User talk:2A02:A45D:25BD:1:14F3:565E:CD89:6DBD

Welcome!
Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Gderrin (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Elaeocarpus species
Hello,

Thanks for your edits to Elaeocarpus articles - it's apparent that you are knowledgeable about this genus. I note your edit summary to Elaeocarpus angustifolius that "PoWO is wrong here". I think that it's important that PoWO is accurate. Assuming that you have not advised PoWO of the error, I will do so. Please consider having a username in Wikipedia - at least so that other users can thank you for your contributions. Gderrin (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I generally stay anonymousish. Actually, I have a poster of the fruit from Queensland my parents got when they visited, I do not know particularly much about the genus, but I know taxonomy. Eh, I began to read up on pyrenes, and ended up trying to fix this. What I'm trying to determine at this point is what exactly is the reason these two taxa are considered separate in Australia? A problem right now is that the descriptions in all Australian websites for both species was taken from exactly the same 1984 text. But I am seeing more mistakes every time I look, I just found more in PoWO, so you might want to wait. Coode says E. sphaericus is a synonym sensu K.Schum., not Ganitrus sphaericus Gaertn.. I will make a note in the article. Cheers, Leo 2A02:A45D:25BD:1:14F3:565E:CD89:6DBD (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Okay, that's fine, but please let me know about any other mistakes in PoWO. Gderrin (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Sure, will do. 2A02:A45D:25BD:1:14F3:565E:CD89:6DBD (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Nope, nothing more found, just these four synonyms. Hey, I have an article on Cyperus pertenuis in the pipeline, there are mistakes in PoWO regarding the distribution of Cyperus scariosus, it is not 'introduced' to Bangladesh and Myanmar, this pertains to the collection locales of the four herbarium samples of C. pertenuis - someone screwed up at PoWO here too. 2A02:A45D:25BD:1:14F3:565E:CD89:6DBD (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello Leo - I hope you will understand the reason for my change to the synonym list at Elaeocarpus angustifolius. Since you are clear about the mistakes you've found in PoWO, it might be better if you were to advise them. You can do this here.Gderrin (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hiya. Hmmm, let me be a pedant. How about I add a subsection on synonymy to the taxonomy section, chuck in the E. grandis story, and explain what's up with the 4 synonyms? Of course I will reference everything. Then I can just tell PoWO to read that. I will do this later tonight, I want to garden, it's stopped raining, I'm building a hill with a pond in it with a window and a waterfall in 2 months -at least that's the plan. Should be hilarious. I have a pile of really rare stuff to plant in there.


 * What I can't really be bothered to do is tackle the description at E. grandis, =you realise the second source (not the RBG Sydney one, that looks kosher) is actually an almost word-for-word copy of Coode's description of E. angustifolius. For accuracy, the description in Wikipedia should be deleted and rewritten using only the RBG Sydney source. See, that's pedantic! Maybe it won't matter as E. grandis might get synonymised later anyway -I see no published reason so far to continue to recognise it.


 * There are a ton more common names ('bead tree', more) from Singapore, etc., I couldn't be bothered to write it all up yesterday. Just saying. Hawaiian name was in commons but is likely from HEAR. Cheers, Leo 2A02:A45D:25BD:1:8981:F715:F681:74B6 (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems to me that the simplest, most time-efficient way to fix the synonyms list would be to fix PoWO first. The alternative is to add stuff that nobody will read. (Wouldn't be the first time.) Time would be better spent expanding plant stubs, or gardening. Gderrin (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Meh, I write for fun... no one need read it, jeez. Haha, a joke. But I have a process, and it's not very efficient. Figured out the correct synonymy for E. sphaericus (it's clearly syn. pro parte Elaeocarpus serratus), only in doing so I read Rumphius' account, which is absolutely fascinating... Luckily I'm fluent in Dutch. I've written up the entire part on trade to put in the article, it's good enough stuff I think. His description clearly identifies his Ganitrus ganitri as E. angustifolius (long before Linnaeus, so no need to add to the synonymy, but this is actually the oldest formal botanical description of the species). Only I didn't know the meaning of three words ... tracked down one just now ('Codja' =Indonesian Muslim of Arab descent)... Other words are 'catogoran' (traditional kingdom on Ambon Island? a local name for some kind of Islamic festival?) and 'Bangis' (a people, but which of three?)... Annoying, just can't let them lie. Rumphius' talk of international commerce inspired me to get side-tracked further into finding the modern common name in and then reading up on this plant in Indonesian (I'd like to learn this language a bit better too ... don't use machine translation -see, inefficient), which has given me much more info to work with - trade data and whatnot. I've also written up a draft to replace what it says at the taxonomy section in the Elaeocarpus article, because what is written there now is not entirely true. So do not worry, even if no one reads what I have to write, the research will at least be thorough! 2A02:A45D:25BD:1:8981:F715:F681:74B6 (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)