Apologies edit

I am very sorry if you feel that my comment about orphans insulted you. You have made great contributions here on WS and I. for one, am sorry if you feel you have to leave. Good luck in the future. Andyboorman (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Maharanga etc. edit

Please note that Maharanga and Onosma have been extensively emended by {{Cecchi & Hilger, 2022}}. The changes are also on IPNI and PWO. Cheers. Andyboorman (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Template:Commonscat edit

I don't know if you're aware already or not, but Template:Template:Commonscat and Template:Commonscat are now duplicates. Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Myosotis taxa list edit

Do you really want this page? At the moment it is orphaned and I was wondering what to do with it. Andyboorman (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I find it interesting, as it seems to be an attempt to have an exhaustive list of names (that's how I see it); I'm not sure I've seen such a list here before. Maybe it could be linked from the Myosotis taxon page, possibly in a "See also" section, like it was done for List of Rindera taxa in Rindera and for Aubrieta/All taxa list in Aubrieta. The title of these lists should probably be standardised. Korg (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Interesting idea, but without extensive curating these lists will rapidly date and it could be a logistical problem to expend it to all taxa.. I am not against it just being devil's advocate. Andyboorman (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
You can delete these pages. --Fagus (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hello again! @Andyboorman: I see, that's a fair point. I wouldn't oppose their deletion. I was thinking that such lists could be generated and maintained by a bot, but that's easier said than done...
These lists have different kinds of links: besides the blue and red links, they also contain redirects and links to disambiguation pages. You might find helpful to be able to see them, so I take the opportunity to share this tip I posted at the Village Pump. Kind regards, Korg (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Pilosella adenogaliciana edit

This species name is not expressed as a hybrid in spite of a proposed hybrid origin. In their 2012 protologue Mateo & Egido are very clear about their proposed name. This is accepted and reproduced by IPNI, POWO and so on. It would be best if WS did not differ. I suggest that it would be best that you corrected this error. Thanks and happy new year. Andyboorman (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Having said the above they now propose this species is named Pilosella gudarica subsp. adenogaliciana. IPNI have entered their name as Pilosella × gudarica subsp. adenogaliciana (Mateo & Egido) Mateo, Egido & Gómiz, Flora Montiber. 84: 51 (2022). I assume due to Mateo publishing the species Pilosella × gudarica in 1990. This is proposed in their 2020 paper PDF which you can read. However, in this paper they drop the hybrid epithet. I have no idea who is correct - IPNI or Mateo & García. We will have to email both I assume. No wonder POWO have not accepted the changes to date. Best regards and a puzzled Andyboorman (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Acer Sections edit

THanks for adding some detail to the Acer section pages. I assume you are using GRIN for species names. Do you know where they get their information from? Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

They get this information from Gelderen, D. M. van et al, 1994. Maples of the world, Flora of china and Murray, A. E. 1970. A monograph of the Aceraceae.--Fagus (talk) 08:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Acer maximowiczianum edit

Hello and @MILEPRI:. I understand that your Homotypic synonymy for this species is incorrect. Negundo nikoense Miq., Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugduno-Batavi 2: 90 (1865) was based upon a couple of trifoliate leaves sent to Miquel, which is misidentified as an Acer type tree and named by him, but in fact they were leaves of Parthenocissus tricuspidata. As N. nikoense is the basionym of; Acer nikoense (Miq.) Maxim., Bull. Acad. Imp. Sci. Saint-Pétersbourg 12: 227 (-228) (1867), Acer nikoense (Miq.) Miq., Arch. Neerl. Sci. Exact. Nat. 2: 478 (1867), isonym and Crula nikoensis (Miq.) Nieuwl., Amer. Midl. Naturalist 2(6): 114 (1911), these are also synonyms of Parthenocissus tricuspidata.

This link was sent to me as a reminder by Kew on response to clarifications. I now remember this case from my time teaching plant identification and systematics as a bit of a tongue in check example of oddities in synonymy. POWO has the correct synonymies for both species. Hope this helps Andyboorman (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

template fohy edit

I always add the accepted full name into the this template not just the name and author. The reason is that this prevents the use of isonyms and homonyms and also is taxonomically correct. Sorry to be a pedant, that this taxonomy as you know! I would be graceful if you did not edit out this information in the future, as you did with Salvia × mendizabalii. Of course you are free to use the shortened form if you wish, but it would be better not to edit out any changes made by other editors. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Protologues edit

These can often easily be found on IPNI or Tropicos. They are very useful/essential for working botanists and taxonomists. I always try to add them when editing or creating spaces. I was looking through Rosa and species, so thanks for the detail you added, so just asking. Many thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply