Welcome to Wikispecies!

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

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

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

Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) and the date. Please also read the Wikispecies policy What Wikispecies is not. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Again, welcome! Lycaon 20:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Adding subgenera and other levels


Hi there,

A couple of things.

One: We have a different template for subgenera for plants. It is Template:Subgplant.

Two: If you are going to add levels, you need to fill them in. E.g. in Deschampsia you should create the page for the subgenus and the species would appear there.

Thanks. --Open2universe | Talk 14:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply



Why don't you make subgenera? It is easy to make them C. subg. Acanthaceae –. Then the species C. A. subsp. burchellii –. If you fill them with authors then it is Chaetacantus (Acanthaceae) and Chaetacantus (Acanthacea) burchellii. If there are questions you can ask me.


PeterR 18:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply



By Chaetacanthus (Acanthaceae). Normaly means (Acanthaceae) a subgenus from Chaetacanthus. But maybe here it have an other function?


PeterR 08:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply



You did it correct. But if you make a Taxonavigation then the second word have to end with
, because otherwise the third word comes not under the second.

{{Subfamilia}} Tribus: Tribus
Genera: Genus1 – Genus2


PeterR 09:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply



Why don't you fill the species?


PeterR 11:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Data for Plant Species


Plant species data


I've noticed you're creating many plant pages. While it is very nice, why don't you use a more proper source like this one? Just type in the genus name and select "search", and you shall get a very nice list including proper references. You'll get a line like:

Loranthaceae Arthraxon amplexifolium Tiegh. -- Bull. Soc. Bot. France 42: 353. 1895 (IK)

This line includes the original publication where the author defined the particular species, including numbers of issue and page (the publication name is abbreviated). from this data you can construct the following scientific references:

== Name ==
''Arthraxon amplexifolium'' [[Tiegh.]]

== References ==
* {{aut|Phillippe Édouard Léon van Tieghem}}, 1895: ''Bull. Soc. Bot. France'' '''42''': 353.
* {{aut|The International Plant Names Index}} [http://www.ipni.org/ipni/idPlantNameSearch.do?id=547951-1&back_page=%2Fipni%2FeditAdvPlantNameSearch.do%3Ffind_infragenus%3D%26find_isAPNIRecord%3Dtrue%26find_geoUnit%3D%26find_includePublicationAuthors%3Dtrue%26find_addedSince%3D%26find_family%3D%26find_genus%3DArthraxon%26find_sortByFamily%3Dtrue%26find_isGCIRecord%3Dtrue%26find_infrafamily%3D%26find_rankToReturn%3Dall%26find_publicationTitle%3D%26find_authorAbbrev%3D%26find_infraspecies%3D%26find_includeBasionymAuthors%3Dtrue%26find_modifiedSince%3D%26find_isIKRecord%3Dtrue%26find_species%3D%26output_format%3Dnormal Arthraxon amplexifolium].

It's a little bit more work, but the result looks much more professional!

Mariusm 06:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

In addition to what you have (correctly) written, do this:
  1. Press on "Schwantes" at the Carruanthus page at ipni.org. You get: "Schwantes, Martin Heinrich Gustav"
  2. Press on the "J.Bot" you get: "Journal of Botany, British and Foreign. London"
  3. Now you can compose the following reference for the Carruanthus:
* {{aut|Schwantes, Martin Heinrich Gustav}}, 1928: ''Journal of Botany, British and Foreign. London'', '''66''': 325
I hope you understand me now...
Mariusm 12:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yes, for Chasmatophyllum you made a very good reference, just instead of the "" on the publication name, write a double ' (put the text in italics form). Keep on with your good work!
Mariusm 04:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Familia Themidaceae


The familia Themidaceae isn't generally recognized. Look here for the official classification of Angiosperms. This familia doesn't appear there. (It is a segregation from the familia Asparagaceae). Mariusm 06:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Two doubts -- Reply



  1. The lily family Liliaceae used to be historically a paraphyletic group that included a great number of genera now transfered to other familiae. The modern taxonomy separated Liliaceae into the present groups, so the correct familia for Amaryllis is Amaryllidaceae and not Liliaceae! We sould rely on Angiosperm Phylogeny Group's APG II classification system, which assigns Amaryllis to Amaryllidaceae.
  2. The disambiguation page Amaryllis is confusing as it is. The line Amaryllis (Liliopsida : Liliaceae) should better be deleted.
  3. You may include a note in the discussion page of Amaryllis saying: "Formerly included in the Liliaceae familia"

Mariusm 08:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

About Abaphus



The genera names Abapus and Abaphus are obsolete!
Abapus is a synonym of Gethyllis L.
Abaphus is an invalid replacement name for Abapus.

For a list of valid names and synonyms of the Amaryllidaceae please look here

Mariusm 10:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The problem with the site http://data.gbif.org is they list also all the synonyms! It it a good source for references, but a confusing one for a list of genera or species. For the Amaryllidaceae the best site I think is http://www.amaryllidaceae.org . (In french). Just click on a genus and in the section "Espèces" you'll see all the species and authors for the genus.
Mariusm 16:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do not use http://www.ipni.org/ for species and genera lists !!!!!



I Looked again at http://www.ipni.org/ and noticed that they list there all the synonyms. You can see it is a synonym in the section Original Data: Notes: = ... . So please don't use http://www.ipni.org/ as a source for species and genera names! Use it only for references !

For example: They list the species Amaryllis africana, but it is just a synonym of Lycoris aurea. They write Notes: = Lycoris aurea. So please be very careful!!!

Mariusm 06:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, please don't do it this way! You have to write the genera synonyms not at the familia page, but at the respective genus page.
For exaple: Acrocorion is a synonym of Galanthus, so in the Galanthus page write the synonym of Acrocorion, and don't forget to make a REDIRECT in the Acrocorion page to the Galanthus page like this: #REDIRECT [[Galanthus]]
Mariusm 08:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

RE:About Amaryllis and Crinum aquaticum


It's interesting that there indeed was a big dispute among botanists between the names Hippeastrum equestre and Amaryllis belladonna (look here for the history of it. Now tha accepted name is Amaryllis belladonna. The site http://www.ipni.org/ isn't allways reliable about which is the real synonym, so don't rely on it blindly.

About Crinum aquaticum it indeed has two confusing records at http://www.ipni.org/ but "Crinum aquaticum Herb." has no reference, so I suppose the correct redirect would be to Crinum campanulatum...

The disambiguation pages are not intended for synonyms, so this isn't the right solution! Just choose one of them (the one with the most recent date).

Botany isn't an easy science ... Mariusm 14:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Amaryllis should be only 2 species: Amaryllis belladonna and Amaryllis paradisicola. All the rest are synonyms, and must be deleted from the Amaryllis page. Mariusm 05:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

RE:Cytisus scoparius x dallimorei

  • The correct taxonomic name must be Cytisus x dallimorei with the author being Rolfe and not Cytisus scoparius x dallimorei, so please change accordingly the page name & hybrid name.
  • At the genus page you have to write:
    • Species: Cytisus - multiflorus - striatus ....
    • Hybrids: Cytisus x dallimorei - Cytisus x praecox - Cytisus x kewensis .....
  • No need for species name in the hybrid page.
  • The correct name is "Hybrid" and not "Hibryd".
  • Write the cultivers as: Cultivers: Lena - Lilac Time - Minstead (Munstead) - William Dallimore

Mariusm 11:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply



The familia Alliaceae can be treated in two ways, both legal: sensu lato, where in includes the genera in Agapanthaceae and Amaryllidaceae and sensu stricto. Both ways are OK, but the taxonomists' majority prefer the sensu stricto. Because genetically these familiae are sufficiently different to keep them apart, I suggest Amaryllidaceae would be the better choise. Mariusm 15:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply



Estimado Digigalos. Mi nombre es Alfredo Barra y llevo unos cuantos años trabajando en la taxonomía del género Narcissus. Estoy sorprendido por los cambios nomenclaturales que has hecho en alguna de las fotos que he subido a Commons. También por el tratamiento que das a las especies. No entiendo lo de N. hispanicus; las pesquisas que yo hice me llevaron a la conclusión de que la planta de Gouan era la forma concolor de N. bicolor. Si has hecho alguna averiguación que lo contradiga, me gustaría conocerla. Bueno, nada más de momento. No sé si te llegará mi mensaje, porque te mandé otro hace una hora y un administrador me lo borró, no sé porqué. Un saludo. --Cillas 09:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hola Digigalos. A propósito de N. x litigiosus, he revisado la publicación original y no hay razones para pensar que sea una especie híbrida, al menos Amo no la describe como tal. El INPI lo cita así, pero ya les he mandado un correo para que lo rectifiquen; ellos mismos afirman que no han visto el protólogo. Lo que no consigo es quitar el símbolo x en el nombre de la página. ¿Te importaría hacerlo tú si sabes cómo? Gracias y un saludo.--Cillas 09:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Request for comment


There is presently a [discussion on the use of daggers to denote extinct taxa. This will affect a large portion of the pages in wikispecies as the project grows so if possible please read the contributions so far and comment. Thanks --Kevmin 06:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply



Just for the record, please use the spelling tribus in your templates, not tribu. Tribus is the nominative singular form. [for taxonavigation] Epibase 12:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Your account will be renamed


08:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)



11:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)



want disamb

Ravenna --Penarc (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Reply