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!

–Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC).Reply

Reverted edits edit

I have reverted these two edits you have made, Chloris dandyana DIFF. and Chloris spathacea DIFF., but you did not add a reference for your changes. My original edits are still current, so please do not make changes that can be considered as vandalism. Andyboorman (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Redirs with additional information? If you think this is right... OK, but I do not understand it. --Succu (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
It actually is a bit odd with the additional information "complementing" the redirects, but perhaps there is some value in keeping the added data, for example if a taxon is disputed and/or can be expected to be revised in a relatively near future? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC).Reply
It's even odder, because the redirects are pointing to the non existent pages Chloris elata and Tetrapogon cenchriformis. BTW: According to a paper from 2015 about Eleusininae the accepted name for Chloris elata is now Stapfochloa elata. --Succu (talk) 10:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
Chloris elata and Tetrapogon cenchriformis had not been created, as I was waiting for WCSP to update! I will create the appropriate taxon pages later with full lists of synonyms and references. I assume the paper you refer to is Peterson et al., 2015. A molecular phylogeny and classification of the Eleusininae with a new genus, Micrachne (Poaceae: Chloridoideae: Cynodonteae). Taxon, 64(3): 445-467 (do not hide your light etc...)? I have added it to the tribe with the gen. nov. In which case we are both wrong! Me for not updating an older circumscription and you for getting rid of the redirect in favour of another synonym of Stapfochloa elata see here Stapfochloa elata on WCSP. I will sort this mess out as soon as. This is why we must reference edits and page creates IMO. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
You are wrong. My intention was to fix an erroneous page, not to provide a taxonomic opinion. A taxonomic opinion should always have a reference. --Succu (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough, but you fixed an erroneous page with an erroneous page, which why I got an alert I guess. No harm done. Regards. Andyboorman (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

───────────────────────── What is your interest in Chloris dandyana and Chloris spathacea are you an agrostologist? I have added some data, but will concentrate on another project before getting back to Poaceae in due course. By the way, apologies ignore suggestions of vandalism, but perhaps not a good idea to highlight an error with an error. Thanks and good luck with your Wikidata work. Andyboorman (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Patroller? edit


Dear, Succu! Would you accept to be a Patroller on Wikispecies? Wikispecies need more Patrollers and presently there is only 37 out of 150 active users.
Please see Patrollers for information about patrollers rights. If you are positive, I can nominate you on the requests for patroller rights on your behalf.

Dan Koehl (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Aloe ×schimperi edit

Hello Aloe × schimperi Tod., Hort. Bot. Panorm. 1: 70 (1878) is a hybrid see this reference for confirmation as well as WCSP. The archive GRIN is wrong. Will you revert your revert? Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry the present page is slightly incorrectly named! I will sort it out. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 09:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

revert delete request? edit

Hello will you revert your delete request for The Cacti of CITES Appendix 1? Here is a link to this book for sale on Amazon. The book clearly deals with only Cacti and I have added its ISBN. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Done, sorry. Used it myself (2010) in de:Liste der Kakteenarten im Anhang I des Washingtoner Artenschutz-Übereinkommens. --Succu (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
No problems. Very good deWP page by the way. Cacti taxonomy is still a nightmare, in my opinion. Just as an example, Cereus where PWO, Hassler and Tropics-VPA all have significant differences. Also many taxa were described by keen amateurs without reference to an available type. Paul Heath is a good example in his self published Calyx journal, which is very difficult to get hold of. For example, a lot of his intergeneric hybrids are unresolved and difficult to assess for validity and are technically out of our project scope. Good luck to @MILEPRI: for giving this family a go. I have tended to avoid it concentrating on red linked genera, where there is much work to do. All the best Andyboorman (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Tunilla edit

Why are you taking sides in a taxonomic opinion? Tunilla is accepted over a synonymy with Airampoa by a number of sources. Editors on Wikis are not meant to take one side over another in disputes/opinions, but to present a neutral standpoint. In addition, This sort of edit is seen as OR, which is also not allowed. Please let me know why I should not revert your edit? Andyboorman (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Tunilla is a superfluous name for Airampoa. For the most consensus taxonomy of cacti see here. --Succu (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Excellent - have you made up a reference template for this paper and placed it on the relevant WS pages? Without this cited reference your changes are meaningless, as WS is meant to be scientific in its approach where changes are supported by the evidence presented on the taxon pages. Thanks and looking forward to the reference template. Andyboorman (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
I have no idea how this works, but I do the changes at deWP and WD. --Succu (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
I have added a reference template (Korotkova et al., 2021) to the Cactaceae page, but not yet a link to Cactaceae at Caryophyllales.org. We ought to see if we can create a dynamic link such as IPNI, but not now. I have had a play around with this resource and it seems that the cacti taxa pages need a major work through - not just Tunilla! Loads of work if you are interested. Andyboorman (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
My workload is at deWP and WD, not here. --Succu (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply