, Kamari & Phitos (2006), which is where Art. 53.1 comes in.
  4. So a nomen novum (=replacement name) is needed. Strid explicitly published Acis orientalis Strid (2019) as a nomen novum – see the bottom of the second column of p. 79. Art. 41.5 applies to the publication of replacement names. The relevant part says "a ... replacement name is not validly published unless its basionym or replaced synonym is clearly indicated and a full and direct reference given to its author and place of valid publication, with page or plate reference and date". Strid did not give a page number. Art. 41.6 says "errors in the citation of the ... replaced synonym, including incorrect author citation (Art. 46), but not omissions (Art. 41.5), do not preclude valid publication of a new combination, name at new rank, or replacement name." So the implication could be that Strid's omission of the page number invalidates the publication. However, I queried this with IPNI staff and got rapid e-mail replies which, in summary, say that because Strid gave a page range in the references which encompasses the whole of the protologue, Art. 41.5 Note 1 applies: "For the purpose of Art. 41.5, a page reference (for publications with a consecutive pagination) is a reference to the page or pages on which the basionym or replaced synonym was validly published or on which the protologue appears, but not to the pagination of the whole publication unless it is coextensive with that of the protologue." In this case the pagination of the whole publication is coextensive with the protologue.

Interpreting the ICNafp is a task for the experts – except that they don't always agree! Peter coxhead (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Peter coxhead: Thank you for the information and clear explanation. I assume that @RLJ: is correct. I feel that Strid should be contacted in order that he can correct his error. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Andyboorman: I cc'd Strid in e-mails to IPNI and WCSP. I don't think he accepts WCSP's interpretation of the ICNafp. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much again for asking! Together with the wide definition of "protologue" in the glossary this is acceptable and the name is correct. Certainly a pragmatic way to handle this. I think basionyms should better be referenced by single pages to prevent confusion.
WCSP currently accepts Acis ionica and regards Acis orientalis as superfluous name, although the heterotypic Leucojum ionicum has priority. With Acis orientalis being valid, I think the treatment in WCSP is currently not correct, the accepted name should be Acis orientalis, and the WS article should follow. By the way, Leucojum ionicum was published at the time when Flora Hellenica Committee dissolved. The Copenhagen group published Leucojum ionicum, the Patras group Acis ionica. --RLJ (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@RLJ: there's no dispute about Leucojum ionicum having priority. The issue is what to do when it's transferred to Acis. I think that – very unfortunately – Art. 11.4 is clear. The order in which to chose the epithet for the transferred species is: (1) the epithet of the basionym so long as this does not create a homonym, which here it does; (2) the epithet of the next validly published name for the same species, which here happens to be the same, namely "ionica" from Acis ionica. So there's no need for (3) create a replacement name.
It's unfortunate because it's confusing, and because (in my view) Bareka, Kamari & Phitos (2006) were wrong to use the same epithet in Acis as had already been used in Leucojum for what they claimed was a different species. But I am convinced that it's the correct interpretation of the ICNafp. Not that it matters what I think; what matters (certainly in the English Wikipedia) is the this view has a secondary reliable source, namely WCSP. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much for communicating with Govaerts and Strid. I think Examples 14 and 17 of Art. 11.4. illustrate the issue. Certainly Bareka et al. should have used another name. -RLJ (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Peter coxhead: & @RLJ: An interesting discussion, but I am not a trained taxonomist. It would be better for WS to stick with Acis ionica until Strid, IPNI and WCSP get back to Peter. Andyboorman (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Certainly --RLJ (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

───────────────────────── Just to conclude this, the conclusion of the taxonomic experts is to agree that:

  1. a transfer of Leucojum ionicum {{author|Kit Tan, Mullaj, Sfikas & Strid}} to Acis as "Acis ionica (Kit Tan, Mullaj, Sfikas & Strid) X" (where X is the transferring author) would create a later homonym of Acis ionica Bareka, Kamari & Phitos and so would be illegitimate
  2. a nomen novum for Leucojum ionicum {{author|Kit Tan, Mullaj, Sfikas & Strid}} in Acis is superfluous and therefore illegitimate since there is another synonymous name already available in that genus, namely Acis ionica Bareka, Kamari & Phitos, and this must be used; a nomen novum is allowed if and only if no name considered to belong to the same taxon is available.

What this means is that if, say, Smith publishes the name Alpha gamma, and Jones later realizes that this species needs to be transferred to Beta, by publishing Beta gamma as a different species, based on some slight differences, Jones effectively expunges Smith's authorship in relation to the taxon when it's later agreed that it isn't a different species. So I agree that Bareka et al. should have used another name, and I'm not the only one who is unhappy at the situation. However, it seems within to be within the ICNafp according to the experts. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply


I agree with you. not enough information. --Fagus (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Fagus: Thanks they are gone! Andyboorman (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is true. I thought. but I didn't want to waste much time. I usually prefer & al. (Erst & al. 2017) --Fagus (talk) 11:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply


  • your opinion, I respect. but I don't think so. I think resources are always necessary.Tomorrow one day the links may break, but resources are always permanent. --Fagus (talk) 08:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • @Fagus: Sorry I do not really understand your reasoning, but respect your choices. To me, as an academic, a reference list contains information required to make the taxon page, not just an impressive, but somewhat baffling, list of all sources about a taxon - where do you stop? As a taxonomist the most important is the Primary Reference - the protologue, even if its not available to read as a link, which it often is! Andyboorman (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Vote on Taxonbar

Hi, Following the discussion about the use of template Taxonbar in Wikispecies articles, I now propose a vote. Please feel free to leave your opinion. Cheers, --Caftaric (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Lachemilla vs. Alchemilla

Hi Andy! I am referring to this edit. In my eyes, the paper of Chen et al. (2020) is not very convincing. Having had a look into the supplementary material (material list and GenBank accessions), they did not include any of the African taxa in their study, which brought Gehrke et al. (2008) to the conclusio, that Alchemilla should better be circumscribed in a wide sense – see DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2008.03.004. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Franz Xaver:. There are many other botanists who prefer the segregates published since Gehrke et al. (2008) I only added Chen et al. (2020) as the most recent. When I have a little more time I will add a sample to the Fragariinae page as well as Gehrke et al.. It seems another series of taxonomic opinions and this whole family is still full of them! Regards Andyboorman (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Changes to style

You mentioned me on the community portal. My opinion is clear. Yes there is support. I'm not doing any changes to the style anyway. I forgot to remove the post on the user page. I forgot to remove the tag on my user page. thanks for reminding me. --Fagus (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Fagus: Keep an eye open for a vote. Hopefully you will get a bot soon. Andyboorman (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply


Hi Andyboorman,

I saw that you worked on the Ranunculus genus. Are you done? And this is the newest and most correct species list? I ask because I'm working on the Ranunculus genus in the huwiki, and I looked on several wikipedias and refrences, but I saw that there are many diffrences ammong them. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 08:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@DenesFeri: The genus is more or less done, but there are a very few species still to double check. I cross checked across a number of sources, which left a handful of unresolved where there were differences in acceptance. This was one case where the Plant List was pretty hopeless. I used PWO and COL mainly as it was easier to copy and paste into Office and do a compare then format. I probably will do a revisit with local flora to hand. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

OK, thank you! I will watch your work from time to time. Cheers and good job. DenesFeri (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@DenesFeri: The main unresolved problem is the acceptance or not of Ficaria see Ficaria verna. I will need to add notes I guess. Good luck and thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

template GBIF

Dear Andy, could you please change the form of the "template:GBIF" to the form like "template:IPNI" with text [Global Biodiversity Information Facility] and date e.g. [accessed on 30 June 2020]? Thanks and best greetinga. Orchi (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Orchi: I will give it a go. Andyboorman (talk) 08:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
One problem is that the date of access is compulsory unlike template:GRIN. Without this there does not seem to be a default. Need to think about about this. Andyboorman (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
...thanks. Orchi (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply


Comienzo a revisar las fabáceas y observo que en el año 2017 eliminó la tribu Caesalpinieae. Se ruego me indique si sigue la anulación o debo incluirla en el taxón. Saludos. --MILEPRI (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@MILEPRI: Eres solo parcialmente correcto. El Grupo de Filogenia de Leguminosas (2017) solo se ocupó de la clasificación hasta el nivel de subfamilia de Fabaceae Lind., Nom. cons./Leguminosar Juss., nom. contras. et nom. alt .. Por lo tanto, la clasificación tribal sigue siendo relevante mientras se realizan más investigaciones. Por lo tanto, todas las tribus DEBEN mantenerse como se muestra en las páginas de taxones. He agregado el sitio web de filogenia angiosperma a las referencias, lo que explica el estado actual del juego. Hope the Spanish is understandable. Saludos. --Andyboorman (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
OK. Gracias.--MILEPRI (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply


Hi. I saw you blocked Special:Contributions/JavaHurricane - they are an established global user that said they were reverting some vandalism. Was JavaHurricane the intended block target? --DannyS712 (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry now unblocked. My mistake. Andyboorman (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
No problems! Thanks! JavaHurricane (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply


You deleted {{LOWOgen}}. But please could you give me LOWO URL so I can finish the job, see (plus Annea, Acrocarpus and Hymenostegia) --Estopedist1 (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Estopedist1: Sorry the URL is now dead, as the site no longer exists and there is no replacement. This is the reason I deleted it. Andyboorman (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Estopedist1: Did an undelete and got if this helps Andyboorman (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
  Done thanks for the URL. Quite challenged task but succesfully finished :)--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Translation help

Dear Andy,
can you help me in understanding your language?
Did I say the wrong in English here?: [8]
I wanted to say a very positive comment. (Dan Koehl said "thanks" to me)
Or did I not understand the comment of Hector Bottai? Regard. Orchi (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC) @Orchi: Your comments were fair and accurate and supported by Hector Bottai. It is a real shame for Dan and I will strongly resist any attempt by editors from svwiki to try and get a block here. It was bad enough what they did on WD.Reply

....many thanks, Andy, I think, I translated wrong the word "cannot". (In my next life I will learn more English). Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Eidit or unlock? (Third attempt. Suggestion in link.)--Rosičák (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Rosičák: I have changed the protection level for you and other trusted editors. Let me know if there is a problem. Andyboorman (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Done-thanks--Rosičák (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Rosičák: OK I will leave the protection level as it is for now, but if you spot a problem let me know. Andyboorman (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Unused template

Hello Andyboorman, do you still want to use {{McNeal & Bennett}} for trial or can this be deleted now? Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Done Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply


Why was this template deleted exactly? It was definitely being used in Wikispecies:Village Pump for instance (as well as 54 other pages at least), so it's strange that you deleted it as "Test Page or Nonsense". Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Monster Iestyn: Notes indicate it is bust see Edit History, but restored if any use. Andyboorman (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply


Dear Andy, I'll change this genus, as you showed. (Masdevallia later with help of a bot?). Regards. Orchi (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Orchi: no problem. I can do it with AutoWikiBrowser very easily. Just let me know if such kind of tasks are needed.--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply


I note that the genera included in this subfamily still figure in the Caesalpinieae tribe. Is it correct or should I change them to Tachigalieae. Regards.--MILEPRI (talk) 07:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

En realidad, es difícil, así que vete por ahora. Lo siento. Andyboorman (talk) 07:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply


The genus Maniltoa of Fabaceae is listed as a synonym for Cynometra in POWO but is still listed as accepted in wikispecies, CatalogueofLife and commons. Is there any current information that clarifies its taxonomic situation? Regards.--MILEPRI (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@MILEPRI: Got a 2019 reference that I am writing a template for at the moment. I will add to Cynometra in ten minutes, it supports PWO. Cheers. Andyboorman (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@MILEPRI: I have read the paper and to be honest it will need major corrections. Apparently Animalia, Fabales, Fabaceae is a legitimate circumscription. Not good and PWO does not seem to use the paper anyway, but I have placed it onto the taxon page. M. scheffera is a typo and is deleted Cynometra grandilfora needs a page. However, there is a major problem as PWO has no synonyms for many Maniltoa species and WS was very short of species, but have a good look through the paper and IPNI. It a mess and possibly a page for Maniltoa should remain until this is sorted? Andyboorman (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
I had made the same decision to leave Maniltoa unchanged in commons until a clarifying answer eventually appears. Thanks for your attention.--MILEPRI (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Another major problem is his exclusion of East African species of Cynometra without giving them a home creating Radosavljevic orphans e.g Cynometra alexandri. Just because something is published in a paper does not mean it is gospel or even good science. I will leave it for a bit and go back to Maniltoa to accommodate the PWO orphans, if nothing changes. Whoever said "one plant one name" was a dreamer! Andyboorman (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

One good user to the admin

Admins nominate new possible admins. I suggest that user:Monster Iestyn should be an admin in WS. If you agree, the template can be copied here: User_talk:RLJ#Admin??--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Estopedist1: I will have a look and take soundings. Thanks for the suggestion. Andyboorman (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
just mention that, at first, we have to be sure, that user:Monster Iestyn is interested in. My experiences from other Wikiprojects shows that many good candidates are not interested at all due to various reasons--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply


In the update of Boraginaceae I find unclassified genera in WS. When searching for information, the subtribe Amsinckiinae appears that contains some of them. I would appreciate it if you could inform me if it has been accepted or if the new genders should be included in the tribe Cynoglosseae. Saludos.

@MILEPRI: WS no ha incorporado la nueva circunscripción de sub-tribu. Se acepta así que adelante y crea las páginas. Mantendré un ojo amistoso en su trabajo y agregaré referencias adicionales si es necesario. Eso está bien, por supuesto. ¡Buena suerte y adelante! Andyboorman (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
This is a good paper Simpson et al., (2017) PDF Andyboorman (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Abrus pulchellus

This species appears in PWO as a synonym (but does not indicate which one it refers to), in the Catalog of Life according to ILDIS, it refers to this species as accepted. I have left its preparation on hold until I have specific information about it.--MILEPRI (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

{@MILEPRI: Eche un vistazo a esta página Abrus melanospermus. Si se acepta Harder, será correcto. COL e ILDIS se equivocan sin conservación. Abrus pulchellus se usa con más frecuencia, pero en mi opinión es taxonómicamente incorrecto. Espero que esto ayude Saludos Andyboorman (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Return to the user page of "Andyboorman/Archive 5".