User talk:Dr CyCoe

Plagianthus humilis
Blanco did make a number of errors in his Flora de Filipinas. You can find more information in Merrill's Species Blancoanae or the Species Blancoanae pages at the Smithsonian.

Plagianthus humilis is now Munronia humilis (Meliaceae), one of three species (fide Flora of China - another paper adds a 4th species) of that genus. As far as I can tell Plagianthus humilis is the name used in the 1st and 2nd editions, and and Turraea pumila was added as a "corrected" name in the 3rd edition of Fernandez-Villar and Naves. As Blanco publshed the epithet humilis before Bennett published the epithet pumila, the former has priority, and even if the two species are the same (I suspect otherwise, but there's not much to be found online on the issue) the correct name in Turraea of Blanco's plant is Turraea humilis (Blanco) Merr. Presumably the scans are from the 3rd edn.

Turraea and Munronia are closely related genera in Meliaceae, but I don't know why Blanco's species ends up in one genus and not the other. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I admit that while reading the little bit I could find on this my thought was that it would be so much easier if this painting was of a Malvaceae. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and your look up expertise (and time). -- Dr CyCoe (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

texts
Hello,

You seem to have an interest in historical botanical texts. Why don't you come on over to Wikisource and help me transcribe them? For an example of what can be done, see Characters of a new Liliaceous Genus called Brodiaea.

Hesperian 00:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * While I consider this, I have a question for you. Do you think that L. was more into completion or perfection? -- Dr CyCoe (talk) 03:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Planet of the Apes (1968 film) has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Maxis ftw (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to John C. Frémont constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you. Maxis ftw (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Vandalism
It seems you removed content from the articles, that's why I warned you. Maxis ftw (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct, I am sorry. My only edit to that article was to put the wikilink to the species of the plant they first saw in the movie where I felt it added to the article of the movie, in the article Wislizenia it is just one of those stupid culture references.  I had no intention to remove content.  Thanks for fixing it. -- Dr CyCoe (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You really don't understand how removing the entire content of the John C. Frémont article wasn't vandalism? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That is not what showed here!! I had a browser crash.... -- Dr CyCoe (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks for clearing that up. Maxis ftw (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is very weird how what I saw here was not what was saved when I saved it. I may or may not check things after that though, so finding out that things were not as they had seemed was good.  The first time I recovered an edit window with my edits intact after a browser crash -- it really seemed like magic and it still is something that I would not have been able to imagine software to be able to accomplish.  This kind of recovery might actually have been too much to ask for or expect to work, heh.  All in all, not a bad day. :)


 * -- Dr CyCoe (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ornithopodioides
This can be readily found or figured out by most botany trained people. The material that was on the page looked like WP:OR with personal opinions, which was why I replaced it with referenced content. http://books.google.com/books?id=NJ6PyhVuecwC&pg=PA283&lpg=PA283 Shyamal (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It was in my opinion as lame (and funny) as the definitions I found, which is my opinion of available dictionaries not necessarily of the name of the plant. It was not the change that you made so much as the accessibility of the source.  The articles are to be authored for botany trained readers or assume that the readers are botany trained?


 * Thanks for the url, I wrote here before looking at it :)


 * -- Dr CyCoe (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)