User talk:MPF/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikispecies, MPF/Archive 1! We like having new people contributing to Wikispecies. Here are a few things that may be interesting: Have a look at Done and to do. See also Wikispecies PR Please ask further questions in the Village Pump. Please don't upload files to Wikispecies unless there's a special reason to do so; use the Wikimedia Commons instead. We hope you'll enjoy the time you spend on Wikispecies! You can sign your messages with ~~~~.

Open2universe 00:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Terns

Yes, it does look like a number of changes are needed. It can be tricky, but try to keep redirects from the older names and include them as synonyms and it should be okay. Thanks, Open2universe

Work in progress

Wikispecies is getting a new look, so it might look weird sometimes. But the colons ':' were left out intentionally, so please dont add them :) --Kempm 17:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example: Glomus_przelewicense. The community chose a straight list because that is easier to maintain. (Deleting or inserting taxa) --Kempm 17:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Few more small changes. __NOTOC__ is integrated in the topmost hierarchical level, so should be removed. And for vernacular names we now have the {{VN|en=english name|fr=french name|etc}} template. Have a look at my changes to you last contributions for formatting and syntax, or alternatively to the help files. Cheers Lycaon 12:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Indicating lectotype species of genera

Anyone think this is a good idea? It would be quite easy to do by adding bold formatting to the lectotype species on the genus pages, e.g. {{sp|P|otentilla|recta}} {{sp|P|otentilla|rehderiana}} '''{{sp|P|otentilla|reptans}}''' {{sp|P|otentilla|robbinsiana}} - MPF 23:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

1. There is no such thing as "lectotype species of genera", just type species
2. We already state the type species (when known) of a genus in the name section of the genus page
3. The type species might be a synonym which therefore isn't on the species list for the genus, so it could get confusing if you do it your way

Stho002 23:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, botany - I forget about plants, sorry!

There are hundreds of examples in insects (and other groups) of pages with type species data. Here is just one simple one: Austrovelia

I still don't think there is a need to highlight type species in the species lists - it will just be confusing to many people.

Stho002 23:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Bird families

scuila

please see my last comment on the Village Pump Stho002 23:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

and again Stho002 00:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Stewartia/Stuartia

There still appears to be doubt, eg. see:

http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom/2007-May/025671.html

I will do nothing, and leave it to those with an opinion to slog it out...

Stho002 20:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Wollemi pine

I am not making this up out of thin air. I just don't understand why you keep removing the common name for this species, which is abundantly verifiable from the literature (including two of the three references already linked in the article!). You even presume to tell the French, Spanish, etc. what they should be calling this species in their own respective languages (I took the names directly from their language Wikipedias). You are not making sense.

Please stop removing verifiable and factual information from the Wollemia nobilis article. Nobody is trying to say it's a true pine but "Wollemi pine" is the common name according to all modern references, including the ones already linked in the article. "Wollemi pine" is the name used for this species by the Australian government in its official publications on the species.

"Stuartia"

That Taxacom discussion is quite wrong in assuming that an older, original name must needs be preserved by conservation over a later spelling of the same name--it is the other way around. Befaria (published by Linnaeus but named by Mutis in honour of a person named "Bejar") vs. Bejaria (the spelling Mutis intended) is actually a very different case in its details but are you aware that the corrected later spelling "Bejaria" has been CONSERVED over Linnaeus' original spelling "Befaria"? I'll allow that the cases are quite similar in one respect: it shows that the original Linnaean spelling is to be accepted unless a later spelling is conserved.

Meanwhile I'm afraid I still don't understand why you are dismissing IPNI, a modern and continuously updated database produced by Kew, in favor of a 1992 reference. It shows as clearly as anything possibly can that Kew have accepted "Stewartia" as the correct spelling of the genus name. 68.48.220.53 00:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Carl Linnaeus

Thanks to the illustrated Tree of Life, I saw the tree of Homo and discovered that a painting of Linnaeus was there. I thought it was either an Easter egg or some good joke so I checked the page. The best part of the joke is that you described him as the "type species". Well played. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! ;-) Linnaeus was actually designated as the type specimen of Homo sapiens over 50 years ago, by W T Stearn (details) - MPF (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Links to references

Hi, one of the main things that users of Wikispecies find useful is having a links to references, so that they can read them at the click of a mouse. So, please can you try to give links to references that you add, like that BBOC ref. on the page Regulus ignicapilla. I have more than enough to do without having to add these links for other editors ... Stho002 (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know it was available online - it wasn't the last time I'd looked, I had to go to a library and photograph the paper copy to get it for myself. I'm actually very surprised it is available now, I got the impression Bull.B.O.C. guarded their paywall very closely. - MPF (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Primary vs. Secondary Sources

• Please see my reply at VP, we weren't on the same page! Stho002 (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Warning (removal of categories)

This is a warning. You have been removing categories from taxon pages. Please stop doing that! Thanks Stho002 (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The category I removed is out of wikispecies scope (i.e., not taxonomic information). Your revertion removed other relevant information that I had added, so please restore it. - MPF (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, one vote for, one vote against. Stho002 (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you take it up on the Village pump, then, rather than destroying the work I've done. What's so special about New Zealand, as opposed to the other 190 countries of the world, that don't have any such categories? And Blechnaceae is not a New Zealand endemic family; it has a global distribution. - MPF (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is special about N.Z.! Anyone is free to do the same for any other country they goddam like! But I haven't got time to do it for all countries, and I know most about N.Z., so I am doing it for N.Z. Is that alright with you, sir?? I am fully aware that Blechnaceae isn't endemic to N.Z. Please show me where I have indicated otherwise, 'cos I can't find it! Stho002 (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't alright with me, sir! It is very misleading. A single listing linking the family to New Zealand and to nowhere else looks very like a statement that it is endemic there. I know perfectly well that it isn't, but that may not apply to some, or even many, Wikispecies users. And I see nothing in the Wikispecies scope that permits the inclusion of this; it is thoroughly off-topic. Finally, it conflicts with your own stated point that adding new taxa is more important than side fripperies like this ;-) MPF (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Then you don't understand categories. The absence of a category for Australia, say, doesn't mean the family doesn't occur in Australia, just that nobody has yet added the category. It is not my fault if you misinterpret information. It is obvious that Blechnaceae is not endemic to N.Z., or else the species list on the N.Z. category page would be complete with all species on the global page. Policy allows addition of any categories that are broadly relevant to the taxon pages, and distribution is certainly one of those. Also, I wouldn't throw too many policy stones, as your edits lately have been very "idiosyncratic", shall we say? The N.Z. categories allows me to focus on missing N.Z. species from the main pages. I am adding new taxa to the main pages as fast as I can, the fact that N.Z. species are my highest priority is neither here nor there. Stho002 (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Transferred to Village Pump for wider discussion - MPF (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Please note that trying to stir up trouble may be punishable by admin action, though I will not be taking any admin action against you myself, but I may see what some (selected) other admins and 'crats think is the best way to handle problematic editors like yourself Stho002 (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd welcome comment from other admins, and other wikispecies contributors. This should of course be open to all admins, not just 'selected' ones. - MPF (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, we have 2 options at this point: (1) we could agree to disagree and simply continue adding useful information (without also removing useful categories!); or (2) we could do what you suggest and see what other admins and 'crats have to say about your attempts to stir up trouble at this particular time, with special reference to your recent edits on ferns (i.e. how well your edits uphold policy guidelines of format (e.g. https://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trichomanes&oldid=1857920) and sourcing). Your choice, but I think it's a "no-brainer" Stho002 (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

As said, I'd welcome comment from other admins. My recent edits to ferns have been fully within scope, adding references, images, revising species and genera to conform to Smith et al. (the standard work on fern classification, as cited in that Trichomanes link), etc. Signing off for now, other things to do in the real world. MPF (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Given that Trichomanes contains 118 species accepted by The Plant List, I'm not sure that you want to parade it about as an example of your fine editing?? Again, your choice Stho002 (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Because The Plant List isn't a reliable source; it includes names not accepted by other sources, including some that are invalid under the ICBN (thwey even say so on their home page, "It also includes Unresolved names for which the contributing data sources did not contain sufficient evidence to decide whether they were Accepted or Synonyms". And anyway, that's not relevant to what I edited at Trichomanes, which was in this first instance to remove taxa listed there but which are no longer (Smith et al.) placed in that genus. I had planned to come back to it to add other species for which I could locate firm evidence for acceptance. - MPF (talk) 09:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hymenophyllum nephrophyllum

By consensus of the N.Z. botanical community, this name has been rejected, see: http://demo.nzor.org.nz/names/04668bba-4cde-476d-9d9f-5c2ade6d7619 Just because a publication proposes a name change, doesn't mean that we must follow it. It is not easy to deal with cases like this on WS. Stho002 (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I can see it is a tricky case, but Cardiomanes is clearly shown to be nested within Hymenophyllum, leaving that genus paraphyletic if Cardiomanes is accepted. There's a very similar problem with the Euro+Med PlantBase and BSBI retaining 'traditional' Trichomanes speciosum over Vandenboschia speciosa, but I think that where the genetic evidence is strong (as it is here in both examples), we should go with the genetic evidence, rather than entrenched tradition - MPF (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It will depend on whether there is any good reason for NZOR to reject Hymenophyllum nephrophyllum. If I can't find anything, then I would be inclined to go with Hymenophyllum nephrophyllum. But if there are reasons to reject Hymenophyllum nephrophyllum, then I would be inclined to do so. Otherwise, WS would be using a name for a species which is endemic to N.Z., and yet which nobody in N.Z. uses for that species! This situation is to be avoided if at all possible. Stho002 (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

No typo!

Regarding this edit of yours: https://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ALerner_%26_Mindell%2C_2005&diff=1872629&oldid=1862297 Please don't do that! There was no typo! Thanks, Stho002 (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes there was! (and is again, now, sadly) - a semi-colon where it should be a comma, a missing ampersand connecting the authors, a colon where it should be a fullstop, a misplaced comma between the journal title and volume number, and a missing space after a bracket. It looks very ugly now :-( MPF (talk) 01:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The Plant List and References

I appreciate that the Plant List is not the best source, but it is more accurate than not. Normally I try to triangulate it with other sources of accepted names (eg WCSP), but this is not always possible. I have reverted your edits on Pulsatilla where you have removed this source from the references without providing an alternative - I can not find a better one either. GRIN, Tropicos, and IPNI are only repositories of names without normally making a judgement about their acceptance and at least the latter two are pretty accurate in their information. I suggest that you ought to be careful about genera and species list edits without providing additional and current references. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Disputed taxonomy

Hi I have completed the Stachys page complete with a disputed taxonomy discussion on Discussion. It may help with your Anemone/Pulsatilla problem. I think it is appropriately referenced, hopefully style format is OK as well. As you can see I use WCSP as a basis (better than TPL, but just and a five minute longer work around to get a Wikispecies formatted list!). What do you think? Regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)