User talk:Andyboorman/Archive 6

Latest comment: 5 months ago by Andyboorman in topic Indef IP block

Borkhausenia (Maleae)

Hi Andy and @Fagus: - it turns out Borkhausenia Sennikov & Kurtto is invalid, as it is a later 'near-homonym' of Borckhausenia Roth (1800). The new replacement name is Scandosorbus Sennikov: Ann. Bot. Fennici 55 (4-6): 321-323 (2018) - MPF (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@MPF: Thanks for the info. Andyboorman (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply


A pesar de la protección que ha efectuado, estan vandalizando Template:Nadi. Ya lo he borrado. Saludos--MILEPRI (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@MILEPRI: He bloqueado al editor durante un mes. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Lotononis listii

Encuentro en commons la especie Lotononis listii que es aceptada por GRIN, Catalogue y Tropicos y no figura como aceptada en POWO e IPNI. ¿Tiene alguna referencia que aclare si es aceptada o un sinónimo? Saludos--MILEPRI (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@MILEPRI: |It is likely to be a synonym of Listia heterophylla according to Boatwright. Andyboorman (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Which is the type species of Listia by the way. Andyboorman (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)Reply


Dear Andy, please have a look here: User: Thanks and greetings. Orchi (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Inula and others

I will add all later. Thank you. Fagus (talk) 09:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply


Dear Andy,
I would like to wish you all the best for the new year 2021.
May the new year generally bring us more normality again.
I hope, we continue to enjoy our activities in the various Wikipedia areas.
Best regards. Orchi (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

A vandal on the loose

There's a vandal by the name of DaveTheBarbarian2, who kept vandalizing the Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens sapiens pages by posting in a penis image, which is both disturbing and sickening. He should be banned from this site. PerxerDan98 (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Done Thanks for the alert. Andyboorman (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply


Le agradecería mi indicase si el género Chamaecytisus ha sido aceptado o es un sinónimo de Cytisus. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@MILEPRI: Los dos géneros pueden o no ser sinónimos. Hay poca evidencia definitiva, pero algunos estudios sugieren una sinonimia. Por el momento es una opinión taxonómica. Hassler/Col y Euro+Med PlantBase dice que sí, PWO apoya la separación. A la política de WS no le gusta tomar partido, así que si desea crear una página para Chamaecytisus, puedo ayudarlo. Saludos... Andyboorman (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Andyboorman:. Crearé el taxon Chamaecytisus con una nota indicando que Chamaecytisus lo consideran un sinónimo Hassler/Col y Euro+Med PlantBase. Las especies ya figuran como pertenecientes a Cytisus y las dejaré como están hasta que haya un acuedo para su ubicación. Gracias por su ayuda. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
@MILEPRI: Great that is exactly what I would do. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply


He llegado al género Halimodendron que figura como sinónimo en POWO y como aceptado en Catalogue of Life. Le agradecería me indicase que opción es la aceptada. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@MILEPRI: As for Chamaecytisus. Saludos.--Andyboorman (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply


The edit you recently reverted for Rustia was an article describing two new species of cicadas. Is there another Rustia to be considered. Neferkheperre (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Neferkheperre: Yes the page reverted is a plant. There is a red link cicada page which needs creating first.Andyboorman (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Okay, a bit pre-occupied today. I shall adjust. Neferkheperre (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ottleya o Acmispon

I have serious doubts about the acceptance of the genus Ottleya as a taxon, since although POWO and Hassler recognize it, in the pages of their species it has been included as a reference to Brouillet who in 2008 included them in Acmispon . Since you have included this reference, please tell me if the authorship has been modified and it is considered a synonym or is still pending acceptance. Saludos. --MILEPRI (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

No there is no consensus. The Legume Phylogeny Working Group (2013) keep them separate. I will get back to you in more detail. Meanwhile the pages for the two genera are unacceptable and are taking sides in a taxonomic opinion. We are not allowed to do this on WS, as it comes under the heading of original research. Andyboorman (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
{@MILEPRI: Phylogenetically the two genera are probably synonymous with Acmispon having precedence. That is why PWO and Hassler transfer most of the species. However, the 10 left in Ottleya seem to have problem with their taxonomy, which I had not picked up and so might have created the relevant pages in Acmispon in error. The best I can do for now, sorry its a mess! Andyboorman (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Genus Dracula

Dear Andy, could you please ask Rafael to check the name here: [1].
In the book Thesaurus Dracularum this species is only designated with one "o" as Dracula navarrorum.
Thanks and best regards. Orchi (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Dear @Orchi: I will contact Rafael and let you know. Stay safe and best regards Andyboorman (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
....thanks and greetings. Orchi (talk) 08:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Orchi: The correct name is Dracula navarroorum. The species epithet is composed of surname for the discoverers (M. & F.) Navarro plus -orum an ending which by convention acknowledges their contribution. Govaerts confirms this and if IPNI does nor change their entry in the near future I will contact them. All the best Andyboorman (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Dear Andy, many thanks for your effort. I will update the name (in my book also) and will built a redirect for MBG and others. Regards. Orchi (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply


I already know this, but why are you writing this to me. I could not understand. generally, I use wcsp if available. I didn't use wcsp and wpo together.--Fagus (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Fagus: I was doing a few small edits to Picea and noticed that WCSP has been replaced by PWO and through the Edit History assumed it was you. Apologies if this was not the case. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Pinus brutia subsp. eldarica

Hi Andy - those latest two refs are just clones of each other: why add both, other than just to try to prove a point that I'm always wrong and Farjon is God? What is their cited justification for reduction to varietal rank against the botanical evidence? Or is it just Farjon's personal prejudice and abuse of Kew's authority against others such as Businsky, who dare to disagree with him and maintain subspecies rank for it based on evidence? If they don't give their reasons for their choice of rank (which I can't see they do), I'm not sure they're valid references, just lists.

From the following (from Christensen 1987 Nordic J. Bot. 7: 384, based on Du Rietz 1930 and Rothmaler 1944), eldarica clearly fits in subspecies rank (clearly differing in both cone and foliage morphology), while pityusa and stankewickzii both fit varietal rank best (barely distinguishable in the field from nominate brutia, though distinct in genetic analysis and disjunct distribution).

  • Forma of a variety, subspecies or species occurs sporadically within the distribution area of the taxon of higher rank to which it is referred and differs from that taxon in a single character.
  • Varietas of a subspecies or species is to some extent allopatric and forms local, distinct populations as well as mixed, integrating populations within the distribution area of the subspecies or species. They differ from each other in usually more than a single, distinct character.
  • Subspecies of a species are both regionally and locally ±allopatric. They differ from each other in several, distinct characters, but intergrade in overlapping areas.
  • Species of a genus differ from each other in numerous, distinct characters and have a characteristic distribution area of their own. Where closely related species meet occasional hybridization and introgression may occur.

MPF (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

  • Hi @MPF:. Hassler and Govaerts (WCSP) are not clones, as they often differ in circumscriptions and use different approaches to compilation, but fair point in this case and I have removed Hassler. Farjon (2010) is not a deity, just the most comprehensive series of volumes and used book. WCSP nearly always lists a few sources, but of course one of these is often Farjon when it comes to conifers, as well as local flora. Their database is most definitely not based upon secondary sources, such as books and flora but copious academic papers. Kew scientists will be very familiar with your definitions above, as I am. EMD probably has the best approach treating the species in its broadest sense! This is a relatively minor example of differences in circumscription, but WS can not take sides and editors must not favour one taxonomic opinion over another, as this would be original research. I always add a note and make sure that I add a balance of sources.
  • The subspecies is not in IPNI, by the way, but they will correct this if you email them and they are happy with the protologue in relation to ICN.
Hi Andy - thanks! Sending a fuller reply via email later - MPF (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hi @MPF: I will look forward to reading it. - Andyboorman (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply


I have doubts for the update of this taxon, since for POWO it is a synonym and for wikispecies or Hassler it is an accepted taxon. As I do not have current references on the genre, I do not think I should venture into its preparation. Would you have any current information on the location of this genus? Saludos--MILEPRI (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@MILEPRI: It can be readily found as a synonym of Rebutia, but there is some doubt whether Aylostera, Digitorebutia, Cylindrorebutia and Weingartia should be completely separated or stay as sections or subgenera. It is the classic lumping or splitting debate. However, if you accept Weingartia as a distinct genus then you must also accept Aylostera. Therefore it is a taxonomic opinion not a mistake to take one view over another. I have nothing later than Hernández-Ledesma et al. (2015). However, looking at the page for Rebutia it is far too dogmatic for a WS page. Andyboorman (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
BTW @MILEPRI: the taxon pages are a complete mess. The primary source (Mosti et al. 2011) analysed many combinations which now turn out to be synonyms (Hassler, 2021), which of course calls in question their conclusions. In my understanding their analysis could be seen to be biased to polyphyly, as you keep adding the same "weights" to the scales unbalancing it (does this analogy make sense?). No wonder PWO maintains Rubetia s.l., as Kew look unfavourably on flawed science. To be fair Mosti et al. may not have realised that many so called species of Aylostera are actually horticultural combinations and not found growing in the wild. In addition, local flora use Rebutia comprising of only 9 species, but PWO 29, but Aylostera is most definitely not accepted and its species spread over a number of other genera. A different circumscription again, no wonder PWO goes for sensu lato. My advice is if PWO and Hassler agree then edit, if not avoid!!!! Andyboorman (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
OK. I will wait for an agreement for this taxon before editing it. I already observed that (Mosti et al. 2011) in POWO synonized this genus but that Hassler in World Plants changed the species back to "Aylostera". Saludos.


Dear Andy,
....this is in Wikispecies my edit 100000. I say: Thank you for the good cooperation over many years.
Best regards. Orchi (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Dear @Orchi: A milestone indeed! Likewise cooperation appreciated and indeed Orchid pages go from strength to strength. Ten years nearly for our cooperation as well. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hort. Dorpat.

Hi Andy! Seems that I should already know the answer to this—but I don't, so I ask you. Do you know what "Hort. Dorpat." means, in for example Cnicus pseudobenedictus Hort. Dorpat. ex Asch. (synonym of Centaurea benedicta). I've also seen it stylized as "Hort. Dorp." As far as I know it's not an author abbreviation, but I haven't been able to find any translation/explanation of what it actually means. Then again, I'm not a botanist. :-) Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC).Reply

Hi @Tommy Kronkvist:. I am not 100% sure but it appears to be a reference to lists of specimens, seeds and plants indexed by the University of Tartu Botanical Gardens, which used to be called Horti Dorpatensis in Latin. Dorpat was an older name for Tartu, Estonia. Therefore, Cnicus pseudobenedictus Hort. Dorpat. ex Asch., Index Seminum [Berlin] 5 (1861) probably refers to a specimen from Horti Dorpatensis retrieved by Paul Ascherson and then described in Index Seminum in Horti Botanici Berolinensis, as part of their updates for 1861. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, that helps a lot! Coming to think of it the name Dorpat is quite familiar to me, since Tartu and a big chunk of the Baltics (known as Swedish Livonia) used to be under Swedish rule. Actually, when established back in 1632 the University of Tartu was the second university ever founded in the Swedish Empire (after Uppsala University, est. 1477 in my present home town). But enough with the history lectures... :-) Thanks again, and happy editing. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC).Reply
Glad I can help. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Suggestions for Wikispecies dictionary

Hello again. I see that you've been editing Wikispecies:Glossary now and then. That's good, since our glossary page is otherwise often somewhat forgotten and left in the backwaters, so to speak. I wonder if you might consider adding the word chresonym to it, preferably together with the related terms heterochresonym and orthochresonym (redirected in the same way as for example "floruit"). The word is currently only mentioned on nine of our taxon pages, but in seven of those it's used as a paragraph heading so I think it might be worthwhile to add it to the glossary. See for example Ameivula abalosi and the rather badly formatted "Chresonyms section" on Cyamon vickersii.

I suppose I could make the necessary edits myself, but quite frankly I'm not entirely sure I fully grasp the concept of "chresonymy" versus synonymy. If you're up to it you can use the Wikipedia page about Chresonyms as a starting point. And if you don't want to do it, that is of course okay too. :-) Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC).Reply

@Tommy Kronkvist:. OK I will havew a good look later. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 11:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Tommy Kronkvist:. I have made a first attempt for chresonym and chresonymy. Thoughts please. Andyboorman (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Looks good to me – it's a glossary after all, not an encyclopedia. I've added affinis, btw. Please make any corrections you may see fit. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC).Reply
@Tommy Kronkvist: I was wondering whether or not to add the often used examples for heterochresonym and orthochresonym. What do you think? Andyboorman (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

───────────────────────── If by that you mean the examples given at Wikipedia then yes, if it's possible to keep them short enough for the glossary. Otherwise it may be better to simply make links from the Wikispecies glossary items to the corresponding examples on the Wikipedia Chresonym page, i.e. [[Wikipedia-link|Example at Wikipedia]] where we replace "Wikipedia-link" with w:Chresonym#Example (heterochresonymy) and w:Chresonym#Example (orthochresonymy), respectively. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC).Reply


Encuentro la tribu Ingeae que se incluye en wikispecies en la subfamilia Mimosoideae que aparece como sinónimo de Caesalpinioideae y en esta subfamilia esta tribu no está incluida. Supongo que hay un error que deja todos los géneros de esta tribu huérfanos de categoría. Le agradecería su consejo. Gracias.--MILEPRI (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@MILEPRI: No, todos los géneros no son huérfanos, pero se encuentran en el clado mimisoide en la página Caesalpinioideae. En estos momentos se están desmantelando Ingeae y formalizando el clado mimisoide ¿Podrías dejar las cosas como están por unas semanas? Gracias y un saludo. Andyboorman (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
OK.--MILEPRI (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply


This has unbalanced italics. Perhaps you;d like to suggest where the missing closing for the italics should be so it's more obvious?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@ShakespeareFan00: No need for italics in the name section. Thanks for pointing out the lack of balance, my original error. Andyboorman (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply


I find the genus Cyrtandromoea that is accepted by POWO & Hassler, where it appears as a family of Gesneriaceae, while in wikispecies only appears Cyrtandromoea (not yet made) within the family Phrymaceae. It may be a homonym but the problem I find is that on wikipedia it appears in the family Scrophulariaceae. ¿?. Saludos.

Hi @MILEPRI:. It is now most definitely in Phrymaceae, see Luna et al. 2019 on the taxon page. Both INPI and POWO will be updating in a few days. They both have been slow to update due to Covid, furlough and staff moving on. The genus has bounced around different families for a number of years, but settling in Phrymaceae is now accepted. I was intending to create the page once IPNI and POWO have updated, which the curators have assured me will happen during their next cyclical update. Saludos. Andyboorman (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply


I'm editing the Bryophyta with the Catol-Hassler template. There is a Catalog of Life template for this Phylum?. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)--MILEPRI (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@MILEPRI: Is {{Catol-WorldFerns}} any use? Probably not. Andyboorman (talk) 11:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Acer orthocampestre

Hi Andy - any idea if this has been generally accepted or not? In Turkish J. Bot. 2014 (free access). Should it be added here? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@MPF: Sure is accepted by both Plants of the World and Hassler at least and so should be added to WS. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! I'll add it later tonight if I've got the time - MPF (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@MPF: I notice that the species list is short of a few more combinations, but it seems to depend on the source. Good luck! Andyboorman (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
The species list for Acer? That wouldn't be surprising! But more difficult, on looking at Acer campestre, there is Acer campestre subsp. leiocarpum, based on Acer leiocarpum Opiz, which, if it is (as suggested by the Flora of Turkey ref.) from the same general area as the new Acer orthocampestre, would presumably be an older name from the same taxon. Thoughts? - MPF (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@MPF:. I also saw the report placing Acer orthocampestre in synonymy with Acer campestre subsp. leiocarpum and given the amount of natural variability in A. campestre it seems reasonable. However, I am not sure that having numerous infraspecific names under the species is the way to go and I do not think that a regional population or a minor appearance in leaf shape is a particularly good justification, as it seen in Acer campestre subsp. leiocarpum. Die Varietäten der Gattung Acer seems very over the top! Andyboorman (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! The paper seems to suggest it is a cryptic species that can only be distinguished genetically, so the amount of morphological variation / overlap wouldn't be relevant. But synonymy with A. leiocarpum Opiz will depend on where Opiz described it from; unfortunately he doesn't say in the protologue . . . MPF (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@MPF: Typical Unplaced Species? I am not specialised in genetics to be able to suggest that the distinguishability is enough to warrant species segregation. I do not know where the genetic variability occurs, for example and how significant it is in relation to the breeding system. Neither do I know if the overall genetic differences in Acer campestre in the trees down our lane in Essex, England is significant compared to that found in A. campestre/A. orthocampestre occurring in the degraded Euxine-Colchic broadleaf forests 2600/2700 km from here. I was going to suggest leaving it red linked pending further evidence or even delete as out of scope. but @Fagus: has stepped in. Both Hassler and PWO could be wrong - rare but not unknown! Andyboorman (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
I'd decided not to add it, until we have any harder info as to where Opiz's name was described from and whether it applies to the same taxon or not. But now that Fagus has added it . . . perhaps he can comment on the question? Might be worth asking Hassler / PWO if any lectotype location has been selected for it. There are though plenty of other taxon pairs showing deep genetic divides between the western and eastern Mediterranean, so this one is very plausible on phytogeographic grounds. - MPF (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply


Observo que mantiene este género en activo. Según los datos de CACO es un sinónimo de Sclerocactus aquí--MILEPRI (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@MILEPRI: PWO también está de acuerdo con la sinonimia. La especie y sus subespecies deberán moverse antes de que pueda realizar la redirección para Echinomastus. Puedo hacer esto más tarde si lo desea. Saludos... Andyboorman (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply


There is something I do not understand in this genre. For example: Mammillaria salmiana that appears as not accepted in Cacti, and yet, when accessing the page, it appears as accepted. I think there is another list of species of this genus that has yet to be accepted as being included in the genus. I could, if it is not too much to ask you, check this fact and add the unresolved species to the end of the accepted list of Mammillaria. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have added list to genre. Check them to see if their inclusion is correct. Saludos--MILEPRI (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
@MILEPRI: Personally I would have avoided creating pages for taxa on the unresolved list, that is list 3 on CACO. They are unresolved for many possible reasons, for example possible; homonyms, illegal combinations, unresolved synonyms, superfluous names, names from horticulture, and so on. This is historically a difficult genus and I have been concentrating only on the CACO currently accepted species on the left here, as this list is relevant to the scientific and taxonomic work published in the last few years. I would not have created your two lists at the moment. I am trying to tidy up the the subgenera/sections/subsections, which are also a bit of a mess with at least one needing to be redirected in its entirety. Andyboorman (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
I just saw your reply and I regret that I had already included the unsolved species lists. I hope they are not a problem, since I have put them below as species pending to be solved. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
@MILEPRI: Generalmente, los taxones no resueltos o no colocados están fuera del alcance del proyecto. Aunque, si los científicos están trabajando activamente en un txaon, entonces pueden permitirlo, ¡así que podemos perdonar sus adiciones! Comb. ined., híbridos artificiales y nombres de hortalizas no están permitidos en absoluto, como nombres de páginas de taxón. Espero que esto ayude. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply


Dear Andy,
I wish you a Merry Christmas.
Let us hope and wish, that the new year 2022 brings us all a lot of good things.
Best regards for you. Orchi (talk) 17:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply


Hi Andyboorman, you created a redirected page to Tradescantia for the entry Zebrina. However Zebrina is also a mollusk genus... So, I think, this redirected page is not totally correct... Have a nice day and a wonderful 2022 Year  :-) Givet (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Givet and Andy Boorman. For some helpful links at Wikidata, please use Q87172676 (plants genus) and Q3007158 (mollusks). Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC).Reply
OK a disambiguation page is required. Thanks and happy new year both. Andyboorman (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Zebrina   Done Andyboorman (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Givet: & @Tommy Kronkvist: Sorry forgot pings! Andyboorman (talk) 11:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks to both of you. Andyboorman, it is perfect now  :-) King regards Givet (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

How we will see unregistered users


You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


I am in this genus of Icacinaceae and I observe a difference in the number of species between World Plants and POWO, since the latter includes species from South Asia and in World only from America. I suspect that this is the correct version, but I do not have exact references to confirm it. I hope you can help me, as always. Greetings.--MILEPRI (talk) 10:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello @MILEPRI:. Thanks for the formation. There seems to have been some recent changes in this family and other near relatives. I will look into it later. Cheers - Andyboorman (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hi Again. The differences are the result of a taxonomic opinion associated with the genus Nothapodytes. This genus is native to south-east Asia and is accepted by World Plants, whereas POWO prefer to see it as part of a wider Mappia, which is south American in distribution. I can find evidence supporting both views, so I would suggest that WS follows World Plants, as we can not take sides over a taxonomic opinion where evidence is so ambiguous. There ought to be a note on the genus taxa pages. All the best Andyboorman (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Taxonomic databases

Useful Vascular Plant Databases
Database Pros Cons Comments WS Template
IPNI Curated repository of all (ICN) validly published Names. Will not publish comb. ined. Use for names not accepted taxa. Few, but some older formats need editing out. More and more protologues available through BHL Rapid update. Contactable via email. {{IPNI}}
WCVP Uses IPNI to generate lists of accepted names and synonyms. Curated. Taxonomic scrutiny by Kew and partners. Occasional difference with other databases. Taxonomic opinions by Kew and partners. Replaces the printed Plants of the World. An illustrated encyclopaedia of vascular plants. {{WCVP}}
WCSP Now derives data from WCVP, but at a higher level of scrutiny. Restricted range of families. Contactable. Will justify taxonomic opinions. {{WCSP}}
PWO Now derives data from WCVP. Aim is to increase range and scope of data. Does some contain omissions and errors. Contactable. Will quickly edit out mistakes. {{PWO}}
COL (Plants) Gathers data from a range of collaborators, other databases inc. WCSP etc. Can contain illegal and comb. ined. as accepted names, which is taxonomically unacceptable. Some sources can be outdated or not longer updated. I tend not to use a list if it contains comb. ined., as I assume the taxonomic changes yet to be fully completed. {{Catol-Hassler}}
The Plant List In the past was many editors first choice. No longer updated post 2013. My advice is to not to use and update with POWO, if found on a taxon page. {{TPLF}}
Tropicos A very useful database on many levels with good link outs to specialist American and other sub-databases. Contains synonms as well as accepted taxa, as IPNI. Teasing out accepted taxa requires cross checking. Not always taxonomically sound, so I do not use as a prime taxonomy source. Limited references. Can be very useful for type and protologue links. {{MBG}} {{TROPICOS}}
Angiosperm Phylogeny Website Excellent for Orders to Genus. Comprehensive Reference Lists. More than taxonomy for sure. Difficult to navigate. Use browse. A searchable template is not possible. Genus lists are useful for subfamilies and tribes, but need a thorough cross check. {{APW}}
Cactaceae at (Other Families in development) Comprehensive and current synthesis of taxonomy and phylogeny in Cactaceae. Well referenced. Navigation takes a bit of getting used to, but intuitive. Essential resource for editors wishing to add data to Cactaceae pages. {{CACO}}
Brassibase Essential taxonomic tool for Brassicaeae. Very good source of literature as well. Not now as updated as frequently as we would like. Now used as a source by more generalist databases e.g. COL. {{BRBA}}
World Wide Wattle Essential taxonomic tool for Acacia s.l including segregates. Not many. Much more than a taxonomic database. {{WorldWideWattle}}
Neotropical Rubiaceae Good Tropicos project. Unfortunately neotropical only Up to date {{MBGRubiaceae}}
Euro+Med Plantbase Comprehensive source for pan-European vascular flora. Unfortunately has its own taxonomic opinions. Example {{EMD}}
African Plant Database Comprehensive source for African vascular flora. Treats Acacia s.s as a taxonomic opinion. Taxonomic opinions often at variance for the wider consensus. {{APD}}
Australian Plant Census Comprehensive source for Australian vascular flora. Contains introduced and invasive taxa. Does not always agree with WCVP etc. {{APC}}
Vascular Plants of the Americas Comprehensive source for the vascular flora of the Americas. Taxa need cross checking with other sources to assess names best used. Can be slow to update {{MBG-VPA}}
Catalogue of the Plants of Madagascar Very comprehensive using current literature. Differentiates types of endemism. Few Updated up to 2021. Taxonomic scrutiny is excellent. {{MBGMadagascar}}
Araliaceae Central: A Global Catalogue of Genera and Species Very comprehensive using current literature. Contains more detail than the taxonomy Still in development so species lists may not be available Taxonomic scrutiny is excellent. {{MBGAraliaceae}}
Example Example Example Example Example
Example Example Example Example Example
Example Example Example Example Example

All databases that I use rely heavily on the scientific literature and less on paper based sources, due to the rapid pace of continuing developments. In addition, I tend to favour the principles of monophyletic taxa cf. Euro+Med/Greuter et al. with a more relaxed morphological approach.

Specialist Databases:

Additional Templates:

Not used by myself:-

  • ILDIS Update stalled no template
  • NCBI No template
  • ITIS (2010 so not used)
  • GBIF No template
  • GRIN Slow to update and taxonomic opinions centred on the USA
  • ING can not link directly to a taxon, so not used

Where there are significant differences across the main databases, in my opinion, this is grounds for a {{Disputed}} tag on taxon pages or producing two pages for the same name(s). Likewise where fellow editors are able to provide very good reasons for rejecting the wider consensus.

IP address

Why when not logged in users IP address show.Yahoot7 (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply


@Andyboorman: Dear Andy,
I think, that after update by Tropicos the {{MBG}} seems to be out of order.
Can you help?
In {{Taxonbar}} the Link is o.k. (example here: Paphiopedilum bellatulum.
Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Orchi: I use {{TROPICOS}} instead. --Eryk Kij (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Eryk Kij: & @Orchi:. MGB is used on so many pages, but ID code was optional, unlike Tropicos. Just needs a coder or update, as I can get it work with the ID, but not without. Fingers crossed. Andyboorman (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
....thanks. Orchi (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Clinopodium pamphylicum

you may be right. but how do we analyze the Clinopodium pamphylicum species? We will ignore this species. How do we resolve this mess? This species is found in the flora of Turkey. you say. How shall we do? --Fagus (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

  • @Fagus: Taxonomically the species and subspecies revert to Drymosiphon pamphylicus (Boiss. & Heldr. ex Benth.) Melnikov, Novosti Sist. Vyssh. Rast. 46: 181 (2015) and equivalents, until somebody formally publishes the required corrections. Flora of Turkey has no authority to overturn the rules of nomenclature and should be contacted pointing out the errors. I have removed those acceptable synonyms from Drymosiphon, which may help clarify the matter. WS can not do any more than reflect the messy reality! Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 10:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply


¿What do we do with taxonbar, can it be included or has it been prohibited?. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sorry we need to set up a vote> I will do this in the next few days. Sorry. Andyboorman (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
@MILEPRI: The vote is now open [2]. Andyboorman (talk) 11:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Voting time is over. can it be used? Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
@MILEPRI: Thanks for reminding me. Vote has passed so go ahead!! Andyboorman (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

"Unplaced taxon"

I have two doubts about this recent addition.

  1. Is that really a term in common enough use? Because "unplaced name" is pretty much the exact definition of incertae sedis, leading to my second concern...
  2. The definition's formulation is highly misleading and it took me quite a bit of puzzling before I worked out what concept was being referred to in the first place. The problem being described—at least as far as I can figure it out!—is that the taxon is accepted (hence no need for synonymizing, to begin with) but the name in current use (a key factor of that situation!) is not acceptable to the relevant code (not valid/legitimate/available/validly published). I've never seen a standard term being used for it.
    • Well, Alain Dubois probably came up with one, but I find his nomenclatural writing to be essentially incomprehensible and I refuse to trawl them to check that.

Circeus (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

  • I could rewrite, but it is a term I more or less lifted from RG Kew. It is used occasionally on WCSP and POWO, for example Leopoldia ghouschtchiensis. They, and others, synonymise Leopoldia with Muscari, but this combination has no equivalent, but is validly described and locally accepted, hence according to Kew is "unplaced". Andyboorman (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • What a strange terminological choice on their part. I would not have gone anywhere near there, as the name/taxon is quite obviously not "unplaced": according them it belongs in Muscari!. It's just... a typical unpublished combination. Circeus (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
      • @Circeus:. I disagree Leopoldia ghouschtchiensis is clearly published and so valid. I assume you mean its equivalent in Muscari is not published and in which case that name does not exist and can not be accepted or used. The taxon then is a floater, neither a synonym nor a accepted, which is what I understand Kew mean by an Unplaced Name. The plant can not just disappear because of an artificial taxonomical uncertainty and its presence prevents the full synonymy of Muscari and Leopoldia. I am coming a across a number of these situations as the vast majority of easier genera get blue linked, for example Pennisetum/Cenchrus. Andyboorman (talk) 08:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply


I agree. but I want to add it as Sorbus erzincanica. It can be rearranged after new researches. In wikispecies, the Sorbus genus and similar genera are in a very complex situation. I hope I can handle it. Thanks for your help. --Fagus (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Totally agree about the complex situation! Andyboorman (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply


La familia Leucobryaceae aparece como aceptada en wikispecies y como sinónimo de Dicranaceae en Tropicos. en NCBI figura como homotypic synonym: Campylopodioideae of Stech 2004. (En Catalogue ni aparece), ¿hay nuevas referencias que nos indiquen su status? Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@MILEPRI: It is definitely accepted by most, but not by all experts. The generic composition is fluid and differs according to various sources. The best treatment to follow is here. See also for an alternate view. Cross check the genera proposed by Bernard Goffinet. Hope this helps I am no bryologist! Andyboorman (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Andyboorman: Gracias por su ayuda. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Farinopsis salesoviana

Hi Andy - I've added Farinopsis and Farinopsis salesoviana (formerly in Comarum) as per POWO. Could you check them over, please? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@MPF: Thanks for doing this, there are more changes in the wider tribe. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! I see that Mabberley paper is mentioned on a few pages; even though it represents a now-discredited viewpoint, should it have its own page? It is available online here - MPF (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Definitely Mabberley needs its own page - thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply


Hi Andy - can you check the Govaerts link at Parthenocissus inserta please? It's not that they treat the taxon as a synonym of P. quinquefolia (as implied by your edit), but that they prefer the (more recent!) name P. vitacea (currently a redirect to P. inserta) for it. I've attempted to change the Govaerts link to hit the right taxon, but it hasn't worked as desired. Do Govaerts have good reasons for rejecting Pringle's conclusions, or is it just inertia to older tradition? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 09:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sorry but Govaerts has the synonymy of Parthenocissus inserta here and Parthenocissus vitacea is here. I am confused. Andyboorman (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Have a read of the Pringle paper, that should help clear it up! The taxon treated by Pringle and e.g. GRIN under the name Parthenocissus inserta is treated by Govaerts under the traditionally widely-used but more recent name Parthenocissus vitacea. So the Govaerts link on the wikispecies Parthenocissus inserta page needs to link to Govaerts's Parthenocissus vitacea page. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
I also have read Pringle's paper and understand their points, but there is always a but... I will contact Govaerts directly for their reasoning why they maintain the synonymy with Parthenocissus quinquefolia. I know they are reluctant to make major changes based upon one botanist's opinion and by inclination Kew are lumpers when it comes to morphological features unsupported by phylogenetic evidence. Clearly disputed IMHO my additions to the reference section highlight the dilemma and why WS can not favour one taxonomic opinion over another. Andyboorman (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
The important point is that their synonymy with P. quinquefolia only applies to one opinion of the name, not to the taxon: this is not a lumper versus splitter opinion. Govaerts doesn't lump the taxon, he just uses a different name (P. vitacea) for it. Everyone accepts two Parthenocissus taxa in North America, it is just which name is the correct one for the 2nd species. The question at hand is whether the type specimen of the old name Vitis inserta A.Kern. is the same taxon as P. quinquefolia (Govaerts's opinion) or P. vitacea (Pringle's & GRIN's opinion). - MPF (talk) 11:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
OK got it, sorry. I will ask Govaerts why they do not accept Pringle's argument or is it an oversight (unlikely). BTW they do offer a wide rang of additional sources on the PWO web site so it is more than Pringle & GRIN versus Govaerts. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

@MPF: Here is the reply from Rafaël Govaerts: "I have a note with Vitis inserta “Type has adhesive tendrils” so then it must be quinquefolia. Not sure what the type is but FNA published 6 years after that paper also says it is quinquefolia. [3] and the authors of the paper did not see a type, so it is largely speculation." Thoughts? Andyboorman (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Got another quote from a 2012 paper I found "Parthenocissus vitacea is strongly supported as sister to P. heptaphylla, as supported by two synapomorphies: absence of discs at the tendril apex, and possessing a compound dichasium. Brizicky 1965. The genera of Vitaceae in the southeastern United States. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 46: 48–67." If you need the paper drop me a reply. Andyboorman (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! I'll have a re-read of Pringle, but it does look rather like he got it wrong, so the taxon will likely have to return to P. vitacea ;-) - MPF (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'll let you deal with it, but must admit when I first came across this a few years ago I was a worried that something was not quite right about the paper. We had both species growing at the place I was working and Parthenocissus vitacea was the label on the second. We may have got it wrong, of course, as we were following the RHS. Andyboorman (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! I'll try to get it done later today - MPF (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Done at last; it'll need checking over to add extra refs., etc. I guess the now-redirect P. inserta should be changed into a disambig? - MPF (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but another tribe Zeljko (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Zeljko: Not according to the text in

Tribe Saraceae Estrella, L.P. Queiroz & Bruneau, tribus nov.

Type: Saraca L.

Included genera (4): Endertia Steenis & de Wit (1), Leucostegane Prain (2), Lysidice Hance (2), Saraca L. (c. 11) (Fig. 6a,b).

I can only assume there is a typo in the table, so hence my correction. Andyboorman (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Disambig fixes

Hello, I have spent some considerable time analyzing the changes you say need to be made on Wikispecies botany page links. Frnakly your comment makes no sense to me. Either I am too stupid to grasp what you are trying to say or you have inadequately explained it. I have trieed the links both before and after your changes and frankly YOUR changes, or so it seems to me, have made a workable link unworkable and useless. I do not wish to get into any debate or further discussion of this issue since botany templates are not in my area of interest or knowledge and any changes to said templates should be made by an administrator and not a simple editor as myself. I have literally created dozens of such disambiguaion paes and no one has had any problem with links or anything else. Perhaps you need to discuss this issue with other administrators, but please do not send me any more messages concerning these links. Fpr me this subject is a dead horse, so please stop beating it to death. I apologize if my words sound harsh, but I assure you, no ill-will is intended. If you have other comments or suggestions as to pages I have created or edited, please feel free to let me know. Best wishes, Nytexcome (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

So-called overloaded Solanum references

Every single references in these articles is the relevant reference to one of the names in the list. It's been a while so there may have been additions, but the point stands. {{Särkinen et al., 2018}} is the reference for the synonymies in general, {{Salisbury, 1796}} is the place of publication for the synonym S. humile, {{Desvaux, 1818}} is that of S. morella and so on so forth. It may have been a while since I have edited, but I was never in the business of putting in reference that did not directly relate to something in the page. Circeus (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

No problems just trying to be helpful by bringing format in line with WS praxis. There is no way I would delete citations! Andyboorman (talk) 06:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply


Dear Andy,
I wish you all the best for the new year 2023.
Best regards. Orchi (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dear @Orchi:
Likewise. all the best for 2023.
Kind regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply


I've been trying to sort out family placement of Agasthiyamalaia and Poeciloneuron on, and noticed the note you added about POWO placing Poeciloneuron in Pentaphylacaceae (after noticing the odd family placement on POWO myself). At first I thought it was an egregious error, but Poeciloneuron was originally placed in Ternstroemiaceae, which is a synonym of Pentaphylacaceae. I still think POWO's placement is incorrect, but it isn't completely erroneous. Plantdrew (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I will need to get back to you after checking with Kew. However, also check out this recent paper: Cabral, F.N., Trad, R.J., Amorim, B.S., Maciel, J.R., do Amaral, M.D.C.E. & Stevens, P., 2021. Phylogeny, divergence times, and diversification in Calophyllaceae: Linking key characters and habitat changes to the evolution of Neotropical Calophylleae. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 157, p.107041. DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2020.107041. I need to add this to the relevant reference lists. In addition, I have used the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website in my circumscription. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Plantdrew:. How convinced are you that Agasthiyamalaia and Poeciloneuron need segregation? Andyboorman (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Plantdrew: Kew will now change the family to Calophyllaceae and only accept 1 genus. This will appear on POWO very soon and I will edit WS accordingly. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm not at all convinced that Agasthiyamalaia needs to be segregated. I already looked at Cabral et al; Neotatea is another genus they include in Calophyllaceae that POWO has in a different family (Neotatea is in Calophyllaceae on Wikispecies and I think another editor may have already emailed POWO about Neotatea; they had also contacted POWO about Agasthiyamalaia/Poeciloneuron. Plantdrew (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Neotatea has been brought to POWO's attention. Plantdrew (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Peter Coxhead was included in my reply from Kew. Andyboorman (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Pinus balfouriana

Hi Andy - thanks for restoring the Pinus balfouriana subspecies! I think though that "Note: Subspecies not accepted by the references below, except possibly Businský (2008)" isn't quite fair; Businský does accept them, and so do Calflora, RBGE Threatened Conifers, Gymnosperm Database, iNaturalist, and Lanner's Conifers of California, among others. Conversely, as far as I can see, all the other references cited not accepting them are basically clones of Farjon's rejection of it (including Hassler, which pending analysis taxon by taxon, is copied from Farjon's 2017 list; Hassler pers. comm.). I would say the {disputed} tag could be removed; the non-acceptance is realistically only a small (though vociferous and powerful) minority, and doesn't affect the species as a whole, only the infrataxa. Could you also add photo locations to the photos on the subspecies page, please? I think that is good practice for specimen traceability. There are also several good free license photos of both subspecies on iNaturalist which could be added to Commons. Also a quick aside on related taxa, Businský's treatment of Pinus longaeva as a subspecies of Pinus aristata is one of his few errors; P. longaeva has long been known to be closer to P. balfouriana than to P. aristata, as confirmed by the Jin et al. paper. - MPF (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @MPF: Do you think that Businsky also made an error when accepting Pinus hondurensis in favour of Pinus caribaea var. hondurensis (Sénécl.) W.H.Barrett & Golfari, Caribbean Forester 23: 65 (1962)? He does seem very much an outlier. Andyboorman (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi Andy - I think he's very much correct with Pinus hondurensis. Its cones are distinct, larger (to 14 cm), with a stouter spiked umbo (more similar to Pinus taeda), unlike the small, weakly-prickled umbos across the rest of the P. caribaea - P. caribaea bahamensis - P. cubensis - P. occidentalis group (all barely distinguishable on cone morphology; cones <11 cm). The seeds are also larger (>6 mm, vs <6 mm) and the cotyledons longer (>25 mm, vs <20 mm). Also, its seedling growth is very distinct, with fast initial growth (no 'grass stage'), long retention of juvenile leaves (1-2 years) and the juvenile leaves glaucous; versus slow initial growth, green juvenile leaves, and a moderate 'grass stage' with early adult needle production (complete transition to adult within 6 months) in again the entire rest of the group above. The seedling differences are described in forestry literature (where it is important!) but never seem to have made it into more botanical-related literature, unfortunately. Refs.: Loock, E. E. M. 1950, The Pines of Mexico and British Honduras (ed. 1): 210-213; Lückhoff, H. A. 1964, The natural distribution, growth and botanical variation of Pinus caribaea and its cultivation in South Africa, Annale Universiteit van Stellenbosch 39 (Serie A) No 1: 1-108. Note, although I have corresponded with Businský several times, I never discussed these taxa with him; our thoughts on this are independent, and he may well have other additional reasons for his decision. A final, though minor thought: Sénéclause's protologue of Pinus hondurensis has several points at odds with the taxon currently carrying the name (it reads like it is more probably Pinus tecunumanii), but he did not preserve any herbarium material; the neotypification by Barrett & Golfari renders this irrelevant as the neotype is definitely the taxon as currently understood. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks @MPF: Very informative reply, but it does not really help on WS. There are so many diverse sources that accept the variety it would be very difficult to just have the one name for the taxon, which exclusively favours one taxonomic opinion over its rival, as this will be counter to Wiki policy on OR. So its over to disputed and notes once again. I am not expert enough to assess natural variation in pines, but they do seem to be more uniform compared to many flowering plants. However, Hernández-León et al. (2013) shown in Appendix S4, found the three varieties closely related, which would favour the conventional wisdom I guess. Thanks again Andyboorman (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi Andy - thanks! Yep, I guess it'll have to be the two-page option again, unfortunately; the two pages should be inter-linked so the options can be compared. It's unfortunate that Jin et al didn't include the 3 taxa (bahamensis, cubensis, occidentalis [and also maestrensis if it is distinct]) that would help most with deciphering relationships, given that Hernández-León et al's paper has a lot which is only poorly, or not, resolved (and doesn't include bahamensis either). - MPF (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Orphan Taxon

I do not intend to open an orphan taxon. Can sometimes be overlooked. but your accusation is not nice. You don't own wikispecies. I will not contribute at this time. Fagus (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hyalosperma glutinosum

There is an error in POWO where Hyalosperma glutinosum and its synonym Coronidium glutinosum are listed as accepted. Which of the two is currently valid?. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@MILEPRI: I can not find any sources that agree with your assertion that these two species are in synonymy. There should be two separate taxon pages. They are both Australian plants and the are accepted as separate in that country. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@MILEPRI: en otras palabras, ¡Wikispecies estaba en un error, no PWO o Hassler! Andyboorman (talk) 08:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Muchas gracias por la aclaración. MILEPRI (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@MILEPRI: Commons needs editing as well. Andyboorman (talk) 08:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Rhodanthe craspedioides

Rhodanthe craspedioides It does not appear in POWO, however it appears in wikispecies as accepted and with a synonym of Helipterum craspedioides Fitzg. In commons it is accepted as Helipterum craspedioides. Probing seems to be some kind of Syncarpha. I would appreciate it if you could indicate the last category of this taxon . Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 07:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@MILEPRI: The taxon page Rhodanthe craspedioides was created in error and also contains errors (see the name). It is comb. ined., which means it has not been effectively published yet. WS should only have pages for legitimate and accepted taxa, comb. ined. is neither. I would recommend deleting the page, or I can do it for you. Helipterum craspedioides is an unplaced name, as we can not be sure whether it is a valid name or a synonym. It does not deserve a taxon page on its own or be included in a synonymy. Hassler is wrong to include the names as valid or placed. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@MILEPRI: I now realise this species is common in Western Australia, as Yellow Billy Buttons, so have edited the page as disputed. Only African species, including the type species, of Helipterum are in synonymy with Syncarpha, the Australian species are dispersed over a small range of other genera. There is need for a small piece of research! Andyboorman (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Muchas gracias por la aclaración. Saludos. MILEPRI (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

==Sphaeromorphaea==]] El género Sphaeromorphaea se encuentra, en wikispecies, incluido en dos subtribus de la familia Asteraceae, en Plucheinae y Gnaphaliinae, (?). ¿Conocería cual es el correcto?. Saludos.MILEPRI (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Pluchinae es correcto. Gracias por ver esto y he hecho las ediciones requeridas Saludos Andyboorman (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@MILEPRI:   Done please check. Andyboorman (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Nesothamnus incanus

La especie Perityle incana aparece como sinónimo de Nesothamnus incanus en POWO, Tropicos y Catol, sin embargo, el género Nesothamnus no aparece como Género de Asteraceae en wikispecies. Por afinidad con Perityle la he incluido en la subtribu Peritylinae. Le agradecería su preciado consejo para indicarme si he actuado correctamente. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@MILEPRI: He hecho las adiciones y correcciones requeridas. Gracias por señalar esto. Saludos.--Andyboorman (talk) 09:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Laphamia inyoensis

La especie Perityle inyoensis aparece como sinónimo de Laphamia inyoensis en POWO, Tropicos y Catol, sin embargo, el género Laphamia aparece como un sinónimo de Perityle. El nuevo género lo he incluido en la subtribu Peritylinae. Le agradecería su preciado consejo para indicarme si he actuado correctamente. Saludos.

There is a key reference missing - Lichter-Marck, I.H. & Baldwin, B.G. 2022. A Phylogenetically Informed Reclassification of the Rock Daisies (Perityleae; Compositae). Systematic Botany 47: 802-816. I will get this templated and added and go through the family, tribes, subtribes and genera as required. PWO and Hassler are using this source. Please carry on with your work on the tribe. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Picea glauca

Hi Andy - could you check over my edit at Picea glauca, please? I just discovered that POWO now treat this as Picea laxa, but to the best of my knowledge, wrongly so. I added the reasons on the Picea glauca page, and links to all the relevant BHL / pages, so you can double-check them. If you agree, could you contact POWO and ask them to change it? They have made a big change to a species of major commercial importance which has hitherto had a stable name for over a century. Even if POWO turn out to be right (which I don't think they can be!), then surely the name Picea glauca should be proposed for conservation, rather than have this name change? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

  • Hello. I have had a look at your edits and find no problems. I am also surprised that POWO have altered their circumscription from the original in WCSP. Incidentally, Farjon in his Conifer Database accepts P. glauca and this reported in Hassler. I will check with Govaerts and get back to you. Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 06:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 10:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Whither Disocactus × jenkinsonii?

What was the problem with Disocactus × jenkinsonii? Thanks. AjaxSmack (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

It is an artificial hybrid and WS concentrates more or less exclusively on naturally occurring taxa. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi Andy, @AjaxSmack: - interesting point! If so, then Abies × insignis, Abies × vasconcellosiana, Abies × vilmorinii, Larix × marschlinsii, Picea × hurstii, Picea × mariorika, Pinus × holfordiana, Pinus × hunnewelli, Pinus × schwerinii, and probably many more, need to go as well? As far as I'm aware, there aren't any firm wikispecies rulings on the topic? I've mixed feelings myself but on a vote I'd probably go for retain; some of these garden hybrids are of major commercial importance and people could be expected to look for them here, and some are also of taxonomic significance in demonstrating related phylogeny that might not be obvious from morphology or even genetic studies. - MPF (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hello @MPF: & @AjaxSmack:. I did not think that WS is concerned with commercial or garden importance, being more interested in "natural" taxa. However, I am happy if this was to be raised on the pump for clarification. It would expand the scope of the project, so be it. Andyboorman (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hello @MPF: & @AjaxSmack:. On reflection, incorporating cultigens has to treated with caution. Typically, many have no species and are not governed by ICN for example; Rosa 'Mr Lincoln' covered by International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP) and then there are Group and Grex names and so on. In addition, the scope will increase almost exponentially. I will have a thought and consider going to the pump. However, any thoughts before then will be appreciated. Andyboorman (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Andyboorman and MPF:Thanks for all of the clarification. I suspected that artificial hybrids were outside the purview of Wikispecies, but I too saw a number of others with their own entries. I can see where it would open a can of worms to allow any or all hybrids, but does it matter if these show up at e.g. POWO, IPNI, GRIN and/or have been around a long time (1829 in this case)? AjaxSmack (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi Andy, @AjaxSmack: - thanks both! Yes it's a tricky problem. I'd agree anything only covered by ICNCP should be excluded. But then there's things like Pinus × attenuradiata: it was described from artificially cross-pollinated parents cultivated outside their native range, but was later found as a natural hybrid in the small area their natural ranges overlap (in a different part of California). Then, what of Larix × marschlinsii, which cannot occur naturally (parents 8,600 km apart), but is a naturalised invasive plant in UK, reproducing freely wherever both parents are either cultivated, or naturalised (UK & Ireland map)? Or Cupressus × leylandii, which has never been successfully bred deliberately; but there are several clones which originated as self-sown seedlings in UK gardens where the parent species were planted. My fear is, there's a whole continuous spectrum between "Yes, obvious include", and "No, definitely don't include", with no easy clear discrimination point . . . MPF (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello @MPF: & @AjaxSmack:. Agreed about the lack of clarity regarding the cut off. I think I will go to the pump, but with the advice of the obvious subjects to exclude. For example; plants subject to ICNCP, intergeneric cacti and orchid hybrids, inter-graft chimeras, cultigens used in plant breeding and genetically engineered plants. At the endof the day I think we need to trust the judgements of editors. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your time. AjaxSmack (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply


When trying to update the genus Ayenia I notice that you have placed a note indicating discrepancies between authors, as it is the year 2020, I would appreciate it if you could let me know if POWO 2023 has resolved this dispute and I can take your data as solvent. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Will have a look soon and update as needed. Andyboorman (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
The situation has not changed. I will update dates and have another look through for latest research. Andyboorman (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Biffin et al., 2018

Hi Andy! Do you know whether "Ed Biffin" in the templates {{Biffin et al., 2018}} and {{Biffin et al., 2018a}} is identical to the Aussie botanist Edward Sturt Biffin (born 1967)? Unfortunately I don't have access to the actual paper and corrigendum. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC).Reply

@Tommy Kronkvist: Hi Tommy. Not 100% sure but I do believe he is the same. Now working at Adelaide Botanic Garden after a stint at the University of Adelaide. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andyboorman (talkcontribs) 13:25, 24 September 2023‎.
Thanks! Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC), 15:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC).Reply


I note that you have removed this genus from the Hibisceae tribe. It has been accepted by IPNI, Tropicos and POWO, only Hassler considers it a synonym. Should I continue building this taxon or should I wait for the conflict to be resolved. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@MILEPRI:It seems to have been out into synonymy with Hibiscus by @Epibase: in 2009. I think you can go ahead and restore it to the tribe. Cheers.Andyboorman (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Pachycereus militaris or Backebergia militaris? Which is synonym and which is the accepted species?

Hi there, Andy, I hope you're doing well Hey I need your help with something specially you're one of the most active Wikispecies users, and especially with the species's name Backebergia militaris, that you've edited It turns out that there is no agreement between Wikidata and Wikispecies, Wikidata, manages Pachycereus militaris, Wikispecies manages Backebergia militaris and this also applies for several taxonomic databases there is nothing definitive or conclusive, I would ask you to talk to User:Succufrom Wikidata who reverses my transfer edits regarding this topic, I hope to have you, Greetings! AbeCK (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@AbeCK: This nomenclature is a mess, but I used Korotkova, N. et al. 2023 as the prime source. They seem to be 99% accepted but, as always there are problems. I contacted RBG Kew about it a few months ago and they maintain Mitrocereus militaris (Audot) Bravo, Bot. Stud. 12: 54 (1961) is the correct name. The reasoning is one of priority, if we assume Cereus militaris Audot, Rev. Hort. (Paris), sér. 2, 4: 307 (1846) is not acceptable. Meanwhile I would not try to add to WD, if I was you, until we can be more definitive. BTW I rarely add names to WD or WP, as there are some strong opinions over there! I will do more digging and get back in due course. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hello @AbeCK: I have added a note here. What do you think? Andyboorman (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I like what you put on the species page, I hope there are no problems from now on, I hope that when there is something conclusive with the scientific name of this species it will be changed, thank you! AbeCK (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Other species with the same problem

Hi there, again, @Andyboorman I need your help to check 3 especies with the same problem I have notified you with the previous species, and if they could be changed here in Wikispecies, it would be better to leave them as they are. Which is synonym and which is the accepted species in those cases?

AbeCK (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Some are fairly straight forward. However, you created sectio (ined) for Erythrina. This is unacceptable, as ined. is not a taxon category. If you are sure that the species belong in the subgenus, it is best to leave them out of any section until they are formally allocated one. Andyboorman (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@AbeCK: I have contacted Kew about Deamia chontalensis, as well as the Backebergia problem. I notice that you added Strophocactus sicariguensis to the genus. I understand that this could be an unplaced name under Pseudoacanthocereus sicariguensis. WS does not usually create pages for unplaced names, as we have enough to do with accepted combinations. Andyboorman (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@AbeCK: I have heard back from Kew. They are adamant that Mitrocereus is clearly earlier and homotypic (Type = chrysomallus) so Backebergia must be superfluous and illegitimate. He has no idea why the illegitimate Backebergia was resurrected. I think I will see if I can contact Korotkova or somebody similar. However, as it stands we should be using Mitrocereus - should I change these pages to follow POWO or wait? Govaerts has now changed POWO to accept Deamia chontalensis, although he did point out that there may be a move to sink Deamia into Strophocactus. Erythrina americana and Acanthocereus tetragonus are as I created. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Andyboorman I think Backebergia militaris should remain as it is with the discussion note included until further notice, it's noted that there is still disagreement with knowing which scientific name is the definitive one, I don't know if it helps but you could also contact with Ángel Salvador Arias Montes, who has described species such as Selenicereus costaricensis, Lophocereus marginatus, Deamia funis or Strophocactus brasiliensis I leave you his email,, he is a researcher at the Biology Institute of the National Autonomous University of Mexico. AbeCK (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
We are free in WS to have two taxon pages for the same organism, if this reflects unresolved legitimate conflicting taxonomic opinions. In this case I am not sure it does. Kew are taking an approach based on the articles, however, I need to find out why others hold to Backebergia militaris , before linking Mitrocereus. Just because we have always used a name is only a reason to apply for nom. cons., not for its usage. Thanks for the email. I will send aa couple out today to try and find out more. Andyboorman (talk) 08:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Andyboorman I hope this species has a resolution as soon as possible, I understand how Wikispecies works in part, but we should ensure that there is homogeneity in the information provided to users and even more so if it is Wikipedia or other parts of the Wikiproject, by the way, I don't know where or where to express problems with a species in Wikispecies, if you could tell me where I could do it I would appreciate it, please, I hope I don't bother you too much with some changes in Wikispecies but I have some:
Greetings and thanks, Andy! AbeCK (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Andyboorman I understand, and in fact yes, I made modifications to Deamia and Strophocactus;
In the first one: I put Deamia funis as a new specie, eliminating Deamia chontalensis but I've seen that there are problems with this last one and you put it back but I understand it.
In the second one: I put Strophocactus krammii as a new specie, Strophocactus sicariguensis was already there before my edits.
Just be careful to see what I edit and what I don't, but really thanks! AbeCK (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your help with those species! Only in this case, I haven't edited anything from Erythrina, not even until now. AbeCK (talk) 06:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I will have a look through your requests over the weekend. One point I must make is that WS does not fall in line with other members of the Wiki family. We are striving for taxonomic accuracy, which is not the same as common usage of a name. Salvia v Rosmarinus is a current example and other platforms have only just fallen into line. However, I think it is now time to simplify the WS taxon pages for these names. Taxonomic opinions are a fact of life and in some situations there is no easy answer until the botanic community come to consensus. Cacti are great example of ongoing debate that is slowly being resolved. WS can not take sides in a debate. Hope this helps for now. Andyboorman (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Franco-Estrada & al. (2021)

Hi Andy, I saw your note at Talk:Backebergia militaris, and your comment about Franco-Estrada & al. (2021). This publication can be accessed via the The Wikipedia Library (see Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 58#The Wikipedia Library for more info). Direct link to the publication. Best regards, Korg (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Korg: Thanks for the link and reminder about Wikilibrary. How easy would it be to get a Wikilibrary entry up when using Goggle Scholar? This seems a bit of a miss. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
You're welcome! What browser do you use? I think it's doable, and not necessarily difficult for someone who knows JavaScript and browser extension design. Such an extension would be useful for other Wikimedians. You could post a request at en:Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library or en:Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests. Thanks, Korg (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I use Chrome and have put a request into W Library and wait their reply. Andyboorman (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Your questions


Selenicereus amongst other groups are in review by a number of botanists. Result in a few months, hopefully. The two species you are interested in seem to be part of this review, so for now keep the two pages. CACO has only been updated in bits and pieces, so I would advise using a relatively rapid updating source such as PWO to cross check with IPNI.
  • Zantedeschia elliottiana Outdated information on binomial authority and synonyms, also, idk if you could check, what happens in Zanthedeschia new species
Zantedeschia elliottiana seems OK. It is OK to include isonyms, but they should be identified as such. The odd list on Zantedeschia itself seems strange and needs a review, which I will have a look at.
I am going with Coville as found on IPNI. PWO is incorrect.
This newer circumscription is now widely accepted, but there are some who still hold out for Rosmarinus. Its taxon pages can be consigned to history in my humble opinion.
Stick with Pterocereus gaumeri, Pterocereus marginatus can not be found not even on IPNI, so ignore it.
Keep both Marshallocereus aragonii and Pachycereus eichlamii I can not find a reason for synonymy. @AbeCK: Second thought I will check in with Kew and ask them to correct Fremontodendron as well. BTW it flowers well in Essex, England in my garden.

CACO is a brilliant synopsis, but is work in progress. I have used it extensively, but note there is a need for version 2 after review. I am not a cacti expert BTW! Hope this helps for now. Andyboorman (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Andyboorman, I see and dyw just I'm asking for your help since you are usually among the active users on Wikispecies more than anyone else, anyway thanks for your changes


  • The first thing is, so would it be better to leave Selenicereus without any changes for now?
Good idea!
  • In second, in Zantedeschia elliottiana I'm not sure at all, some taxonomic database put (H.Knight) Engl., 1915 In its binomial authority, another ones put it as (W.Watson) Engl., 1915
This depends on which version of the basionym is used. Is it the nomen or brief description as a cultivated plant. See my minor editions. In recognition of this and the fact that Calla Elliotana was never correctly described, IPNI dispense with a basionym.
Pterocereus gaumeri is correct with Pachycereus gaumeri in synonymy.
There is no correct scientific name, but differing taxonomic opinions for now until this is resolved it is best to be conservative and have two separate taxon pages with notes pointing out the dispute.
  • As a last thing, Anemonoides and Anemone keep are resolved genera or still under discussion?
Again this depends on the authority consulted. Kew treat them separately and Hassler/Euro+Med PlantBase reduce Anemonoides into Anemone. This is a taxonomic opinion depending whether or not you accept the proposals in the Reference Lists, particularly Jiang et al. (2017). Some botanists still do not accept the primacy of monophyly, preferring to stay with more traditional circumscriptions of genera. This dispute spills over into other genera, such as Hepatica. WS can not take sides, but good luck trying to replicate its approach in a WP project where editors want demand a single name for a taxon. One name one taxon is an ideal, but unrealistic. Andyboorman (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

since I'm doing maintenance on Wikipedia in Spanish about them, either to change names or create new articles like Anemonoides or Pachycereus gaumeri really thanks for your help! AbeCK (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I would create Anemonoides and see what happens, but do not create Pachycereus gaumeri. Good luck. Andyboorman (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

History merge

Hi Andy, here I did not add the {{Delete}} template in error, I requested that the page history of Io Chou (Lepidoptera), which is currently not visible, be merged into the history of the page Io Chou. So it would be visible again, in its original location. In doing so, the page must be temporarily deleted.

The page history of Io Chou was moved to Io Chou (Lepidoptera) when Nytexcome made Io Chou a disambiguation page: [4]. Recently, Tiouraren cut and pasted the content of Io Chou (Lepidoptera) into Io Chou: [5]. But the original history is still in Io Chou (Lepidoptera), even though Tommy deleted the page.

The first two revisions of the page Io Chou, originally intended as a disambiguation page, could possibly be isolated (for example at Io Chou (disambiguation)) before the history merge, even if the disambiguation is no longer needed, so the history after the merge would not mix the disambiguation page and the author page (it's just a bonus). (Or these two revisions may be selected and not merged into the full history of the author's page.)

There is more information about history merge on Wikipedia: en:Wikipedia:History merging. Thanks in advance if you feel like doing it (I can assist you if you want), otherwise no problem, I'll request it at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Kind regards, Korg (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Korg, well spotted. II'll fix it later today. Right now I've misplaced my glasses. :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC).Reply
Two page refers to the same people, and there is no need to separate as two different page. Tiouraren (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Tiouraren: I agree, but it's important to keep the history of all pages intact. We need to keep the history together with the content, for legal copyright reasons. This is also in line with official Wikimedia Foundation policies, and in some cases failure to comply with this regulation may even be illegal. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC).Reply
Hope it is all sorted now. Andyboorman (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Orthography query

Hi Andy - Ligusticum scoticum has long been so spelled, since at least 1759 in Linnaeus Syst. Nat. ed.10, 2: 958, treating it as a correctable error of his own original spelling of scothicum in Sp. Pl. 1: 250. POWO has recently changed to using the original spelling, without comment. Are they correct to do so? Is it a case of pedantry overruling long- and deeply-established usage? - MPF (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@MPF: My opinion is that Ligusticum scothicum (1753) is the correct spelling. The epithets scothicum and scoticum are interchangeable variants of the Latin for Scottish or from/of Scotland (Scottish Lovage) and so they are both legitimate epithets. Ligusticum scothicum was published first, therefore using Art 61 and Art 11 I would go with Kew and also IPNI. There is no requirement to publicise a name change that has occurred by correcting an orthographic or typological error. It is worth noting that pretty well all rapidly updating databases have followed IPNI. This is not really the same as the Picea laxa/glauca problem, as this is just simple correctable orthography. Taxonomy by its nature and rules is annoyingly pedantic 😂 couldn't resist the emoji. Andyboorman (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! I'll go ahead and change it now. I presume the consensus of the last 260-odd years though was that scothicum wasn't a legitimate Latin variant? Yes, agree, nothing to do with the Picea problem! - MPF (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Page looks good. Andyboorman (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply


Hi Andy, you added the synonym Eustrephaceae in Asparagaceae (diff), then later in Asphodelaceae (diff). It was added before by Uleli in Xanthorrhoeaceae [which redirects to Asphodelaceae] (diff).

On Wikispecies, Eustrephaceae redirects to Asphodelaceae (history).

On the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website and GRIN, Eustrephaceae is considered a synonym of Asparagaceae.

For reference, the publication by Chupov is accessible online: Botanicheskii Zhurnal 79(3): 1–12 (in Russian, with English summary). Could you please sort this out? Thanks, Korg (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Korg: As Eustrephus R.Br., Bot. Mag. 31: t. 1245 (1809) is currently a member of Asparagaceae, I can only apologise. The other references on Asparagaceae match.   Done. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andyboorman (talkcontribs) 15:22, 31 October 2023.
Thank you! Eustrephaceae now redirects to Asparagaceae.
In the page for Asparagaceae, there is the genus Bessera, with a link to the disambiguation page Bessera. It has a link to Bessera (Themidacaeae). The page Themidacaeae seems outdated; I couldn't find the name Themidacaeae in IPNI. There is also Themidaceae that redirects to Asparagaceae. Korg (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Korg: I think I have sorted this out. Themidacaeae now redirects to Brodiaeoideae and does not appear on the Asparagales page. I have moved Bessera (Themidacaeae) to Bessera (Asparagaceae) and updated it as well. IPNI does not have all names of taxa above the level of genus and subgenera and so on. I have helped out filling in the gaps when I can. Fingers crossed all is OK.Andyboorman (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much! Korg (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply


La familia Meesiaceae aparece como aceptada en wikispecies, Catalogue of Life y Trópicos y como sinónimo en POWO. Le agradecería me informase cual de las opciones es la correcta. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@MILEPRI: Do you mean the family of Meesia serrata = Campylospermum serratum (Gaertn.) Bittrich & M.C.E.Amaral, Taxon 43: 92 (1994)? The family would be Ochnaceae? Meesiaceae Schimp. is a bryophyte not my expertise and POWO does not deal with this group either, but the family appears to be accepted by bryologists. Andyboorman (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

ICN query

Hi Andy - a quick ICN query for you: is there any way to indicate a glottal stop in a new scientific name? Or should it be ignored? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@MPF: ICN has nothing to say about a glottal stop in a Latinised name. If I remember correctly they are ignored when speaking or transcribing Latin. Have you an example? Andyboorman (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! I'll email, rather than say here - MPF (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
No problems Andyboorman (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Microbriza etc. in the Village Pump

Hi Andy. Great collaboration with Anna Pavlova (user IFPNI Staff) at the Village Pump i.e. An opinion for a species epithet - please. Just a very small detail: for the sake of formality, could you please add an ending quotation mark to the quote from IPNI, so that it's clear when the quote ends and you start speaking in your own voice again?   Thank you. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC).Reply

Hi Tommy. Done as a re-edit. Andyboorman (talk) 09:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Indef IP block

I shortened the block of Special:Contributions/ since generally we shouldn't block IPs forever - hope that was okay DannyS712 (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

No problems. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 08:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Return to the user page of "Andyboorman/Archive 6".