I agree with @RLJ: Taxonbar does not belong in Links - see Pump Discussion and make your point, if you wish to change accepted practice on WS. I will leave Sideritis romana subsp. curvidens as a discussion point. Andyboorman (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eriobotrya and RhaphiolepisEdit

I have had a look through this synonymy and cross checked Liu et al. (2020) and IPNI, unfortunately, have the authors made some errors. One or two are auto-correctable and these has been undertaken by IPNI, but the error for Rhaphiolepis loquata B.B.Liu & J.Wen, Front. Plant Sci. 10-1731: 11 (2020) is fundamental and results in a illegal name. See here. This is a shame as the combination refers to the economically important loquat hrough the name Eriobotrya japonica. Not good as E. japonica will have to remain on the Eriobotrya taxon page until this mess has been cleared up. I have contacted Dr Liu through ResearchGate and await his response. Such is life. Stay safe. Andyboorman (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changes to styleEdit

Hello Fagus. You are busy changing the look and feel of Taxon Pages. Why have you not contributed to the Pump discussion? It looks like you have support for the changes, but not for just imposing them without discussion. Please contribute and also remove the tag on your User Page, which is obviously incorrect. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Fagus - you've added the author link Sennikov to a lot of species pages in Aria, Hedlundia, etc. Unfortunately, this is a disambiguation page; all the links should instead point to Alexander Nikolaevitsch Sennikov (by using the link form [[Alexander Nikolaevitsch Sennikov|Sennikov]]). Could you correct these links, please? I don't have time for it, regrettably. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello Fagus, you have changed the Name from Sorbus to Karpatiosorbus. Have you a source, who I can use in the german wikipedia? Thanks Hoefler50 (talk) 07:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We sent you an e-mailEdit

Hello Fagus,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Authority templatesEdit

Authority templates are banned, eg Template:Dunkel to be speedy deleted--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I rolled back your recent edit as I wish to add the protologue to the pages, but thanks for making them. Good cooperation. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have not added the correct protologues and synonyms. I have added most of the protologues but few of the synonyms for the pages you created. Andyboorman (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for trying to fix this after the site's update, but no joy. Any ideas? Andyboorman (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PWO and WCSPEdit

Good morning. WCSP is a more robust source compared to PWO. They are both from the same stable - Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, London and the databases are manged by the same people. However, WCSP has been through a more robust screening process and should be used if a taxon appears on both databases. All is explained on their sites. In addition, there is no point in linking to both. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What happenedEdit

To Anemone blanda from the genus taxon page? See Hassler etc. Andyboorman (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Broken redirectsEdit

Hello. I bring this and this to your attention, as you are responsible for a number of these broken redirects. Would you be so kind as to work on the required red link species as soon as possible. Many thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't forget these tasks for example Aquilegia truncata. It is good work. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Asking for speedy deletes, such as Crataegus secreta is one way of getting rid of broken redirects, but it does not create the missing taxon page Crataegus turnerorum. Never mind. Andyboorman (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy DeletesEdit

Hi, the speedy deletes you have done using {{delete|Add reason here}} could you please put a reason in these can be short just not clear why all this is being deleted. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 14:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello. You are creating taxon pages for illegal and unplaced names for a handful of species in Clinopodium/Drymosiphon, for example Clinopodium pamphylicum (Boiss. & Heldr. ex Benth.) Govaerts, World Checkl. Seed Pl. 3(1): 18 (1999), with incorrect basionym ref.. This is taxonomically unsound and should not be used to "tidy up" the problems associated with the full synonymy between these two genera. Unplaced names are out of project scope and should be avoided. Illegal names can not be used as accepted species under ICN - check this out. Also you can not dodge the issue by incomplete and dated citations. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have added notes on the Drymosiphon Talk Page and associated taxa. Hope these help. Andyboorman (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorbus erzincanicaEdit

I have not read the protologue, but it appears that this combination may turn out to be a species of Hedlundia, given the authors found that it is closely related to Hedlundia pseudomeinichii syn. Sorbus pseudomeinichii. I guess that we await further research. It is not in IPNI by the way. In addition, I have made adjustments to Sorbus aucuparia based upon PWO/Hassler and so on. Andyboorman (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Stritch, 2018Edit

You marked Template:Stritch, 2018 for speedy deletion. I have reverted you, because you did not give a reason (I see you were advised on this point in August last year); and because the template is used on several taxon pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinus speciesEdit

Species delimitation in Pinus is not at all settled. Please consult multiple sources before redirecting or deleting. Businsky (2008) is a good contrast to PWO. See the discussion on the Pump. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may want to also check with @MPF: and @RLJ: as well. Cheers. Andyboorman (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the systematic status of Pinus pseudostrobus var. apulcensis or Pinus apulcensis. These are two taxa that are synonyms for each other. A separate page has been opened for both.Fagus (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fagus, Andyboorman, and RLJ:Thanks for the tag! Looking through the recent changes here:
  • My preference is to recognise Pinus apulcensis as a distinct species, as originally described by Lindley. The cones are not remotely similar.
  • Having seen Pinus estevezii in the wild, it is distinct, and not very close to either Pinus apulcensis or Pinus pseudostrobus; it is closer to Pinus montezumae, though differs from that in smoother bark. A case could perhaps be made for treatment as a subspecies of P. montezumae, but the combination has not been published.
  • The two subspecies of Pinus balfouriana are distinct, please reinstate them! I can't see any reason why they were removed?
Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF: I removed subspecies of Pinus balfouriana because I can not find any references accepting them as distinct enough from natural variation, except Businsky but cant read the description! I will restore in due course. Andyboorman (talk) 10:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Easy enough to put Businský's text into google translate; offers this:
P. balfouriana Balf., 1853; 2 subsp.:
  • Needles persistent usually 10–15 years; cones mostly oblong-elliptic, mostly 8–11 cm long, with scales relatively thin but broad (average 1.5 cm), cone stalk usually less than 12 mm long; seed wing averaging 17.5 mm long, mostly pale chocolate brown [S California: Klamath Mts., Mt. Linn] ... P. balfouriana subsp. balfouriana – Fig. 17/C.
  • Needles persistent usually 20–30 years; cones mostly elliptic, mostly 6–9 cm long, with scales relatively thick but narrow (average 1.3 cm), cone stalk often more than 12 mm long; seed wing average 14 mm long, most often translucent, dotted or striped [diag. California: S Sierra Nevada W and NW of Owens Lake / Icon: Sudworth 1908, f. 11] ... P. balfouriana subsp. austrina R. et J. Mastrog., 1980.
I can confirm the cone and seed differences from my own collections, in particular that the scales of the nominate are conspicuously broader - MPF (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure that Pinus subg. Pinus, Pinus sect. Pseudostrobus and Sula, as circumscribed by Businsky, stand up to more current research check with @MPF:, if I was you. Andyboorman (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman: - thanks! In general, Businský treats everything a rank higher than others; with good reason given the ancient divergence of most of the groups. I think he may have overdone some of these hard pine sections though; compared with Fig. 2 in Jin et al., 2021, I'd say that the split between Pinus and Pinaster is old enough (Jin gives 45 m.y.) to be valid at Sectio rank rather than Jin's Subsectio; but I'd not accept Businský's further sections in this group, i.e., include Sects. Pinea and Sula as synonmys of Sect. Pinaster (and also his sect. Merkusia I reckon belongs here, rather than in Sect. Pinus - both morphology and ecology are close to Pinaster, not Pinus). More later! - MPF (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. Sorry I read Jin, as the two Subgenera splitting 100 m.y., then under Subg. Pinus, Sect. Trifoliae and Sect. Pinus splitting at approx. 58 m.y. Finally the divergence between Subsect. Pinus and Subsect Pinaster occurred at about 44 m.y.? Andyboorman (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman: Hi Andy - yep; but the division of Sect. Trifoliae into its subsections is substantially more recent, about 32 m.y. and newer; a division at 44 m.y. (I'd read as 45, but 44 is perhaps more accurate) I'd say is still worthy of sectional, rather than subsectional, recognition. Likewise, with Subgenus Strobus, the recognition of six sections as per Businský, rather than just two per Jin et al., better fits the age and diversity of these subdivisions (compare that Sapindales paper I mentioned; a lot of taxa widely recognised as genera are much younger than that!). - MPF (talk) 10:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF:. You maybe right. However, I do not think that WS is the place for a blend between Businský and others. In addition, I do not think Businský is completely correct given the more recent molecular and evolutionary research. I think it would be better to go with Jin for now, as it is simpler and less controversial and is based upon work by others. In addition, it agrees with Businský except for a few sections/subsections. Series etc. need to be junked. It will result in fewer disputed tags compared to continuing to follow Businský. Andyboorman (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @MPF:,@Andyboorman:. It was really complicated. The subgenus, section, subsection and the series, shall we remove all this for now? What do you think? --Fagus (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes that would be my preference, as there is no consensus amongst the botanic community. However, I am not willing to make these changes unilaterally. Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Fagus:,@Andyboorman: - I'd say definitely keep the subgenera; they are undisputed. Sections, I'd favour keeping, but could be persuaded to drop them, and slightly more so subsections. Series, definitely not include. - MPF (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Fagus:, @MPF: Agreed about the subgenera and series, but need to think about sections and subsections. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 09:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Fagus: & @MPF: I think I got rid of the series and subseries from the species pages and made the required redirects, if somebody could double check. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]