This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Nadia, my additions to the Sehome Hill Arboretum page were not categorized in the way things usually are (i.e. "native" versus "invasive" plants). This categorization of plants and animals brings a lot of psychological baggage, and quite frankly is arbitrary, pseudo-scientific, and useless in the real world. It is impossible to prove that a plant is native when there is no consensus about when plants began moving across space. To say that a plant "discovered" here by Douglas is "native" while the ones subsequent peoples brought are "invasive" carries racial undertones, and implies that native americans lived in a stagnant environment that they did not influence. Reverting back to the older version deleted information about flora that actually grows there. I should take better care to photograph and share new plants found in the sehome hill arboretum (i.e. mountain ash, holly). All-too-often, the existing information about an ecological place is out-dated, and misses a very significant truth; they are always changing. I thank you for your work on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.149.206 ( talk) 19:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Nice addition, Nadia. Well written and much needed ! Hamamelis ( talk) 16:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think at present that the article Chresonym should be proposed for deletion.
Hi Peter, I see your point, that the words related to chresonymy are very rarely used, but I expect that the terms may get more use as biodiversity database efforts become more sophisticated, and could potentially crop up in database documentation. They are essential in the process of tracing what the type of a taxon is, back through a chain of references. Also, I think that Wikipedia could have a valuable role if you add the citation that these terms are rarely used, which could be a huge help to someone who comes across them. A wiktionary page doesn't seem to have the capacity to fulfill the role of explaining the difficult meanings. At the risk of belabouring the point, this term sounds as if it ought to be a term in linguistics, and some innocent linguist might think that they need to know all about it, so Wikipedia could save them considerable hardship (cf. Synecdoche). I wouldn't favour deletion.
I first heard about these terms during a botany course, but from a professor who also reads the zoological literature. No, I don't know of any use in botany in print of these terms.
I haven't read enough of A. Dubois's writings, and don't sufficiently understand how circumscription interacts with nomenclature in zoology to be able to come up with an example of heterochresonymy. From memory, people do use Crataegus ambigua Sarg. as if it were a name that Sargent intended to make, but he was just relaying descriptive information about an existing name (describing the plants as they grow in his arboretum, and recommending them to others). That would be orthochresonymy. I've wondered whether Crataegus brevispina Douglas ex Steud. might come up as an example of heterochresonymy. Steudel was sinking C. brevispina Douglas as a synonym of C. punctata Jacq., but Index Kewensis misread the subtle difference between roman and italic fonts and listed a new name due to Steudel. Perhaps that's not the sort of situation that is meant by Dubois; we'd need an expert to fix the wikipedia entry.
Perhaps we should be discussing this on the talk page for Chresonym. If you want to copy this there, I have no objection. Nadiatalent ( talk) 13:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you - pls can you tell me how to move the image File:Dahlia-photo-by-gil-dekel-UK-2011.JPG to the gallery? Or of you could move it yourself pls? -- GilD ( talk) 18:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I noticed your changes to Botanical nomenclature, i.e. changing "ICBN" to "ICN" as per the new version of the Code. However, in at least one case, this makes the reference wrong, i.e. the article says "according to the ICN" but then references the Vienna Code. It's not clear what to do about this until the new version is online. Of course, this applies to a significant number of nomenclature/taxonomy articles. Um... Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I've returned the article to its original name. In the future, if you wish to rename an article, please don't to it by "cut and paste". This breaks the edit history for the article, and some unpaid admin will have to go through the process described in Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves, feeling very sorry for himself. Instead, use "Move page" command available in the "Page" drop-down menu. Favonian ( talk) 12:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nadia. In trying to copy/move the comments made about objective synonyms at the WP:Plants talk page ( here) to the talk page at Name-bearing type, I considered it perhaps prudent to edit the discussion slightly, including one of your sentences. Before I make the move, you might want to check out my pruned version (and intro to the discussion) at my sandbox here, to see if you approve. Thanks. (PS I've also sent you an email) PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 22:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nadia. I've copied the comments over. I added some more of my own comments at the end, as that seemed to round off the discussion a bit better, though everything else remains unaltered. Thanks again. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 07:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You might want to correct Fission (biology) as well (if it's wrong, that is). I was basing it on that, heh, as it says fission is different from mitosis. I really have no clue though.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Nadia. I see you've tried to merge all of these together into one article, which I think may be a smart move. The title is a bit hefty, though. Reading that first sentence, do you think Interspecific Prunus hybrids might be a better, more natural title? Is that the intended scope? I think they were notable in their own right and certainly had enough to be stand alone articles, though. Thoughts? Rkitko ( talk) 03:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, perhaps we should move this discussion to the page. Here's a copy of my initial response to Rkitko. I agree that the title of this page is clunky. The reason that I didn't go with something about interspecific prunus or IS plum, is that the fruit of these three (or four, since two of the names are synonymous) have become agriculturally important and are often confused with one another, but there are potentially many many more hybrids, including completely inedible ones. There are already wikipedia pages for peacotum and nectaplum, hybrids involving peach. I'd been trying for some time to improve those three separate pages, but it was difficult to get away from the hard distinction between plumcot and pluot that I find unattractive (as a botanist with the bias that later generations get the same name as the first-generation hybrid). Nadiatalent ( talk) 12:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Please be aware that wp:pagemoves can be controversial. It is generally regarded as good practice to discuss them first except in trivial cases (capitalization, spelling errors, etc.) In this case, it looks as if the rationale for the move was that other common names are used, though that was based on just one New Zealand source. Do we have evidence that these other common names are similarly widespread? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I strongly support your page move. I would also like to see Hogweed moved to Heracleum, if you agree. Common names for white umbellifers are highly variable, not just from country to country but from region to region. (I still get confused over the common names for some of them in the part of England where I now live because I learned different names as a child; in at least one case the same common name is used in different parts of England for different plants.) Since some white umbellifers are, as you rightly pointed out, highly poisonous, I think that this is a group where it's particularly undesirable to use common names for article titles (and where articles should mention the possibility of confusion). Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I took so long to respond to you - I've been away; then sick. But better now!
After looking up definitions for sporangiophore, sporangium and hypha, and then trying to square them with how sporangiophore and hypha were used in the stolon article, they didn't make mutual sense. I'm probably not knowledgeable enough in the subject to understand it clearly. Is it possible that the meanings are analogous, yet somewhat different, in regard to fungi and plants? To answer your question directly, until it is covered better (possibly in its own article), no objection here to delinking. Thanks, Hamamelis ( talk) 00:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
So I had a go at the stolon part of Chlorophytum comosum, see if you think it is adequate. That page now has quite a bit of text, so it seems to have the potential to have at least one image added, and it would be nice if a green "wild-type" plant could be shown. Your strategy of adding the photos to the genus page seems like a good one, do you expect them to get zapped from there too? Have a look at Anthericum ramosum, that needs a gallery cleanup! Unfortunately I won't have much time to work on wikipedia for a few days. Nadiatalent ( talk) 12:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
About the book, I resisted buying it for a while, some of the entries are too short, need some polishing. Younger persons around me were using it, so it seems necessary, and it probably has considerable utility for cleaning up wikipedia. If you find a deficiency in it perhaps you can write to the authors and prompt them to improve the next edition! I love Goebel, but looking at it recently for this very matter, I see how so much of its wonderful material has become almost lost. It is in a narrative style, and for general snippets of education, a tabular form like Hickey & King is necessary. Nadiatalent ( talk) 14:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I should probably get that one too. For plant-identification terms I generally use Stearn's Botanical Latin (!), which has nice discussions of how Linnaeus used "lanceolate" differently from everyone else, etc. Nadiatalent ( talk) 17:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
A while back I thought about having [[Category:Dehiscent plants]]. I think it would be instructive to have a single page one could go to to bring together the diversity of plants having this dispersal function. Does this seem like a reasonable idea to you (Nadia and Peter)? This sub-thread can be restarted on the
dehiscence talk page if you think it's a positive idea...
To respond to your response to me, above, Nadia: My memory is sadly not where it should be; I was merely responding to your query to me on my talk page. Thanks,
Hamamelis (
talk)
13:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
It's a long way from Amphioxus,
It's a long way to us,
It's a long way from Amphioxus
To the meanest human cuss.
It's good-bye to fins and gill-slits,
Hello lungs and hair!
It's a long, long way from Amphioxus,
But we all came from there.
—From an old song by Sam Hinton (if you've never heard it before, it's hummed to the tune "A Long Way from Tipperary")
Hi, and thanks for contributing to List of culinary fruits. I'm puzzled by some of your edits, though.
Could I ask that you be a little more careful with your edits, or, if there's something I'm missing here, explain on the talk page? Thanks. Waitak ( talk) 13:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Tgeairn ( talk) 18:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
A beer on me! | ||
Thanks for your contribution to List of culinary nuts! |
The original source of Herbert's creation of the genus is a great online find; thanks! The Hippeastrum–Amaryllis argument is an interesting illustration of taxonomists in action: a 50-year long debate on both sides of the Atlantic, often acrimonious, plus a name conservation decision in the Code, all to get back to what Herbert knew in 1821... Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Off the point of Hippeastrum but still on taxonomy, I saw your edits at Synonym (taxonomy). This article really does need to be got right, because it has so many links into it. One of the difficulties is writing a summary in the lead which is consistent with both codes. I'd been wondering whether splitting (as was done with Specific name) might be best; "Synonym (taxonomy)" could be a disambiguation page leading to "Synonym (zoology)" and "Synonym (botany)". Or is this being defeatist? Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nadia,
Both are true. It is apparently legitimate to use the same generic name if used in different Kingdoms, i.e., Animalia, and Plantae. Not even I was aware of this until your question. Linnaeus used it in Plantae, and Lesson in Animalia. Steve Pryor ( talk) 18:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nadiatalent, Thanks for correcting my mistakes. I'll try to be more careful in the future. I'm especially red-faced about messing up my cambiums (cambia?). Are you sure your reversion in Ostrya virginiana was correct, though? I linked "involucre" to a page where it is defined as corresponding "to the cupule; it is found in the related family Betulaceae, notably in the genera Carpinus and Corylus. It differs in being more leafy in appearance, but performs a similar role in protecting the developing nuts." That seems more accurate than linking to a page that defines it as "bracts that appear in a whorl subtending an inflorescence.... a common feature beneath the inflorescences of many Apiaceae, Asteraceae, Dipsacaceae and Polygonaceae."
Hello Nadia, thanks for the heads-up about the lousy wording. I regret to admit that when I hurry, or when my concentration slips, the standard of my writing goes haywire and I am unable to detect the effect if I reread my own text less than a few days later. It was nice of you to be so gentle about it. Cheers, Jon JonRichfield ( talk) 19:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Nadia, thanks for weighing in on Dalea purpurea the other day. Please see my questions on this at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants page. Also, per guidelines, should the Douglas-fir page be renamed to Pseudotsuga? Best-- -- Araucana ( talk) 17:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The Bio-star | ||
For your excellent contributions to Kudzu, filling in a gap that had gone unnoticed for years. I especially appreciate how quickly you addressed my concern. Thanks! 74.178.230.234 ( talk) 05:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC) |
You were right. Chinese medlar tea is goji, wrong genus entirely. I've reverted it. Waerloeg ( talk) 13:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the messages which you left on my userpage. The source for the claim about rosaceae leaving many valuable foods but not producing the staple food of any country was the Encyclopaedia Britannica, although I shall admit that it was back in 2003 that I read the claim there! Again, thank you for the messages, ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 09:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your message on my userpage!
I just edited the pokeweed page as it was very badly incomplete about the genus. But should the page not be called Phytolacca, like most other genus pages? Not all of the species are called "pokeweed". I looked at the page moving instructions, but they were too daunting for me. Is this something you would be able to get done? Keteleeria ( talk) 15:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nadia. I've been editing Wikipedia for exactly a year now, and coincidentally this very edit is my 1,000th, so I thought I'd use it to send you a rose (albeit a virtual one!), in recognition of both your Wikiwork on Rosaceae, and also our various 'rosy' discussions! Best wishes, PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 03:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC) |
Just a line to say "thank you" for your help. Much appreciated. Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 20:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I am new to Wikipedia and don't know the limitations. Are there any such restrictions. Can we add our links under references?? Pbanwari ( talk) 13:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC) |
Hi, thank you for your suggestion. I agree with you. I have now transferred the Review from "Garden strawberry" to "Fragaria". Thanks again! Granateple ( talk) 21:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nadia, these are the relevant places to dispute the speedies:
I have already posted to them. Hamamelis ( talk) 05:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear Dr Nadia,
I've been (very) slowly trying to rewrite and expand the articles related to asexual reproduction. As you seem to be something of an expert on the field w.r.t plants I will be very happy if you can go over the changes I make to the parthenogenesis and apomixis articles.
regarding the term parthenogenesis in botany: how is it used?
As per my understanding (please tell me if i've got this right):
Thanks.
Staticd ( talk) 08:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Apogamy: Originally defined by de Bary (1878) based on the behavior of ferns, then generalized to other plant groups but also narrowed in meaning by subsequent authors. Replaced by Winkler with the term APOMIXIS (1908), which he explicitly generalized.
Thank you all for the quick replies, but eeks, now i'm scared of touching on the plant part of the article.
One more(but probably not the last) query " In plants, parthenogenesis means development of an embryo from an unfertilized egg cell, and is a component process of apomixis." what about nucellar embryos and the like where an embryo is formed asexually from sporophyte? (following the definition in point three in my previous post) I think parthenogenesis in plants (development of an embryo without fertilization) will end up having the same definition at the top level as for animals. Do they actually have different defintions.
Thanks.
PS: (also the the watchers of this talk page) please look into the plan on the Talk:Parthenogenesis and do give your inputs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staticd ( talk • contribs) 05:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC) Staticd ( talk) 05:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Apogamety: Development of an embryo from a cell of the gametophyte other than a gamete (Renner 1916, p. 348), but also used (e.g. Nygren 1967) to include any cell other than the egg, and thus including central-cell embryos."
Nadiatalent ( talk) 14:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Pseudogamy: Seed development requiring pollination although the embryo has no paternal inheritance (Focke 1881), a very general term. The meaning is commonly restricted to cases where the endosperm requires fertilization but the embryo develops by PARTHENOGENESIS, for which see CENTROGAMY. This is notably different from Naumova’s use of the term (1993), for which see HEMIGAMY.
I prefer adult cats, although playful kittens can be fun for the short term. If you're a cat lover, then I hope you're familiar with the animated " Simon's Cat"—a must-see British series. Some of the Wikipedia links do not work, but the whole series (except the latest one) are all on YouTube. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 04:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Took a quick look through your contributions - I'd like to thank you for your excellent work on botany-related articles. - down load ׀ talk 22:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks Nadia, for spotting the above in History of plant breeding- it gave me one of my Wiki-chortling moments! PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 00:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I guess my instincts took the better on me. I gfelt som sort of reference between category:seed (or rather that member) and the new category was appropriate. Maybe a hatnote would have been a better choice. Go ahead and fix it, I have no objections. Circéus ( talk) 18:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
You have reverted my on History of University of Dhaka saying: "Undid revision 468071703 by Nafsadh (talk) Reverted unexplained change". Whereas the change was actually an improvement of the article towards conforming standard wikitable style as per WP:TABLE. Anyway, I already undid revert, which put us in the edge of an edit war. » nafSadh did say 15:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Nadiatalent, thanks for the comment you send 20 December 2011 on sequencing the names of parental (or presumed parental) species of plant hybrids:
In my experience in systematic botany, but not particularly horticulture, there is no one predominantly used standard here; instead, at least three contrasting patterns are widely used:
Of these, any can be used in a single-hybrid discussion to the extent the necessary facts are known (as in the loganberry case), but only the alphabetic approach is feasible for floras or other larger works treating many hybrids.
Since the the loganberry is horticultural, and at least in North America apparently not recorded as a wild-growing escape from cultivation, I'd have no objection to using the female-first sequence here, so long as the reason for the sequence is specified along with the formula, and have revised the article accordingly.-- LarryMorseDCOhio ( talk) 06:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nadia. Apologies for temporarily wiping out your recent contribution to the above page - an unintended consequence of getting caught in an edit conflict. I think it's all been restored now.... PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 17:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Thänks Nädia! PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 18:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nadia. Apologies if that deletion of text was me (looks to be so but was definitely inadvertent). Memo to self is to avoid late night edits. Sorry. ( talk)Libby norman 15:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libby norman ( talk • contribs)
Just wanted to wish you a Happy New Year, and say that I appreciate seeing you pop up in small edits, reverts and the like on articles that I've got on my watch list. It's refreshing to have someone who's both knowledgeable and gracious making contributions like these. Waitak ( talk) 17:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the 1910-1930 interval: This is when Franz Stephani was publishing the most error-laden volumes of his Species Hepaticarum, so that largely answers the question regarding illegitimate liverwort names...and there were a lot of them he was responsible for. Liverwort nomenclature long has been haunted by this. There was also an earlier near-simultaneous publication of three major liverwort classifications, all circa 1820, and Stephani's sometimes incorrect choices of genus from among them worsened the confusion as he named "new" species (and named them again, and named them again). The resulting confusion as to which generic and species names to follow lasted for more than half a century, and the illegitimate names are still actively present in collections of major herbaria--even ones with an in-house bryologist and dedicated collections managers. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 05:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, but I really don't think I'm going to need that much details ;-) It really is only a passing reference. You can see for yourself. Circéus ( talk) 14:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Nevermind that. I had a look (for entirely separate reasons) at Appendix 5, and it states what is unstated everywhere else:
One reason for identifying vertebrates as palaeopolyploids is the possession of 4 homeobox clusters (7 in teleosts, and I presume 14 in salmonids). I don't know offhand what other evidence, if any, is adduced. Lavateraguy ( talk) 16:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Calabe 1992 19:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I left these two sources in, even if duplicate, because I did not know what else has been taken from them. The article is (was) obviously a rewriting from a different citation style. I would propose to cross check against uncited statements, if they are from these "sources", before removing. Thats why I left them in, as I suspected they have been used more generally, where inline citations are missing. 70.137.138.83 ( talk) 14:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
As you were remarking food safety in Cashew nuts, if I understood right - I believe the food globalization, as a component of globalization in general, will have a lot of surprizes for us. This reaches from the presence of allergens like urushiols in novel (for us) foods to the use of mustard seed oils in imported foods, with a potential for contamination by Argemone oil, which has previously only been observed where mustard seed oil is a staple. See epidemic dropsy. In such cases likely the authorities as well as end customers are unprepared, as they had no opportunity to assess the possible pitfalls with such novel materials, do not know how to roast or otherwise properly prepare them or select them or recognize symptoms which are familiar in the countries of origin. So I ask myself, if e.g. imported mango pickles in mustard oil are analyzed for traces of contamination etc. or if there is a possibility of "imported epidemic dropsy" and the like. Same for imported legume products, fava beans etc., are we familiar with their possible pitfalls? Just a thought. 70.137.136.109 ( talk) 18:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Good to see some work on this article again! It would be useful, though, to have some references for the changed material, e.g. "although it is now the usual practice to list misidentifications separately" – it ought perhaps to be, but is there evidence that it is? Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Could you help keep an eye on these pages, please? Trachycarpus, Trachycarpus fortunei, and Trachycarpus wagnerianus (the last should be a redirect to the second). In summary, T. wagnerianus was once treated as a separate species but is now known to be synonym / cultivar group of T. fortunei (e.g. Flora of China, USDA, Kew). A few popular books, and some nurseries with financial interests in selling them, still like to treat it as a species, but without any scientific evidence. Some anon editors keep trying to push this view despite the evidence against it, and keep reverting the scientific data. Is it time to ask for protection of these pages? Thank you! Keteleeria ( talk) 12:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
There are sources all over the internet and books published by botanists that list the T. wagnerianus as a distinct plant. This user has continually blanked the Trachycarpus wagnerianus page under the argument that the T. wagnerianus is nothing more than a T. fortunei, having personally grown many Trachycarpus I can say that the two can not be more distinct, even more so than any other two in the genus. If this user wants to mention that according to some texts the two are considered the same, he or she can mention it on the Trachycarpus wagnerianus page, rather than blanking the page and rederecting it to Trachycarpus fortunei.-- 65.103.214.135 ( talk) 20:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I see you are not only interested in the botany article, but are a PH.D. and work in the field. I'm working on improving the article as best I can and would greatly value your input. I was advised to use genetics as a model for improvement. I am considering how to structure adding in topics like cells and organs. I've set watch on your page so you can respond here if you like. 512bits ( talk) 03:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, thanks for correcting my recent edit to seed. I wonder if you would be able to check out this second attempt. The same mistake was made by someone else, in this edit to Oldest viable seed. Could you perhaps cast an eye over that article too? Because of the great potential for confusion amongst us laymen regarding this Russian claim, I feel we should explicitly eliminate it in these articles. Regards, 86.160.82.236 ( talk) 13:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC).
Please see Talk:Botany#Botany_article_structure_and_concerns. Thank you. 512bits ( talk) 23:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
They really mean "Pharmacal", its not a typo but some Korean journal.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/0253-6269/
70.137.154.146 ( talk) 17:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
No problem, I miscorrected it myself before and undid after I opened the doi. 70.137.154.146 ( talk) 18:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
When Allard and Garner published their discoveries on photoperiodism in 1920, it was thought daylight length was critical, but it was later discovered night length was critical. Do you know who made, and when, this discovery? Is there a reference we can use for this subsequent discovery? 512bits ( talk) 13:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
is the "title" of the entry, "tropicos.org" the work in which this entry is contained. 70.137.149.205 ( talk) 15:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Capitalization of titles - questionable. The cited articles do that themselves. I followed that. e.g.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2729375/?tool=pmcentrez
Removal of line breaks: is a matter of taste. With line breaks it is locally more readable, but less writable and it may with long citation lists scroll out of the range (screenfull) which you can easily read. Without linebreaks it is more writable and easier to copy-paste. There are proponents of each method. Got scolded at for including citations with line breaks too, in other articles. So you can't make it right for everybody either way. 70.137.149.205 ( talk) 15:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I have previously maintained the citations of this article without complaints. (other 70.137 edits before) What about the nonsense section with authority "Kaul" is that really bogus or is it some Indian local patriotism? Kaul seems to really exist as a botanist? Or is that a systematic forgery? 70.137.149.205 ( talk) 15:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, I hope it is all ok. now. The style guidelines are not specific about capitalization of titles. Seems to be ok to follow the cited document there. As you can see I am doing constructive edits to the best of my knowledge. 70.137.149.205 ( talk) 17:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Why did you dd the "who" line to "The beginning of serious study of calico cats seems to have occurred who? around 1948 when Murray Barr and his graduate student E.G. Bertram noticed dark, drumstick-shaped masses inside the nuclei of nerve cells of female cats, but not in male cats. " in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calico_cat ? Travürsa ( talk) 04:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey, that was very thoughtful of you -- a very nice surprise. Thanks! Rhode Island Red ( talk) 20:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Nadia, please comment here User_talk:MarshalN20#Photos 512bits ( talk) 00:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nadiatalent; If you have the file name, I'll try to fix it. [4] To correct the name of a file, please use Commons:Template:Rename ( Commons:Commons:File renaming). -- Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nadia. The Bumblebee Orchid is a typical example - who would have thought it? PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 21:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure why you removed the picture - it is of Ruscus aculeatus - see http://www.plant-identification.co.uk/skye/liliaceae/ruscus-aculeatus.htm and that is of course a phylloclade and not a leaf - the illustration in the article shows the same thing but in far less detail. The fact that it can confuse an observer is indeed part of its value. I could think of a variation in the caption, but I think removing it is plainly retrograde unless someone provides a better picture. Shyamal ( talk) 03:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The baby fig in that picture got blown off in a rain storm. There are a few others on the tree though. We bought it from a nursery last fall. Even with it's new leaf growth, it's only about 18" from it's top to the ground, so it's still quite young. New leaves are growing well. 512bits ( talk) 00:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The same ip address that attacked me here: [5] is now trying to put the same information as the banned user here: [6]. Policy states that banned users are not allowed to edit therefore I am reverting it. End of story. CanadianLinuxUser ( talk) 14:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Botany#Where_to_go_now. Thank you. 512bits ( talk) 15:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Why are some articles under their common name while others under their botanical name, ie: California poppy vs Cornus florida? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 512bits ( talk • contribs) 19:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Hola, he visto que es usted botánica. Le agradecería que revisase Biodiversity of New Caledonia, ya que yo no estoy capacitado en botánica. Tambien le agradecería si le interesa el tema, que desarrollase Biodiversity of Madagascar ya que es un tema importante. Muchas gracias por su atención.
Hi, you are a botanic, I am not botanic, besides, my English language is not fluent. I wish you check Biodiversity of New Caledonia, please, because these Islands are very important ecologically and they are a very forget area. I wish you to create a Biodiversity of Madagascar article, because Madagascar botany is very important too, and it is a very forget botanical area too. Thank you very much. Curritocurrito ( talk) 14:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The same reference was added in multiple articles, often not by an IP but by a user named Magdon, and one of the authors happens to be Magdon-Ismail. They often edited the same articles, too. So the COI is easy to verify (it even was automatically tagged as such on some of the other articles where I undid this addition). Anyway, thanks for checking. -- 24.43.41.182 ( talk) 03:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
In Calico cat article i add this first picture which you removed with 2 other pictures.
I added it to show color pattern of that cats. It shows both belly, dors, legs and front face of them.
I suppose it shows their pattern far better than this second picture: Which resides in article now.
Thank you for interest
Mekem ( talk) 05:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi I was at a nursery in Cranford, New Jersey, and took lots of pictures of plants a week or so ago in April. I don't know much about plants or gardening but I tried to make sure that the name of the plant (from a tag) was in each picture. If you'd like to use any of these pictures for the plant articles which you monitor, here's a link to them in Commons.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 01:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The plants all have "growing in NJ in April" in the photo file name. Also, check out this one: the flowers are shaped like hearts. Cool. Never saw anything like it before. Plus I am growing a red raspberry bush plus some lettuce so I can take photos of those as they grow.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 01:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I've nominated this for GA now. Big thanks to you for all your kind help. 512bits ( talk) 21:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nadia. I've decided to take a more ruthless approach to pruning the Lauraceae articles (e.g. Lindera), being of the view that it's probably better to build up new sourced material from scratch, rather than trying to wade through reams and reams of dubious content to see if any of it may be acceptable. I wonder what your view is? PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 12:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Hola, he visto que es usted botánica. Le agradecería que revisase Biodiversity of New Caledonia, ya que yo no estoy capacitado en botánica. Tambien le agradecería si le interesa el tema, que desarrollase Biodiversity of Madagascar ya que es un tema importante. tambien deseo agradecerle todas las aportaciones y correciones que ha venido usted efectuando todos estos días, las cuales le agradezco mucho y dan muestras de su vigor y denonada fe en favor del celo y la calidad de los articulos de nuestro proyecto, confiamos en seguir recibiendo sus aportaciones como hasta ahora y me permito brindarle mas articulos en los que desarrollar sus habilidades, no dudando que nos confiará su inestimable colaboración, de la cual estamos muy satisfechos, como lo estan el resto de mis compañeros. Si se decide usted a crear el articulo mencionado, puede solicitar la ayuda de los colaboradores que crea necesarios, como User talk:PaleCloudedWhite, de lo cual le quedaría muy agradecido. Su trabajo será muy satisfactorio sin dudarlo, por medio del corazón inmaculado, para reparar las ofensas que se pudieran causar y favorecer un tratamiento completo y profesional del necesario conocimiento y contribuir en cuanto podamos a que se de una mision prioritaria al conocimiento de la botanica, en estas cepas tan antiguas. Muchas gracias por su atención.
Hi, you are a botanic, I am not botanic, besides, my English language is not fluent. I wish you to create a Biodiversity of Madagascar article, because Madagascar botany is very important too, and it is a very forget botanical area too. You can do it. I'm sure, please, do it, because these Islands are very important ecologically and they are a very forget area. I'm sure that if you are busy, or you think is too hard for you, mister User talk:PaleCloudedWhite, can help you from scratch. He is a very hardworker and clever one, and you have the idea of an article as a whole, just not dripping and spurring, please please please, do Biodiversity of Madagascar Thank you very much. Curritocurrito ( talk) 06:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Small point: when you add an entry like this to the list:
both dashes should be en-dashes, not hyphens, according to the Manual of Style and for consistency with the other entries. I usually check when I don't know the editor who added the entry (both the format and that the information is in the IPNI – which sometimes isn't the case). But I don't usually check your additions; I just happened to notice this one. When I add an entry, I usually copy the one above and change it. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
There's a list at User:Peter_coxhead/Sandbox which I've been working my way through when I have a few spare moments (I've reached "M" as you can see). This list was obtained by cross-checking the category Category:Botanists with author abbreviations with List of botanists by author abbreviation. The cross-check doesn't quite work because the names which are wikilinked in the list are often redirects, so don't match the article titles in the category. I think we need some "bot expert" to write a tool which can properly check that everyone in List of botanists by author abbreviation who has an article has the {{ botanist}} template in it, which both gives their abbreviation and puts them in the category.
PL/I!! I started seriously using computers as a research student in the 1970s, doing statistical analyses on an IBM 360/165, then the largest computer in the UK. (I used to tell bored undergraduates how they increased its memory at vast cost from 1 to 2 Mb; a lot of the cost was for strengthening the floor to take the weight of the cooling system for the magnetic memory!) I did try PL/I but "graduated" to Fortran. Fading knowledge of PL/I and IBM JCL was, I thought, just useless information cluttering up my brain, until I met a couple of people who work for the Canadian tax authority in Ottawa, who told me that they use both (as well as Cobol) in the legacy systems still in use there.
The problem with Roscoea cautleyoides/cautleoides is that thanks to Curtis Clark's encouragement and my emailing IPNI & WCSP, the two databases now have different entries which is not really a step forward. Let's hope that they can decide who is right! It may depend on something in the new version of the ICN; it will be good when it is online. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
See the Huperziaceae draft for Flora of China and the Taxon paper to which it refers. If I understand the situation correctly (questionable, even before I made the mistake of looking at that Roscoea thread), Ren-Chang Ching, accidentally published the species as L. minchegense, a corrigible error for L. mingcheense, in April 1982, and then published it again, with a different holotype, as Phlegmariurus mingcheensis in May. The latter was transferred by Holub to Huperzia (in the sense inclusive of Phlegmariurus), but he was unaware of the priority of L. minchegense [sic] and did not include it in his combination. I assume it's because L. minchegense is a heterotypic rather than a homotypic synonym of P. mingcheensis that it's still listed as valid on TPL.
I'm not keen on starting a "Formerly..." section in Lycopodium, as it would be burdened by the repetition of the entire species lists from Huperzia, Diphasiastrum, and Lycopodiella. I will add this species to the list in Huperzia. Given that club moss articles are not exactly burning up the New Page Patrol, I think it's best to add redirects from older synonyms on the rare occasions a new one appears. Choess ( talk) 01:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Babies on both young trees, yea! See my Wiki Commons user page. 512bits ( talk) 21:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello Nadiatalent, thank you for your comments on Social and environmental impact of palm oil. I have made another try at the draft for the Social issues section and would be glad if you could look again at this. Thanks in advance. YellowOwl ( talk) 18:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Nadia, my additions to the Sehome Hill Arboretum page were not categorized in the way things usually are (i.e. "native" versus "invasive" plants). This categorization of plants and animals brings a lot of psychological baggage, and quite frankly is arbitrary, pseudo-scientific, and useless in the real world. It is impossible to prove that a plant is native when there is no consensus about when plants began moving across space. To say that a plant "discovered" here by Douglas is "native" while the ones subsequent peoples brought are "invasive" carries racial undertones, and implies that native americans lived in a stagnant environment that they did not influence. Reverting back to the older version deleted information about flora that actually grows there. I should take better care to photograph and share new plants found in the sehome hill arboretum (i.e. mountain ash, holly). All-too-often, the existing information about an ecological place is out-dated, and misses a very significant truth; they are always changing. I thank you for your work on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.149.206 ( talk) 19:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Nice addition, Nadia. Well written and much needed ! Hamamelis ( talk) 16:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think at present that the article Chresonym should be proposed for deletion.
Hi Peter, I see your point, that the words related to chresonymy are very rarely used, but I expect that the terms may get more use as biodiversity database efforts become more sophisticated, and could potentially crop up in database documentation. They are essential in the process of tracing what the type of a taxon is, back through a chain of references. Also, I think that Wikipedia could have a valuable role if you add the citation that these terms are rarely used, which could be a huge help to someone who comes across them. A wiktionary page doesn't seem to have the capacity to fulfill the role of explaining the difficult meanings. At the risk of belabouring the point, this term sounds as if it ought to be a term in linguistics, and some innocent linguist might think that they need to know all about it, so Wikipedia could save them considerable hardship (cf. Synecdoche). I wouldn't favour deletion.
I first heard about these terms during a botany course, but from a professor who also reads the zoological literature. No, I don't know of any use in botany in print of these terms.
I haven't read enough of A. Dubois's writings, and don't sufficiently understand how circumscription interacts with nomenclature in zoology to be able to come up with an example of heterochresonymy. From memory, people do use Crataegus ambigua Sarg. as if it were a name that Sargent intended to make, but he was just relaying descriptive information about an existing name (describing the plants as they grow in his arboretum, and recommending them to others). That would be orthochresonymy. I've wondered whether Crataegus brevispina Douglas ex Steud. might come up as an example of heterochresonymy. Steudel was sinking C. brevispina Douglas as a synonym of C. punctata Jacq., but Index Kewensis misread the subtle difference between roman and italic fonts and listed a new name due to Steudel. Perhaps that's not the sort of situation that is meant by Dubois; we'd need an expert to fix the wikipedia entry.
Perhaps we should be discussing this on the talk page for Chresonym. If you want to copy this there, I have no objection. Nadiatalent ( talk) 13:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you - pls can you tell me how to move the image File:Dahlia-photo-by-gil-dekel-UK-2011.JPG to the gallery? Or of you could move it yourself pls? -- GilD ( talk) 18:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I noticed your changes to Botanical nomenclature, i.e. changing "ICBN" to "ICN" as per the new version of the Code. However, in at least one case, this makes the reference wrong, i.e. the article says "according to the ICN" but then references the Vienna Code. It's not clear what to do about this until the new version is online. Of course, this applies to a significant number of nomenclature/taxonomy articles. Um... Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I've returned the article to its original name. In the future, if you wish to rename an article, please don't to it by "cut and paste". This breaks the edit history for the article, and some unpaid admin will have to go through the process described in Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves, feeling very sorry for himself. Instead, use "Move page" command available in the "Page" drop-down menu. Favonian ( talk) 12:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nadia. In trying to copy/move the comments made about objective synonyms at the WP:Plants talk page ( here) to the talk page at Name-bearing type, I considered it perhaps prudent to edit the discussion slightly, including one of your sentences. Before I make the move, you might want to check out my pruned version (and intro to the discussion) at my sandbox here, to see if you approve. Thanks. (PS I've also sent you an email) PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 22:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nadia. I've copied the comments over. I added some more of my own comments at the end, as that seemed to round off the discussion a bit better, though everything else remains unaltered. Thanks again. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 07:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You might want to correct Fission (biology) as well (if it's wrong, that is). I was basing it on that, heh, as it says fission is different from mitosis. I really have no clue though.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Nadia. I see you've tried to merge all of these together into one article, which I think may be a smart move. The title is a bit hefty, though. Reading that first sentence, do you think Interspecific Prunus hybrids might be a better, more natural title? Is that the intended scope? I think they were notable in their own right and certainly had enough to be stand alone articles, though. Thoughts? Rkitko ( talk) 03:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, perhaps we should move this discussion to the page. Here's a copy of my initial response to Rkitko. I agree that the title of this page is clunky. The reason that I didn't go with something about interspecific prunus or IS plum, is that the fruit of these three (or four, since two of the names are synonymous) have become agriculturally important and are often confused with one another, but there are potentially many many more hybrids, including completely inedible ones. There are already wikipedia pages for peacotum and nectaplum, hybrids involving peach. I'd been trying for some time to improve those three separate pages, but it was difficult to get away from the hard distinction between plumcot and pluot that I find unattractive (as a botanist with the bias that later generations get the same name as the first-generation hybrid). Nadiatalent ( talk) 12:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Please be aware that wp:pagemoves can be controversial. It is generally regarded as good practice to discuss them first except in trivial cases (capitalization, spelling errors, etc.) In this case, it looks as if the rationale for the move was that other common names are used, though that was based on just one New Zealand source. Do we have evidence that these other common names are similarly widespread? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I strongly support your page move. I would also like to see Hogweed moved to Heracleum, if you agree. Common names for white umbellifers are highly variable, not just from country to country but from region to region. (I still get confused over the common names for some of them in the part of England where I now live because I learned different names as a child; in at least one case the same common name is used in different parts of England for different plants.) Since some white umbellifers are, as you rightly pointed out, highly poisonous, I think that this is a group where it's particularly undesirable to use common names for article titles (and where articles should mention the possibility of confusion). Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I took so long to respond to you - I've been away; then sick. But better now!
After looking up definitions for sporangiophore, sporangium and hypha, and then trying to square them with how sporangiophore and hypha were used in the stolon article, they didn't make mutual sense. I'm probably not knowledgeable enough in the subject to understand it clearly. Is it possible that the meanings are analogous, yet somewhat different, in regard to fungi and plants? To answer your question directly, until it is covered better (possibly in its own article), no objection here to delinking. Thanks, Hamamelis ( talk) 00:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
So I had a go at the stolon part of Chlorophytum comosum, see if you think it is adequate. That page now has quite a bit of text, so it seems to have the potential to have at least one image added, and it would be nice if a green "wild-type" plant could be shown. Your strategy of adding the photos to the genus page seems like a good one, do you expect them to get zapped from there too? Have a look at Anthericum ramosum, that needs a gallery cleanup! Unfortunately I won't have much time to work on wikipedia for a few days. Nadiatalent ( talk) 12:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
About the book, I resisted buying it for a while, some of the entries are too short, need some polishing. Younger persons around me were using it, so it seems necessary, and it probably has considerable utility for cleaning up wikipedia. If you find a deficiency in it perhaps you can write to the authors and prompt them to improve the next edition! I love Goebel, but looking at it recently for this very matter, I see how so much of its wonderful material has become almost lost. It is in a narrative style, and for general snippets of education, a tabular form like Hickey & King is necessary. Nadiatalent ( talk) 14:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I should probably get that one too. For plant-identification terms I generally use Stearn's Botanical Latin (!), which has nice discussions of how Linnaeus used "lanceolate" differently from everyone else, etc. Nadiatalent ( talk) 17:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
A while back I thought about having [[Category:Dehiscent plants]]. I think it would be instructive to have a single page one could go to to bring together the diversity of plants having this dispersal function. Does this seem like a reasonable idea to you (Nadia and Peter)? This sub-thread can be restarted on the
dehiscence talk page if you think it's a positive idea...
To respond to your response to me, above, Nadia: My memory is sadly not where it should be; I was merely responding to your query to me on my talk page. Thanks,
Hamamelis (
talk)
13:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
It's a long way from Amphioxus,
It's a long way to us,
It's a long way from Amphioxus
To the meanest human cuss.
It's good-bye to fins and gill-slits,
Hello lungs and hair!
It's a long, long way from Amphioxus,
But we all came from there.
—From an old song by Sam Hinton (if you've never heard it before, it's hummed to the tune "A Long Way from Tipperary")
Hi, and thanks for contributing to List of culinary fruits. I'm puzzled by some of your edits, though.
Could I ask that you be a little more careful with your edits, or, if there's something I'm missing here, explain on the talk page? Thanks. Waitak ( talk) 13:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Tgeairn ( talk) 18:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
A beer on me! | ||
Thanks for your contribution to List of culinary nuts! |
The original source of Herbert's creation of the genus is a great online find; thanks! The Hippeastrum–Amaryllis argument is an interesting illustration of taxonomists in action: a 50-year long debate on both sides of the Atlantic, often acrimonious, plus a name conservation decision in the Code, all to get back to what Herbert knew in 1821... Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Off the point of Hippeastrum but still on taxonomy, I saw your edits at Synonym (taxonomy). This article really does need to be got right, because it has so many links into it. One of the difficulties is writing a summary in the lead which is consistent with both codes. I'd been wondering whether splitting (as was done with Specific name) might be best; "Synonym (taxonomy)" could be a disambiguation page leading to "Synonym (zoology)" and "Synonym (botany)". Or is this being defeatist? Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nadia,
Both are true. It is apparently legitimate to use the same generic name if used in different Kingdoms, i.e., Animalia, and Plantae. Not even I was aware of this until your question. Linnaeus used it in Plantae, and Lesson in Animalia. Steve Pryor ( talk) 18:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nadiatalent, Thanks for correcting my mistakes. I'll try to be more careful in the future. I'm especially red-faced about messing up my cambiums (cambia?). Are you sure your reversion in Ostrya virginiana was correct, though? I linked "involucre" to a page where it is defined as corresponding "to the cupule; it is found in the related family Betulaceae, notably in the genera Carpinus and Corylus. It differs in being more leafy in appearance, but performs a similar role in protecting the developing nuts." That seems more accurate than linking to a page that defines it as "bracts that appear in a whorl subtending an inflorescence.... a common feature beneath the inflorescences of many Apiaceae, Asteraceae, Dipsacaceae and Polygonaceae."
Hello Nadia, thanks for the heads-up about the lousy wording. I regret to admit that when I hurry, or when my concentration slips, the standard of my writing goes haywire and I am unable to detect the effect if I reread my own text less than a few days later. It was nice of you to be so gentle about it. Cheers, Jon JonRichfield ( talk) 19:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Nadia, thanks for weighing in on Dalea purpurea the other day. Please see my questions on this at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants page. Also, per guidelines, should the Douglas-fir page be renamed to Pseudotsuga? Best-- -- Araucana ( talk) 17:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The Bio-star | ||
For your excellent contributions to Kudzu, filling in a gap that had gone unnoticed for years. I especially appreciate how quickly you addressed my concern. Thanks! 74.178.230.234 ( talk) 05:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC) |
You were right. Chinese medlar tea is goji, wrong genus entirely. I've reverted it. Waerloeg ( talk) 13:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the messages which you left on my userpage. The source for the claim about rosaceae leaving many valuable foods but not producing the staple food of any country was the Encyclopaedia Britannica, although I shall admit that it was back in 2003 that I read the claim there! Again, thank you for the messages, ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 09:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your message on my userpage!
I just edited the pokeweed page as it was very badly incomplete about the genus. But should the page not be called Phytolacca, like most other genus pages? Not all of the species are called "pokeweed". I looked at the page moving instructions, but they were too daunting for me. Is this something you would be able to get done? Keteleeria ( talk) 15:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nadia. I've been editing Wikipedia for exactly a year now, and coincidentally this very edit is my 1,000th, so I thought I'd use it to send you a rose (albeit a virtual one!), in recognition of both your Wikiwork on Rosaceae, and also our various 'rosy' discussions! Best wishes, PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 03:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC) |
Just a line to say "thank you" for your help. Much appreciated. Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 20:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I am new to Wikipedia and don't know the limitations. Are there any such restrictions. Can we add our links under references?? Pbanwari ( talk) 13:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC) |
Hi, thank you for your suggestion. I agree with you. I have now transferred the Review from "Garden strawberry" to "Fragaria". Thanks again! Granateple ( talk) 21:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nadia, these are the relevant places to dispute the speedies:
I have already posted to them. Hamamelis ( talk) 05:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear Dr Nadia,
I've been (very) slowly trying to rewrite and expand the articles related to asexual reproduction. As you seem to be something of an expert on the field w.r.t plants I will be very happy if you can go over the changes I make to the parthenogenesis and apomixis articles.
regarding the term parthenogenesis in botany: how is it used?
As per my understanding (please tell me if i've got this right):
Thanks.
Staticd ( talk) 08:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Apogamy: Originally defined by de Bary (1878) based on the behavior of ferns, then generalized to other plant groups but also narrowed in meaning by subsequent authors. Replaced by Winkler with the term APOMIXIS (1908), which he explicitly generalized.
Thank you all for the quick replies, but eeks, now i'm scared of touching on the plant part of the article.
One more(but probably not the last) query " In plants, parthenogenesis means development of an embryo from an unfertilized egg cell, and is a component process of apomixis." what about nucellar embryos and the like where an embryo is formed asexually from sporophyte? (following the definition in point three in my previous post) I think parthenogenesis in plants (development of an embryo without fertilization) will end up having the same definition at the top level as for animals. Do they actually have different defintions.
Thanks.
PS: (also the the watchers of this talk page) please look into the plan on the Talk:Parthenogenesis and do give your inputs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staticd ( talk • contribs) 05:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC) Staticd ( talk) 05:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Apogamety: Development of an embryo from a cell of the gametophyte other than a gamete (Renner 1916, p. 348), but also used (e.g. Nygren 1967) to include any cell other than the egg, and thus including central-cell embryos."
Nadiatalent ( talk) 14:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Pseudogamy: Seed development requiring pollination although the embryo has no paternal inheritance (Focke 1881), a very general term. The meaning is commonly restricted to cases where the endosperm requires fertilization but the embryo develops by PARTHENOGENESIS, for which see CENTROGAMY. This is notably different from Naumova’s use of the term (1993), for which see HEMIGAMY.
I prefer adult cats, although playful kittens can be fun for the short term. If you're a cat lover, then I hope you're familiar with the animated " Simon's Cat"—a must-see British series. Some of the Wikipedia links do not work, but the whole series (except the latest one) are all on YouTube. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 04:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Took a quick look through your contributions - I'd like to thank you for your excellent work on botany-related articles. - down load ׀ talk 22:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks Nadia, for spotting the above in History of plant breeding- it gave me one of my Wiki-chortling moments! PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 00:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I guess my instincts took the better on me. I gfelt som sort of reference between category:seed (or rather that member) and the new category was appropriate. Maybe a hatnote would have been a better choice. Go ahead and fix it, I have no objections. Circéus ( talk) 18:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
You have reverted my on History of University of Dhaka saying: "Undid revision 468071703 by Nafsadh (talk) Reverted unexplained change". Whereas the change was actually an improvement of the article towards conforming standard wikitable style as per WP:TABLE. Anyway, I already undid revert, which put us in the edge of an edit war. » nafSadh did say 15:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Nadiatalent, thanks for the comment you send 20 December 2011 on sequencing the names of parental (or presumed parental) species of plant hybrids:
In my experience in systematic botany, but not particularly horticulture, there is no one predominantly used standard here; instead, at least three contrasting patterns are widely used:
Of these, any can be used in a single-hybrid discussion to the extent the necessary facts are known (as in the loganberry case), but only the alphabetic approach is feasible for floras or other larger works treating many hybrids.
Since the the loganberry is horticultural, and at least in North America apparently not recorded as a wild-growing escape from cultivation, I'd have no objection to using the female-first sequence here, so long as the reason for the sequence is specified along with the formula, and have revised the article accordingly.-- LarryMorseDCOhio ( talk) 06:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nadia. Apologies for temporarily wiping out your recent contribution to the above page - an unintended consequence of getting caught in an edit conflict. I think it's all been restored now.... PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 17:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Thänks Nädia! PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 18:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nadia. Apologies if that deletion of text was me (looks to be so but was definitely inadvertent). Memo to self is to avoid late night edits. Sorry. ( talk)Libby norman 15:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libby norman ( talk • contribs)
Just wanted to wish you a Happy New Year, and say that I appreciate seeing you pop up in small edits, reverts and the like on articles that I've got on my watch list. It's refreshing to have someone who's both knowledgeable and gracious making contributions like these. Waitak ( talk) 17:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the 1910-1930 interval: This is when Franz Stephani was publishing the most error-laden volumes of his Species Hepaticarum, so that largely answers the question regarding illegitimate liverwort names...and there were a lot of them he was responsible for. Liverwort nomenclature long has been haunted by this. There was also an earlier near-simultaneous publication of three major liverwort classifications, all circa 1820, and Stephani's sometimes incorrect choices of genus from among them worsened the confusion as he named "new" species (and named them again, and named them again). The resulting confusion as to which generic and species names to follow lasted for more than half a century, and the illegitimate names are still actively present in collections of major herbaria--even ones with an in-house bryologist and dedicated collections managers. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 05:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, but I really don't think I'm going to need that much details ;-) It really is only a passing reference. You can see for yourself. Circéus ( talk) 14:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Nevermind that. I had a look (for entirely separate reasons) at Appendix 5, and it states what is unstated everywhere else:
One reason for identifying vertebrates as palaeopolyploids is the possession of 4 homeobox clusters (7 in teleosts, and I presume 14 in salmonids). I don't know offhand what other evidence, if any, is adduced. Lavateraguy ( talk) 16:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Calabe 1992 19:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I left these two sources in, even if duplicate, because I did not know what else has been taken from them. The article is (was) obviously a rewriting from a different citation style. I would propose to cross check against uncited statements, if they are from these "sources", before removing. Thats why I left them in, as I suspected they have been used more generally, where inline citations are missing. 70.137.138.83 ( talk) 14:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
As you were remarking food safety in Cashew nuts, if I understood right - I believe the food globalization, as a component of globalization in general, will have a lot of surprizes for us. This reaches from the presence of allergens like urushiols in novel (for us) foods to the use of mustard seed oils in imported foods, with a potential for contamination by Argemone oil, which has previously only been observed where mustard seed oil is a staple. See epidemic dropsy. In such cases likely the authorities as well as end customers are unprepared, as they had no opportunity to assess the possible pitfalls with such novel materials, do not know how to roast or otherwise properly prepare them or select them or recognize symptoms which are familiar in the countries of origin. So I ask myself, if e.g. imported mango pickles in mustard oil are analyzed for traces of contamination etc. or if there is a possibility of "imported epidemic dropsy" and the like. Same for imported legume products, fava beans etc., are we familiar with their possible pitfalls? Just a thought. 70.137.136.109 ( talk) 18:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Good to see some work on this article again! It would be useful, though, to have some references for the changed material, e.g. "although it is now the usual practice to list misidentifications separately" – it ought perhaps to be, but is there evidence that it is? Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Could you help keep an eye on these pages, please? Trachycarpus, Trachycarpus fortunei, and Trachycarpus wagnerianus (the last should be a redirect to the second). In summary, T. wagnerianus was once treated as a separate species but is now known to be synonym / cultivar group of T. fortunei (e.g. Flora of China, USDA, Kew). A few popular books, and some nurseries with financial interests in selling them, still like to treat it as a species, but without any scientific evidence. Some anon editors keep trying to push this view despite the evidence against it, and keep reverting the scientific data. Is it time to ask for protection of these pages? Thank you! Keteleeria ( talk) 12:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
There are sources all over the internet and books published by botanists that list the T. wagnerianus as a distinct plant. This user has continually blanked the Trachycarpus wagnerianus page under the argument that the T. wagnerianus is nothing more than a T. fortunei, having personally grown many Trachycarpus I can say that the two can not be more distinct, even more so than any other two in the genus. If this user wants to mention that according to some texts the two are considered the same, he or she can mention it on the Trachycarpus wagnerianus page, rather than blanking the page and rederecting it to Trachycarpus fortunei.-- 65.103.214.135 ( talk) 20:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I see you are not only interested in the botany article, but are a PH.D. and work in the field. I'm working on improving the article as best I can and would greatly value your input. I was advised to use genetics as a model for improvement. I am considering how to structure adding in topics like cells and organs. I've set watch on your page so you can respond here if you like. 512bits ( talk) 03:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, thanks for correcting my recent edit to seed. I wonder if you would be able to check out this second attempt. The same mistake was made by someone else, in this edit to Oldest viable seed. Could you perhaps cast an eye over that article too? Because of the great potential for confusion amongst us laymen regarding this Russian claim, I feel we should explicitly eliminate it in these articles. Regards, 86.160.82.236 ( talk) 13:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC).
Please see Talk:Botany#Botany_article_structure_and_concerns. Thank you. 512bits ( talk) 23:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
They really mean "Pharmacal", its not a typo but some Korean journal.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/0253-6269/
70.137.154.146 ( talk) 17:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
No problem, I miscorrected it myself before and undid after I opened the doi. 70.137.154.146 ( talk) 18:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
When Allard and Garner published their discoveries on photoperiodism in 1920, it was thought daylight length was critical, but it was later discovered night length was critical. Do you know who made, and when, this discovery? Is there a reference we can use for this subsequent discovery? 512bits ( talk) 13:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
is the "title" of the entry, "tropicos.org" the work in which this entry is contained. 70.137.149.205 ( talk) 15:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Capitalization of titles - questionable. The cited articles do that themselves. I followed that. e.g.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2729375/?tool=pmcentrez
Removal of line breaks: is a matter of taste. With line breaks it is locally more readable, but less writable and it may with long citation lists scroll out of the range (screenfull) which you can easily read. Without linebreaks it is more writable and easier to copy-paste. There are proponents of each method. Got scolded at for including citations with line breaks too, in other articles. So you can't make it right for everybody either way. 70.137.149.205 ( talk) 15:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I have previously maintained the citations of this article without complaints. (other 70.137 edits before) What about the nonsense section with authority "Kaul" is that really bogus or is it some Indian local patriotism? Kaul seems to really exist as a botanist? Or is that a systematic forgery? 70.137.149.205 ( talk) 15:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, I hope it is all ok. now. The style guidelines are not specific about capitalization of titles. Seems to be ok to follow the cited document there. As you can see I am doing constructive edits to the best of my knowledge. 70.137.149.205 ( talk) 17:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Why did you dd the "who" line to "The beginning of serious study of calico cats seems to have occurred who? around 1948 when Murray Barr and his graduate student E.G. Bertram noticed dark, drumstick-shaped masses inside the nuclei of nerve cells of female cats, but not in male cats. " in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calico_cat ? Travürsa ( talk) 04:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey, that was very thoughtful of you -- a very nice surprise. Thanks! Rhode Island Red ( talk) 20:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Nadia, please comment here User_talk:MarshalN20#Photos 512bits ( talk) 00:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nadiatalent; If you have the file name, I'll try to fix it. [4] To correct the name of a file, please use Commons:Template:Rename ( Commons:Commons:File renaming). -- Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nadia. The Bumblebee Orchid is a typical example - who would have thought it? PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 21:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure why you removed the picture - it is of Ruscus aculeatus - see http://www.plant-identification.co.uk/skye/liliaceae/ruscus-aculeatus.htm and that is of course a phylloclade and not a leaf - the illustration in the article shows the same thing but in far less detail. The fact that it can confuse an observer is indeed part of its value. I could think of a variation in the caption, but I think removing it is plainly retrograde unless someone provides a better picture. Shyamal ( talk) 03:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The baby fig in that picture got blown off in a rain storm. There are a few others on the tree though. We bought it from a nursery last fall. Even with it's new leaf growth, it's only about 18" from it's top to the ground, so it's still quite young. New leaves are growing well. 512bits ( talk) 00:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The same ip address that attacked me here: [5] is now trying to put the same information as the banned user here: [6]. Policy states that banned users are not allowed to edit therefore I am reverting it. End of story. CanadianLinuxUser ( talk) 14:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Botany#Where_to_go_now. Thank you. 512bits ( talk) 15:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Why are some articles under their common name while others under their botanical name, ie: California poppy vs Cornus florida? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 512bits ( talk • contribs) 19:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Hola, he visto que es usted botánica. Le agradecería que revisase Biodiversity of New Caledonia, ya que yo no estoy capacitado en botánica. Tambien le agradecería si le interesa el tema, que desarrollase Biodiversity of Madagascar ya que es un tema importante. Muchas gracias por su atención.
Hi, you are a botanic, I am not botanic, besides, my English language is not fluent. I wish you check Biodiversity of New Caledonia, please, because these Islands are very important ecologically and they are a very forget area. I wish you to create a Biodiversity of Madagascar article, because Madagascar botany is very important too, and it is a very forget botanical area too. Thank you very much. Curritocurrito ( talk) 14:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The same reference was added in multiple articles, often not by an IP but by a user named Magdon, and one of the authors happens to be Magdon-Ismail. They often edited the same articles, too. So the COI is easy to verify (it even was automatically tagged as such on some of the other articles where I undid this addition). Anyway, thanks for checking. -- 24.43.41.182 ( talk) 03:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
In Calico cat article i add this first picture which you removed with 2 other pictures.
I added it to show color pattern of that cats. It shows both belly, dors, legs and front face of them.
I suppose it shows their pattern far better than this second picture: Which resides in article now.
Thank you for interest
Mekem ( talk) 05:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi I was at a nursery in Cranford, New Jersey, and took lots of pictures of plants a week or so ago in April. I don't know much about plants or gardening but I tried to make sure that the name of the plant (from a tag) was in each picture. If you'd like to use any of these pictures for the plant articles which you monitor, here's a link to them in Commons.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 01:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The plants all have "growing in NJ in April" in the photo file name. Also, check out this one: the flowers are shaped like hearts. Cool. Never saw anything like it before. Plus I am growing a red raspberry bush plus some lettuce so I can take photos of those as they grow.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 01:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I've nominated this for GA now. Big thanks to you for all your kind help. 512bits ( talk) 21:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nadia. I've decided to take a more ruthless approach to pruning the Lauraceae articles (e.g. Lindera), being of the view that it's probably better to build up new sourced material from scratch, rather than trying to wade through reams and reams of dubious content to see if any of it may be acceptable. I wonder what your view is? PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 12:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Hola, he visto que es usted botánica. Le agradecería que revisase Biodiversity of New Caledonia, ya que yo no estoy capacitado en botánica. Tambien le agradecería si le interesa el tema, que desarrollase Biodiversity of Madagascar ya que es un tema importante. tambien deseo agradecerle todas las aportaciones y correciones que ha venido usted efectuando todos estos días, las cuales le agradezco mucho y dan muestras de su vigor y denonada fe en favor del celo y la calidad de los articulos de nuestro proyecto, confiamos en seguir recibiendo sus aportaciones como hasta ahora y me permito brindarle mas articulos en los que desarrollar sus habilidades, no dudando que nos confiará su inestimable colaboración, de la cual estamos muy satisfechos, como lo estan el resto de mis compañeros. Si se decide usted a crear el articulo mencionado, puede solicitar la ayuda de los colaboradores que crea necesarios, como User talk:PaleCloudedWhite, de lo cual le quedaría muy agradecido. Su trabajo será muy satisfactorio sin dudarlo, por medio del corazón inmaculado, para reparar las ofensas que se pudieran causar y favorecer un tratamiento completo y profesional del necesario conocimiento y contribuir en cuanto podamos a que se de una mision prioritaria al conocimiento de la botanica, en estas cepas tan antiguas. Muchas gracias por su atención.
Hi, you are a botanic, I am not botanic, besides, my English language is not fluent. I wish you to create a Biodiversity of Madagascar article, because Madagascar botany is very important too, and it is a very forget botanical area too. You can do it. I'm sure, please, do it, because these Islands are very important ecologically and they are a very forget area. I'm sure that if you are busy, or you think is too hard for you, mister User talk:PaleCloudedWhite, can help you from scratch. He is a very hardworker and clever one, and you have the idea of an article as a whole, just not dripping and spurring, please please please, do Biodiversity of Madagascar Thank you very much. Curritocurrito ( talk) 06:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Small point: when you add an entry like this to the list:
both dashes should be en-dashes, not hyphens, according to the Manual of Style and for consistency with the other entries. I usually check when I don't know the editor who added the entry (both the format and that the information is in the IPNI – which sometimes isn't the case). But I don't usually check your additions; I just happened to notice this one. When I add an entry, I usually copy the one above and change it. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
There's a list at User:Peter_coxhead/Sandbox which I've been working my way through when I have a few spare moments (I've reached "M" as you can see). This list was obtained by cross-checking the category Category:Botanists with author abbreviations with List of botanists by author abbreviation. The cross-check doesn't quite work because the names which are wikilinked in the list are often redirects, so don't match the article titles in the category. I think we need some "bot expert" to write a tool which can properly check that everyone in List of botanists by author abbreviation who has an article has the {{ botanist}} template in it, which both gives their abbreviation and puts them in the category.
PL/I!! I started seriously using computers as a research student in the 1970s, doing statistical analyses on an IBM 360/165, then the largest computer in the UK. (I used to tell bored undergraduates how they increased its memory at vast cost from 1 to 2 Mb; a lot of the cost was for strengthening the floor to take the weight of the cooling system for the magnetic memory!) I did try PL/I but "graduated" to Fortran. Fading knowledge of PL/I and IBM JCL was, I thought, just useless information cluttering up my brain, until I met a couple of people who work for the Canadian tax authority in Ottawa, who told me that they use both (as well as Cobol) in the legacy systems still in use there.
The problem with Roscoea cautleyoides/cautleoides is that thanks to Curtis Clark's encouragement and my emailing IPNI & WCSP, the two databases now have different entries which is not really a step forward. Let's hope that they can decide who is right! It may depend on something in the new version of the ICN; it will be good when it is online. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
See the Huperziaceae draft for Flora of China and the Taxon paper to which it refers. If I understand the situation correctly (questionable, even before I made the mistake of looking at that Roscoea thread), Ren-Chang Ching, accidentally published the species as L. minchegense, a corrigible error for L. mingcheense, in April 1982, and then published it again, with a different holotype, as Phlegmariurus mingcheensis in May. The latter was transferred by Holub to Huperzia (in the sense inclusive of Phlegmariurus), but he was unaware of the priority of L. minchegense [sic] and did not include it in his combination. I assume it's because L. minchegense is a heterotypic rather than a homotypic synonym of P. mingcheensis that it's still listed as valid on TPL.
I'm not keen on starting a "Formerly..." section in Lycopodium, as it would be burdened by the repetition of the entire species lists from Huperzia, Diphasiastrum, and Lycopodiella. I will add this species to the list in Huperzia. Given that club moss articles are not exactly burning up the New Page Patrol, I think it's best to add redirects from older synonyms on the rare occasions a new one appears. Choess ( talk) 01:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Babies on both young trees, yea! See my Wiki Commons user page. 512bits ( talk) 21:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello Nadiatalent, thank you for your comments on Social and environmental impact of palm oil. I have made another try at the draft for the Social issues section and would be glad if you could look again at this. Thanks in advance. YellowOwl ( talk) 18:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)