User talk:MPF/archive4

Hi - I see you found my list of users with lots of edits who are not admins (I'm laboriously working down the entire list leaving everyone on it a message). The standard message I'm leaving is:
 * admin
 * Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in User:Rick Block/WP600 not admins|this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it.

Just FYI, admins are voted on at WP:RFA. There are links from there describing the super powers they get (it's really not much - ability to easily revert a change, ability to delete/undelete articles, ability to "see" deleted articles, ability to block/unblock troublesome users, ability to protect/unprotect articles, ability to edit some articles regular users can't). Admins are needed to execute the final step of all the deletion processes, and often do things like watch all the recent changes (wikipedia:RC patrol). Nobody is suggesting you should want to be one, but if you do the process is somebody nominates you or you nominate yourself (on WP:RFA). I'm intending my list to be one way somebody who's interested can be found, but without self-nominating (some of the folks who vote on RFA take a dim view of "self-noms"). So, totally up to you (I'm intending to neither encourage nor discourage). -- Rick Block (talk) 21:10, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I keep seeing you name on the variants of the lists of people with list of edits that aren't admins. To fill you in on the detials in terms of admin responsibilites, adminship gives you the abiliity to rollback vandalism edits easily by adding a rollback button, you can delete things, you can protect pages, you can edit the main page and you can block editors. I see you asking for page moves on ToL, you'd be able to do that, other than that there's all sorts of deletion that needs to get done, vandalism to be rolled back, and if you don't mind getting caught up in politics there's dealing with problem users like vandals and 3RRR violators. It can suck up lot of your time if you let it, but by the same token you're not obliged to do anything, but if you have no intention of using the tools at all then there's probably no reason to become an admin. You seem to get along well with people which is a plus, anyway if you've got any other questions leave me a message.--nixie 03:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to get around to adding what I can. It's been a couple of years since I heard the legend, and I'll want to do some research first. And thanks for the birthday greetings. --Merovingian 11:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Nimrod/Xmas

Hi, I am glad you liked my changes to Bananas:) I kept checking to see if anyone had reverted my work or not, ..and so far so good :)
 * Banana

Anyway, I certainly agree with you on combining these two;

"One thing I've noticed for a while, the 'Pests and diseases' section and the 'Extinction' section should really be merged as they cover the same ground"

however, I will probably tinker some more with Extinction, and once I think it looks right, then start merging the two.

I may be in Honduras again in a month or two, and if so I will make full use of the researchers at FHIA (Honduran Foundation of Agricultural Research) and have them look over the page and make some suggestions. But I will keep tinkering with page in the mean time. Brimba 17:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for a job well done. I was feeling alone in there and hoped for a more experienced user to come along and correct any mistakes. Regarding the heavy headings, it has been my plan all along to expand the respective sections (I'm currently gathering information). I can see why you eased the headlines down. They weighed too much compared to the text they headed. I'll keep this balance in mind for the future. You have my respect for making good edits... Kind regards, --Twisturbed Tachyon 15:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Iboga copyedit

Hi, thanks for the editing help on Bananas; I really need all the help I can get when it comes to editing. I am working on a new page; the subject doesn’t exist yet in Wikipedia, its called Tropical Agriculture. I stuck a VERY rough draft on my Talk page. Please feel free to look it over from time to time and suggest (or just make them outright) any changes. Some stuff is mostly finalized, and some is just notes to be expanded upon, or rewritten, but I am not sure how to show which is which on the page. Thanks again, Brimba 17:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Tropical Agriculture

Hi Michael! I wonder if you would be kind enough to look at Commons:Image:Pinus contorta 8140.jpg? I don't think those little guys are merely enjoying the sunshine. An ID or place to start looking would be appreciated. With the uploads of tonight, I think P. contorta subsp. murrayana is fairly well illustrated. Today, I returned to Cougar Mountain Regional Wildlands Park. 100 mm of snow remained at 400 m elevation from our recent snow storm. I took some pictures of bark but I haven't decided if any are worth uploading. The snow adds drama and contrast to an otherwise dull subject (to some people). I saw a winter wren and several chickadees (common but illusive sans snow). Have you seen any interesting birds lately? Amusingly enough, after taking pictures in eastern Washington and Oregon of Taxus brevifolia, I found several individuals in nearby Ravenna Park (Seattle) (including one about 200 mm in diameter), but still no berries. I never noticed them before. Chance favors the prepared mind. I showed my friend in Corvallis the pictures of the mat-formed individuals in eastern Washington. He said that such forms are common for T. brevifolia near the eastern extreme of its range (which that would be). He didn't think it was likely to be the result of bark harvesting. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Pinus contorta disease process

Hello, good work on Holcus, and thanks for the contribution. However, you forgot to add any references to the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. What websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to Holcus? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? Thank you very much. - SimonP 06:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sources for Holcus

Hi MPF, I would very much appreciate your input in the following Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canberra#Image additions argument. There seems to be a gang of users unwilling to allow anyone to interfere with there Canberra project without invitation. It was risky to take my camera on our school excursion to Canberra, but I did for the sake of the photos I could upload to Wiki. Needless to say, I'm deeply distressed over the reaction that has taken place. In particular, I would like to ask if the removal of all my photos off the Lake Burley Griffin article was a step forward in the usefullness of the page. Please either voice your opinion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canberra|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canberra or write back to me. Thanks for your time (and I hope) support. --Fir0002 08:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Canberra Photos

Hi MPF Sorry if I seemed a little impatient putting that photo straight up on the dogwood article, but on this tour I was pretty careful and brought a notebook along with me. The lady on the tour simply addressed it as "dogwood". Anywayt thanks for your great botanical knowledge! --Fir0002 21:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Dogwood

Hi, I have finish (for the moment) Tropical Agriculture: User:Brimba/Tropical agriculture. If you could do me a favor and look it over, I would really appreciate it. :)
 * Tropical Agriculture

Right now my head hurts when I look at it, so I think I will let it sit for a few days, and then take a fresh look later on in the week. Thank you very much for the help, Brimba 17:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message about the post oak photo; you may very well be right on it not being Quercus stellata. All I know is that we've always called this tree "post oak". I'm not sure about it being a hybrid though, it does lose all its leaves in the winter, and we do have live oaks here in Parker County, Texas also. So anyway, if you think the photo is misplaced/mislabeled, please remove it from the Post oak article, and this next spring I'll go out there and look at some other post oaks to see what their leaves look like. Thanks for your help! - Benjamin (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Re: Image:Quercus stellata.jpg


 * I went out and found the tree where I took the picture and compared its leaves with post oak leaves, and you're right, it's definitely not a post oak. For one thing the leaves are too small, and also, as you mentioned, they're not lobed like post oak leaves.  Also, it wasn't really tree-shaped, more like a scrubby bush.  So, I've taken the photo off the Post oak page.  I looked at the key on that website, but I don't think I know enough tree terminology to figure it out!  I don't see any hairs on the leaf, but it is dead!  Thanks for your help, maybe I can figure out exactly what kind of oak it is sometime. Benjamin (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi MPF, No doubt Cassytha it is a valid Genus, I just tried to correct the link that was redirected for Rhipsalis, Cactaceae.Thanks.Berton 23:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Cassytha

You're good! I must confess that I'm just a humble cinnamon connoisseur and not a botanist of any sort (I'm a musician). Glad to be of help.
 * Saigon Cinnamon

By the way, I just made some Ceylon cinnamon liqueur: I crumbled up a Ceylon cinnamon stick into a bottle containing 1 cup of vodka and 1/2 cup brandy, waited a week, then filtered out the cinnamon and added some turbinado sugar that I'd boiled down with a little water into a syrup. It is some of the best liqueur I've ever had, with a powerful, complex flavor--and so simple! I'll have to try this with Saigon cinnamon and see how it compares. Badagnani 20:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Very nice! - couple of requests to make it easier to follow, could the time stamps be set to UTC, and the date stamps to a more logical ordering (large-to-small YYYY-MM-DD or small-to-large DD-MM-YYYY), please? - thanks, MPF 12:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia status page


 * Hmm, the logical date format can probably done easily, but I'll have to run some conversion script to convert the timestamps and then allow people to select their preferred time. I forgot about the internationalization element though. Thanks for the tip. - Ambush Commander (Talk) 21:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the note...I never knew that there were different types of cedar, in different genii. I did a Google search and found that cedar is a fairly new wood for guitar tops, first used in the mid-20th century as a substitute for difficult-to-find spruce. It seems that it's the Western redcedar, not a Lebanese tree, that's used.
 * Cedar musical instruments

I never heard of a cedar recorder, though Western redcedar is the wood of choice for Native American flutes, particularly those of the Plains-dwelling peoples. I would want my recorder to be made out of a hardwood like ebony, maple, box, or a fruitwood like pear or apple. The "block" or "plug" which makes the sound in the mouthpiece is made from cedar, but I don't know which species. This website says that it comes from Kenya or Florida (!) - www.mollenhauer.com/html/ENGLISH/Arbbl2_e/ARBBL2_e.HTM. A search or writing to a manufacturer could determine this. The block is apparently aged but on my instrument it remains aromatic for some time. Badagnani 00:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding edits to National Christmas Tree - I was always taught that periods and commas always go within quotes, and other punctuation is dependent on whether or not the mark is related to the text within the quotes. Does Wikipedia have a different standard? Can you reference it for me? – Eoghanacht talk 00:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Punctuation around quotes?


 * I found the Wikipedia style manual reference. I'll probably stick with my archaic format in articles I write from scratch - I am recalcitrant in my anachronisms: spelling draft as draught, and using thro' as the proper abbreviation for through.


 * I added the Christmas tree image to Blue Spruce mostly because the article lacks any overall image of the tree. If you have a better picture of one in the daylight, there will be no harm in replacing it. – Eoghanacht talk 15:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Tropical agriculture is live. I don’t know if you are interested, but it could use an experienced editor to look it over, someone better at English then I am anyway. Thanks much, Brimba 06:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Tropical agriculture

Thanks for the help:) The little details sometimes get lost on me, so I am very glad to have some one review anything I write. Brimba 18:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That reorganization seem fine. I am still in the midst of working on the page and am about 3/4 done. Needing to add a great deal to the biology and recreation sections. I geuss my bias towards history wants me t have that section second, but if you think it is best later in the article that would be fine. You are certainly more than invited to add as you wish anything you see as helpful. Thanks for your assistance!--MONGO 21:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Shoshone National Forest

Thanks for your comments re the cannabis references! Even as a (perhaps??? hehe, I forget!) ex stoner, I totally agree. An anon edited it out, let's see what happens. ++Lar 19:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Christmas tree

Hi MPF, I think that would be better to conserve Adolf Engler like the title of the article, because it is more easy to link, is the most acceptable for others; and as the name in IPNI, certainly that the Engl. (abbreviation) is more used than your complete name. Best regards. Berton 16:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Engler

Please be aware that Wikipedia discourages arbitrarily switching from one dialect of English to another when there is already currently a well-established spelling of words on an article. Trying to change all Wikipedia articles you work on to whatever spelling happens to be more common in the region of the world you live in is close to POV-pushing, and can lead to unnecessary semantic edit wars. I'm a big fan of your copyediting, but please do not continue changing "color" to "colour", "theater" to "theatre", "-ize" to "-ise", etc. wherever you see such words. -Silence 21:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Changes from American to British English

Dear Michael, thanks again for your help with Pinus ponderosa and for the kind words about the photo. The layout looks good, now. I tried it at a couple of thumbnail sizes. Anyhow, the experience reinforced my opinion that a good record of the location of a photograph is useful. Thank you for putting me in contact with User talk:Richard Barlow. He was able to confirm that the two species of caterpillars that seemed most likely to be at work in Commons:Image:Pinus contorta 8140.jpg do attack Pinus contorta. I haven't yet followed up his suggestion of contacting local experts. Thank you for your warning about Taxus brevifolia in city parks. Ravenna Park (Seattle) has a number of nonindigenous species. I think most individuals are quite a bit younger (50 years may be an underestimate since it is growing next to the trunk of a large Acer macrophylum), and are not located on the steep hillsides which the T. brevifolia individual is. Still, I think there is no good reason to photograph it (unless it should happen to produce berries next fall). Next summer, I should be able to obtain more photographs from the wilderness both east and west of the Cascade Range. Perhaps that will shed some light on form variation and the effects of temperature and snow cover thereon. I've nothing to report on birds here, either. I saw bushtits midweek, I think, and the usual juncos. Commons:User_talk:Franz_Xaver#Asteraceae|Franz Xaver says that Image:Chrysothamnus nauseosus 7991.jpg is actually Ericameria nauseosa according to http://plants.usda.gov/ this species now belongs to genus Ericameria. Is plants.usda.gov authoritative on this matter? If so, Chrysothamnus needs to be moved to Ericameria and the article updated. Please advise. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ericameria nauseosa
 * Hi Michael! See my edit just now at User talk:Richard Barlow for the identification of the lavae in the Pinus contorta image. Thank you for making the referral that ultimately resulted in the ID. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Michael; please see User_talk:Wsiegmund#Chrysothamnus_.2F_Ericameria for the latest from Franz Xaver Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Michael! Sorry to be so slow. I had two or three days without recourse to the higher thought processes. It was a virus or something, I suppose. Thank you for investigating the Chrysothamnus / Ericameria issue. I looked up the call numbers for the two journals. I'll try to stop by the Natural Sciences Library at the University of Washington tomorrow. If it isn't a lot of material, I'll scan it and email it to you, if you like. Do large files do vex you? Have you heard back from UBC? Thank you for your thoughts on what to do about the articles. Your suggestions make sense to me, but it will be a day or two longer before I can get to it. --Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Chrysothamnus / Ericameria

See what you think about my call to merge "Tibetan goji" with "wolfberry". Tibetan Goji berry Badagnani 05:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wolfberry/goji

Thanks for your tip on my commons:Template:Featured pictures candidates/Image:Image:Mount Lushan - fog.JPG|FPC nom. I'm really impressed that you were able to identify it!! cheers, pfctdayelise 13:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Huangshan Pine

Image:Updated DYK query.png|Updated DYK query - Template:Did you know|Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Huangshan Pine, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on :Template talk:Did you know|the "Did you know?" talk page. --Gurubrahma 14:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * DYK

Thanks for the help with Shoshone National Forest ...feel free to add as many plants and trees as you see fit... that is the one area that is need of the greatest expansion. I was even think of creating a chart with english and latin species spellings... what do you think? I am also going to discuss invasive (exotic) plants and animals as well.... thanks again.--MONGO 01:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help

Hi MPF, First of all, I want to congratulate you for your indefatigable and major contributions! I had an idea: how about to release a great project: "The Project Floras", categorizing taxa such as Families, Genera (and even species) relating to Flora of their countries and / or regions (pantropical, neotropical, paleotropical). I think that it is very good, is not? Berton 13:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Project Floras
 * Many thanks for your opinion.You are completely right, there is a lot of confusion with the categories, for instance: I had not known about the category Plants (but just the Category:Botany).I will better study the subject.Berton 16:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. The images of D. x suendermannii that I find with google do look very similar to the pictures on commons. It's not my identification; I'm not a botanist, and don't know much about flowers. I was just copying things from commons to the wikipedia. You may want to leave a message at commons:Dryas drummondii. I have removed the incorrect identification from the article. Eugene van der Pijll 16:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Dryas drummondii pic

I am not so much incresing the size of the pics, as I am making them consistant. I have been expirmenting with pics lately and find that an article looks better when the pics are in an organized fashion, and are uniform size. In this case, on Rose, I took the pics and made them all the same size. I thought it made the article look better. If you think it's neciasry for dial up users, I would be happy to decrease the size of the pics, but I just like it better when they are all the same size, regardless of what that size is. Also I got another comment from a dial up user on rose. They said that they couldn't load it becuase of the gallery section. I then took all the galleries I made and seprated them from their main pages, for example Rose and Rose gallery, Flower and Flower gallery. Ill try to descrease sizes to acomidate dial up users. Thanks for the advice. Tobyk777 01:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * RE pic sizes

Uploaded to commons, and the Cyperus page updated with it. Regards, RickP 19:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Image:Nutgrass Cyperus rotundus02.jpg

Can you comment on the issues in Talk:Horseweed, and Talk:Canadian Fleabane? TIA, RickP 20:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Horseweed
 * Good to see the new pages! And thanks for the ARS-GRIN site reference - I'll be using it. RickP 09:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year. Guettarda 17:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merry Christmas

Thanks for the note. I would be in support of moving sumomo to the scientific name, as it is not well known under this name in the west and seems to be a more popular fruit in China, where it's called lǐ. That's not a blanket endorsement of such moves, as, for example, "ume" is well known under this name in English-speaking regions as it is not under the name "mae" or "maesil," and "tofu" is known by this name rather than its Chinese name, "doufu." Badagnani 00:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sumomo

Hey, thanks a lot! Just one more question: on Yellowfin cutthroat trout and Alvord cutthroat trout should the name be clarki or clarkii? --Khoikhoi 18:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Cutthroat trout

Hi Michael! Thanks for your help in identifying my plant photos! Merry Christmas to you to! --Fir0002 01:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks
 * I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. --Bhadani 14:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You removed the corporal punishment aspects from ferula. This is probably for the better, because so far as I know it isn't used this way in English (I could be wrong, not being into such things). But you didn't remove it from :category:corporal punishments. You probably should either restore the cp text, or remove the cp category. --Iustinus 15:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ferula


 * I guess that makes sense. --Iustinus 18:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Another thing: you also removed my "see silphium" note. Any reason for this? --Iustinus 15:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, but my understanding (And feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that Ferula tingitana is a made up scientific name for silphium. That is, there is no modern plant that the name Ferula tingitana corresponds to, it's just a hypothetical species. When I got to the page, F. tingitana was listed without comment, so I added quotes around it (since it's hypothetical) and linked to silphium. Again, if you know something I don't, feel free to correct me, but that is the situation as far as I am aware. --Iustinus 18:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, a quick look online shows that I may indeed be wrong, e.g. www.consultaplantas.com/ventana.asp?id=fil5366&1=78174, www.bethchatto.co.uk/plant%20portraits%20f/ferula%20tingitana%20'cedric%20morris'.html

By using "better wording", you broke the connection between styrax and polystyrene that I was attempting to make. The real story is at polystyrene. Please read the history of its discovery and development. Polystyrene plays a more important role in the daily lives of most than does styrene. Perhaps you'll agree that the connection to styrene is much weaker and will agree to restore the paragraph as I wrote it. Quicksilver T 18:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Styrax


 * I've responded to your answer on my talk page. -Quicksilver T 01:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Can we rename the article Tree sap to sap (plant)? Then we can change the sap disambig entry for Tree sap to sap (plant). This should solve the problem. --YUL89YYZ 21:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sap -> Tree sap

I have made the change. Do you want me to go and change the Tree sap references as well? --YUL89YYZ 21:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The Delaware Valley College page is copied verbatim from the school's website. Is this allowed? www.devalcol.edu/about/history.htm Maxwahrhaftig 16:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Question about a page

Hi! (I've duplicated this comment from Talk:Anemone ranunculoides in case you aren't watching that page.) In your recent copyedit to Anemone ranunculoides you capitalised the common names; I'm afraid I've reverted those changes, for the reason given below.
 * Capitalisation of common names


 * In removing capital letters from the common names I have followed common practice as used, for instance, in the publications of the British Royal Horticultural Society. This practice is also acknowledged (though not universally followed) on Wikipedia. Below I quote from a Wiki page on naming conventions: Wikipedia:Proper_names#Biological common names


 * Ornithologists also depart from tradition followed by most other biologists (my italics) in insisting that the common names of birds be first-letter capitalized where the reference is to a particular species. Thus one can write about a penguin, or specifically about the Emperor Penguin, the latter being the proper (common) name of the species, Aptenodytes forsteri. Non-specialists may have difficulty determining which form to use in some cases (for example, is it mallard or Mallard?), but it is likely most references to bird species will eventually be seen and edited by an ornithologist.


 * I take this to mean that any articles which are about species other than birds should not use capitals for common names (I see from your userpage that you are an ornithologist, which probably accounts for the confusion!) SiGarb 01:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC) ( User_talk:SiGarb )


 * Hello again MPF. I actually agree with you, quite strongly, on all your points, but was following what I believe to be current official usage. I have tried arguing the point with botanists, and especially with the editor and sub-editor at The Garden (the RHS Journal, for whom I write at times), but they would use, for instance, bladder campion, jack-by-the-hedge, dame's violet, black medick etc (though I think they do concede French bean, Brussels sprout, busy Lizzie, black-eyed Susan and certain other instances which include proper names). They actually insist on dead nettle, without even the benefit of a hyphen to distinguish white dead nettle (Lamium album) from a colourless, defunct Urtica. Generally in such matters they follow the Collins English Dictionary, and, like many other publications, are moving away from what is currently seen as the over-use of capital letters, though I must admit I dislike this tendency. I quote from the journal's current (April 2005) style guide:


 * Common names (of plants): Set roman, no quotes, preferably in parentheses after botanical name, all l/c (except proper names); eg stag’s-horn fern, Solomon’s seal, Monterey cypress, morning glory.


 * I would think that, as the names are brought out in bold type, when first mentioned in a Wikipedia article, that would be sufficient to establish them. If you specifically needed to say that some so-called "bluebells" may have white flowers then it would be useful to point out the inappropriateness/inadequacy of the common name. Perhaps a case could be made for always using bold for a common name, and generally using the Botanical Latin names throughout the article where appropriate, thus giving the common names less prominence? Unlike ornithology, there has been no general agreement on which common name to use for any given plant species, and my "bluebells" may be your "harebells"!


 * Your comment on commas I also concede (although I don't think that such a construction is necessarily a list). Once again I would normally have followed the RHS style, which is for the Botanical Latin name to be preferred, as being unambiguous, and followed by the most widespread common name in parentheses. But in this particular instance I thought it would have made it less accessible for the ordinary reader. Perhaps the Latin name should be in parentheses here? (In a list such as you describe I would use parentheses, rather than commas, to contain the common name or names).


 * Thanks for pointing out the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life link (I had already found it, though I haven't had time to search the archives fully - life's too short!) If only there were an easily-found, clearly-laid-out, unambiguous style guide for Wikipedia on such matters I'd happily adhere to it, as personal preference is always bound to colour one's decisions otherwise (I did check, and what I found, and quoted, seems to me to confirm what I'd done). But, as with all things Wikipedian, it often appears that no sooner has something been agreed upon than someone decides to move the goalposts!

Hi Michael! Thank you for your kind wishes. I hope you are enjoying the winter holidays as well. May I wish you all the best for 2006? The new userboxes are attractive. I've added them to my user page for now although I'm not sure that I really qualify on either score. I'm a dilettante at birding; when I was in Oregon on Monday, I realized that I have been misidentifying Regulus satrapa as Zonotrichia atricapilla. What a dope! Still, I saw 22 species on my trip including Cygnus columbianus at the Ridgefield NWR. While I don't collect cones, I take pictures of them, so that will have to suffice for moment. The common name issue is troublesome. I like your suggestion of using scientific names. It exploits one of Wikipedia strengths in that the common names can be trivially redirected, and since referenced scientific names can be linked to the relevant article (as in the paragraph above), the common name is easily found. But, I'm sure that I am not alone in thinking that it makes the articles a little less accessible for many people. Also, I've been editing forest articles, e.g., Shoshone National Forest, (as you know), where readers are likely to expect common names and may find scientific names opaque. I suppose that scientific names could be confined to biological articles, but defining boundaries is not easy. One problem that I find a bit vexing is that the WP:MOS is redundant and inconsistent. A solution, in my opinion, would be to turn the MOS over to a small number (five or fewer) individuals (senior editors), but I don't think that is a Wikipedia solution. It seems to me that it is inconsistent with the culture, at least as I understand it. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * User boxes

Many thanks, jimfbleak 06:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi MPF, I wasn't aware that S. laniceps is the proper species, if so the article that's now at Saussurea involucrata should probably be moved to Saussurea laniceps. I don't know if S. involucrata should be a redirect or just left empty, whatever you prefer. I read the snow line thing in an AP article (I think), so that was obviously a source error.
 * Saussurea involucrata/laniceps

Thanks for the clarification/corrections. --Bk0 (Talk) 19:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I saw you reverted the change I made to taxobox. Sorry if it was messing up formatting. I tried it on a bunch of different taxos before I put it in and it seemed ok, but there's alot of them so I might have missed some particular configuration. What was going wrong or what were some example pages it broke? How does it compare to what the version you reverted to is doing to Dinosaur now? --CBD User talk:CBDunkerson 23:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Taxobox
 * Thanks, the explanation did help. The change I made works if the taxobox call has '|subdivisions=' in it... if there is nothing after the equal then that section doesn't print, but if it isn't included in the call at all you get the curly braces you saw. Could be avoided by always including that parameter (blank or not) in the call to the template, but there ought to be a way around that. I'll work on it. --CBD User talk:CBDunkerson 00:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I came up with a new version which uses an ultra-simple ' ' in the table. Seems to handle all three 'calling' situations right (parameter set, parameter in call but blank, and parameter not in call). Let me know if you see any other pages broken by this. It fixes the ones which the CSS version broke. Thanks again for the info. --CBD User talk:CBDunkerson 02:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I think Chicago, Harvard, and Turabian all call for quotes around periodical articles. www.library.wwu.edu/ref/chicago.html#Journal%20Article Badagnani 02:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Quotation marks in periodical articles

It could be a difference between humanities and the sciences...I've just gone and checked half dozen journals (US and British) and all had quotes around article titles in the References sections. Badagnani 18:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Michael! Happy New Year! Have you any interest in making a stub for Purshia? The genus (in Rosaceae) seems to have been neglected. I have placed an image of Purshia tridentata foliage in commons (Image:Purshia tridentata 8234.jpg) but have no place to put it. Best wishes, --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Purshia


 * That would be splendid. User talk:Stan Shebs has taken good images of Commons:Purshia tridentata flowers. I like Commons:Image:Purshia tridentata 4.jpg. It has shadows on the petals, but looks very good even as a thumbnail image. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Michael, it is an excellent article and very informative. I'll be looking for opportunities to take more pictures. Perhaps I can photograph some of the other species. I don't see anything new from UBC on Ericameria v. Chrysothamnus. Have you had a chance to review the papers? Best wishes, --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * On Ericameria v. Chrysothamnus, I had the impression from reading the papers that it won't really be decided until the DNA data improves. I'm glad I'm not the only one in the dark. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, re the oak pic: it was taken in the southeast US about 2 months ago (late October or early November) and most of the leaves had fallen off at that point, so I don't think it's evergreen. Someone on one of the oak sites ID'd it as "quercus imbricata" which I think was a misspelling of "quercus imbricaria" based on some googling and looking at leaf photos. I uploaded a photo of leaves and acorns from this tree at Image:Shingle-oak-leaves-acorns.jpg. Let me know what you think. Unfortunately it didn't occur to me to take a close-up pic of the bark, and I'm not anywhere near that part of the country now. I can't figure out how to use the efloras.com key. Phr 01:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * shingle oak
 * Thanks for the reply, I updated the pic description at Oak and spanish moss and on Commons. There's already a very similar picture at southern live oak so I didn't add it there--oh well.  Maybe the leaf/acorn pic could there though. (Btw that particular tree was not in an area affected by last year's hurricanes).  Phr 05:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, You have removed my picture "Parrotia-persica 1.JPG" from the danish article on the species Parrotia persica remarking that the picture is showing some kind of "Hamamelis". The picture was taken by a named plant in the Botanical Gardens in Copenhagen, so I would like to see your reasons reasons for that opinion? Best regards, --Sten 18:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC) (da:Bruger:Sten)
 * Parrotia vs. Hamamelis


 * Hi again, Thanks for your answer. I'm sorry to admit that you are right. Living near Aarhus in Jutland, however, I shall not be able to photograph the plants in Copenhagen right away, but given time I shall look for them! Best regards, --Sten 18:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Michael. Thanks for corrections (it is welcome). But if IPNI lists all taxa as Sterculiaceae and not Malvaceae is because support them so. Or your huge database shall be corrected? Thanks!Berton 15:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * IPNI Sterculiaceae

Michael, I saw your comment to Berton, that clicking on 'Related changes' on a category page gives a useful list of recent changes. It makes me wonder what other features of Wikipedia I've missed! Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Recent changes

That's fine; I was mainly getting rid of someone's accidental bolding. I went for italics because "BetaSweet" on the line above was italicized. Is that one correct? Anyway, I know nothing about carrots and was only looking at the article because I made myself sick from eating too many at once yesterday... Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  14:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Re: Carrot

Hi MPF, I was quoting Jenni Read, a world expert on Nothofagus. She said that nobody is quite sure what the problem with N. gunnii as regards to cultivation, but that the new guinea species are quite straightforward if you have the climate right, whereas gunnii is temperamental even when directly sown in areas with matching climate and soil. If you have more data we should include that, otherwise maybe we should leave the line out. njh 00:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * On the difficulty of Nothofagus

Thank you for your work on the Chimonanthus page. I just translated it from the Italian article because someone had asked for a translation. I know Italian, I do not know plants. The Italian article is a very long, single sentence (!) and nearly impossible to read. I did the best I could, given the limitations I describe above. You turned that into a much more readable (and I assume scientifically correct) article. For that I thank you. Davide Andrea 14:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Chimonanthus

Hi. I'll have a go at Paysandisia archon although to be honest I'd never even heard of the family (Castniidae) let alone the species! I always enjoy expanding my knowledge however:) Btw if you have a moment I have put a (quite long) list of plant genera on my user page which are redlinks in Lepidoptera pages - if there's anything you think is worth an article it would be much appreciated. Richard Barlow 12:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Moth


 * Thanks for the new articles! I'm struggling to keep up:) Richard Barlow 12:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Just finished Paysandisia archon (first draft). I'm bound to be tweaking it a bit in the next few days so if you've any thoughts let me know. Richard Barlow 16:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for helping clarify the Grizzly Bear article. I'm only an amateur biologist; when I greatly expanded that article from a stub, I read up on the latest in bear phylogeography via Google search (I cited the best of those articles). What struck me about the things I was reading, was the idea that the interior North American bear was not really a different bear, DNA-cladistics-wise, from the coastal North American bear or the Eurasian brown bear (or, for that matter, the California golden bear.) I almost hesitated to expand the article because of this; it seemed that my contributions might be more appropriate under Brown Bear (with an appropriate redirect from Grizzly Bear.)
 * Grizzly bear

It's true that some biologists would like to delete the 'horribilis' on the grounds that it makes it harder to raise money for the bear; you're also right that that would be invalid under the ICZN as far as I can tell. What I can't understand is what the ICZN does about subspecies names that are not valid; in fact, since I'm not sure exactly what makes a subspecies these days, it seems to me that one might appeal to the ICZN to remove 'horribilis' simply on the grounds that the 'horribilis' bear is not distinct from other Ursus arctos in any way.

I don't care so much with respect to the article; I'm in over my head with respect to bears - but I am curious on my own behalf about the above issues. If you'd care to comment on my talk page it'd be most welcome. -Ikkyu2 04:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you undid my copyedit to the first sentence of aspen... it looks strange to me what you're doing, but I can only assume it's the accepted standard form for this type of information...? Is that right? Otherwise it looks strange, like sentence fragments. Thanks, Bantman 00:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Aspen
 * Hi Michael. I wonder if section could not be spelled out in the first sentence of Aspen? After all, it has confused one editor already. I'm going to be bold, and give it a go. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked at it your final version again and don't see how to improve it. It is better than the version that confused Bantman. On another topic, the larvae in my Pinus contorta image are still not identified for sure, but progress is occurring (I think) in the discussion at User talk:Richard Barlow. Thank you for the referral. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm putting Rubus leucodermis on my to do list. Thank you for the suggestion and wishes. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've just created an article on a stinkhorn mushroom called Dictyophora indusiata. Know any mycologists who could help me with it? I've messed up the taxobox and don't know the class, order, etc. Thanks! Badagnani 01:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Dictyophora indusiata==

Thanks! I had gotten a bit taxobobulated there, so thanks for bailing me out! I'm not sure how to go about finding out everything between phylum and genus but maybe a "regular" at Fungi would know? Badagnani 02:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Michael. I moved this page to Phallus indusiatus, since this is the accepted name. I've made a redirect from Dictyophora indusiata. JoJan 15:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, let me explain my reason for including the "see also" in both Chinese peony articles. The Chinese peony we know for its flowers, and as a symbol of China is "rockii" (actually, it's "suffruticosa" but there's no WP article for that and it seems to be a hybrid of rockii anyway). The other one ("lactiflora") is used for its root, as a medicine. I didn't know they were distinct species until I found both articles and learned this. I added the "see also"s so others could have the opportunity to find out about this distinction as well. Badagnani 10:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Peonies

I think your idea of using text rather than simply a "see also" is a good idea. Regarding whether the info about the Chinese "national flower" should be added on suffruticosa but not rockii, I'm not sure because a lot of the Chinese pages use both species names for the same ornamental flower. Badagnani 18:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you have the expertise to add more about suffruticosa that would be great. I guess previously it was considered a species but is now considered a hybrid of rockii. But "suffruticosa" still comes up time and again as the species name when searching for the ornamental Chinese peony flower. There are a lot of cultural connections that Chinese culture experts could add as well. I can see if I can interest some of them in this. Badagnani 23:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Michael, may I call your attention to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna), in case you hadn't noticed it? After I made Polar Bear uniform in capitalizing common names, User:Krun changed it back to lower case en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polar_bear&diff=34782226&oldid=34779137. At least he changed all occurrences. BTW, it may not be one of your interests, but Glacial recession is developing well, mostly due to MONGO and Peltoms. It will be one week old tomorrow. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions (fauna)

Thanks for cleaning up my picture mess at Aspen. I thought about making a gallery, but I find articles more visually appealing when the pictures are part of the article. They're also bigger for folks who set their thumbnail size larger then the default 180px, but this one is so short they almost get in the way. Is there community consensus on when to create a gallery in an article? Zaui 21:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Aspen Gallery

Why are you deleting my links? Have you arbitrarily decided my site is not worthy of mention here? My site offers valuable information and Creative Commons licensed large-format photographs of professionally identified and researched insects, spiders, plants and trees. My photographs are used by teachers, professors, grad students, elementary and high-school students free of charge. Please explain your policy. Thank you.Nickrz 00:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ext links


 * I see you're quite busy removing links to external pages and your explanation on Bruce Marlin's page is very convincing. But since you don't seem to visit the pages you delete (as said in the explanation I mentioned), maybe it is worthwhle to be a bit more cautious. The Magnolia newsgroup on Yahoo for example, is not a commercial website, as you state. It is a discussion page on which some 200 or so Magnolia enthousiasts discuss all kinds of issues on growing and enjoying their favourite trees. This includes 'where to buy' as some cultivars are hard to FIND. I'm a member of that group and I really don't see why the site should not be mentioned in the 'external links'. If you don't agree, please explain yourself. - Wikiklaas 15:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your attention
 * Eucalyptus List

From what I've found on 1 & 2, E. costata has been folded into a variant of E. incrassata, so I'll remove it from the list and note this in its article. I'm still quite a newbie to botany and this could well not be fully right...these eucs don't have much respect for classification ;)

Just had another idea: what about having a separate list of synonyms after the main list?


 * Coming in late: E. costata was indeed declared a synonym of E. incrassata, but I believe that it was resurrected as a species in Hill, K.D., Johnson, L.A.S. & Blaxell, D.F. (2001)	Systematic studies in the eucalypts. 11 - New taxa and combinations in Eucalyptus Section Dumaria (Myrtaceae). Telopea 9(2). Drew (Snottygobble | Talk) 02:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just made an article for this, but now I'm uncertain whether it should be listed under Cassia obtusifolia or Senna obtusifolia. Any idea which is the authoritative name? It can't be in two different genii at the same time, right? Thanks Badagnani 05:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Cassia obtusifolia

I don't have access to any refs right now, but I am absolutely certain that Honduras is S. macrophylla and not S. humilis. S. humilis is restricted to the Pacific coast of Mexico, and is. iirc, CITES 1 listed. Definitely different species. But I will track down the refs when I get home. Guettarda 23:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Meliaceae

I see you've edited articles on fish and birds...mind taking a look at Yellowstone cutthroat trout and pointing me in the direction I need to go to see who named this fish and when, if you know. I don't do much work on species articles, sticking primarily to land areas, so any help would be useful. Appreciate your time.--MONGO 06:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Help with Yellowstone cutthroat trout

Please visit Requests for adminship/MPF, as it appears that someone has nominated you for adminship. Please be sure to sign your life away acceptance to the nomination at your convenience. Best regards, Hall Monitor 21:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You have been nominated

Hi, I know about rambutan having eaten them canned (and fresh, in Thailand, once), but not enough to help rewrite this article. It's quite detailed for a botany article, I think. Badagnani 16:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Rambutan

Oops - sorry, my mistake. Thanks for catching it.--Paraphelion 14:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Angel Oak

Thanks for your attention Michael! I'll make to sure check all the links too -- Eug 02:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Eucalyptus Kino

I'd be grateful if you could comment on the new taxobox template at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life Gdr 16:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Problems with new taxoboxes?

I got this from the publisher, but it states electronic format only, which is no good when people make wikipedia into a book. Is there no way we can use the image and apply the appropriate copyright tag?
 * Copyright Permission

"Thank you for your email dated 19 January 2006, requesting permission to reprint the above material. Our permission is granted without fee to reproduce the material, providing the original authors are in agreement.  Please consult the journal articles directly to locate all author information.

Use of the figure is restricted to the inclusion in an article on overlap extension PCR for Wikipedia, available in electronic format only. This permission is limited to this particular use and does not allow you to use it elsewhere or in any other format other than specified above."

--Username132 17:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a diagram showing overlap extension polymerase chain reaction being used for site-directed mutagenesis!! All this messing around after copyright, I think I might just try and construct my own way of explaining the topic without their image.

Incidently, I'd like one of those "contents boxes" at the top of my talk page, like I've seen on other people's, but I can't find the code. Can you help? Communicating on wikipedia is a bit clumsy... --Username132 18:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed user:Fucdkthissite in the creation log. WHY wait for people like this to trash several pages before they get blocked? Admin need to be more heavy handed. It's OBVIOUS they're not here to do any good. They should be blocked as soon as they're noticed and permanently. It's not worth letting these people back on to wikipedia in the hope that they might contribute something nice, because they waste more decent people's time than they could actually contribute themselves. I didn't know where to rant, so your talkpage got it but I really do feel current measures are ineffective. --Username132 19:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Vandalism makes me cry...

I was checking out your articles and edits in Parthenocissus and the various Parthenocissus species articles. Redirecting to a particular common name (which may or may not be "common", depending on who you talk to) makes little sense and represents a POV. (I have already weighed in on Albizia julibrissin, known almost universally in the U.S.A. as "mimosa".) I would strongly suggest redirecting all common names to the scientific name of the plant in question. One example is Parthenocissus tricuspidata or "Boston ivy", both of which now redirect to "Japanese creeper" even though this species is almost universally known as "Boston Ivy" in the U.S.A. In fact I have never once heard of the name "Japanese creeper" (and why "Japanese" when this species is also native to China and Korea???). My point is not that one "common name" is more accurate than another, it is that many species have multiple common names, any or all of which have varying degrees of "accuracy", and which vary greatly from one English-speaking country to the next. MrDarwin 18:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Common names

Hi Michael! What is the best way to handle common names that span genera? Please take a look at Talk:Chrysothamnus and give us the benefit of your experience, if you feel so inclined. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ericameria

There are no recent records of this species on Cape Hatteras and I have rewritten the Cape Hatteras reference to (hopefully) clarify it. The sentence "A disjunct population also exists on Cape Hatteras in North Carolina" is a mangling of a statement from a U.S. government publication (cited in the article) that says "A disjunct population has been reported [emphasis added] at Cape Hatteras, NC", citing E.L. Little's 1979 checklist of trees and shrubs. This checklist in turn probably bases its record on an 1883 account of this species on Cape Hatteras, but that account also commented that the Cape Hatteras population was extirpated well over 100 years ago (although this population was apparently never documented with specimens). This underscores the need to refer to primary references (e.g., Zona's revision of the genus) rather than relying on secondary (or in this case, tertiary or worse) sources. MrDarwin 15:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sabal palmetto

I can (sadly) confirm that the racist term for these nuts, deleted by you as "unverified", has in fact been in use in the U.S.A. although I don't know just how widespread it may be. Do we pretend it doesn't exist out of ethnic/cultural sensitivity or political correctness? (I have always found this term to be extremely offensive and won't be the one to put it back in.) MrDarwin 16:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Brazil nuts
 * Sorry to intrude, but I think Michael's edit is good and proper. Unsourced information doesn't belong in Wikipedia (WP:CITE). Even if it were sourced, I'd still delete it. Wikipedia is WP:NOT "an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia". Some information can disappear; I will not mourn its loss.--Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you please move the article Chusan palm to Trachycarpus fortunei?. I could not do the move myself because an article titled "Trachycarpus fortunei" already exists (solely as a redirect to Chusan palm). This palm should have the specific name as the article title as there is no consensus on a common name ("Chusan palm" is almost exclusively U.K.; in the U.S.A. it is nearly always "windmill palm"; I have never seen "Chinese windmill palm" but can't rule that one out either, and I think there may be one or two others). I am going to edit the article a bit but will hold off until it is moved. Thanks! MrDarwin 17:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * requested move

I'm fairly certain you're wrong about "cactuses" being the proper plural of "cactus". First, "Cactus" is a name in botanical Latin, which is certainly not the same as classical Latin but generally follows the same rules even if a particular word was never spoken by a Roman. But more importantly, according to my sources "cactus" was indeed a Latin word for cardoon, derived from the Greek "kaktos" but as a Greek "loan" into English via Latin it would be treated as any other Latin word. (BTW I have no Latin expertise myself, but checked with a colleague who is an authority on both Latin and botanical nomenclature.) One additioal point: it's important to distinguish between Cactus as a generic name and "cactus" as a vernacular or common name in English. Regarding the latter, it's all academic anyway as English as a language has borrowed words from many different languages but ultimately makes its own rules (if not always sensibly or logically). "Prevalent usage" eventually becomes "correct usage" (as much as I would wish otherwise, given some word usages and grammatical constructions, a whole comprised of its parts being one of my biggest pet peeves). MrDarwin 02:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Etymology of "cactus"
 * Just to kibitz, my unabridged OED mentions "cactuses" as plural (including a quote from 1836), and doesn't mention "cacti" as a valid word at all. Stan 18:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've edited the text a bit, hopefully being factually correct, informative and NPOV. MrDarwin 14:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if you might look at these articles for me; I think they should be merged, preferably under either "Canna" or "Cannaceae" as there is only the one genus in the family. I would prefer to see them under Canna as that is their common as well as generic name in many circles, but Canna is already the title of an article about an island I have never even heard of! I would prefer to move the island article to Canna (island) and use Canna for the plant--unfortunately the links and redirects would get messy. At any rate, "canna lily" (which is as misleading and unnecessary a common name as any I've come across) should redirect to Canna or Canna (plant) or Cannaceae and not vice-versa. I would be happy to clean up and edit the article if you could simply do the merge for me. (And if the island named Canna is really that well known, maybe we need a disambiguation page.) Thanks! MrDarwin 00:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Canna vs. Cannaceae vs. Canna lily


 * Thanks much for tackling this for me. Regarding the list of species, I'm inclined to delete it entirely because I see little value in long listings of species names that may or may not be valid, copied from unattributed secondary sources that may or may not be accurate. There are other taxonomic resources that can provide that level of detail, and do it better and more thoroughly, and I try to link or at least cite those resources whenever possible. (Hemerocallis is another offending genus, but I have neither the expertise nor the time to sort through the list of names under that genus.) MrDarwin 17:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Michael, I agree with you that the pages must be readable, but Tiliaceae and Sterculiaceae until just little time ago were redirect pages. This is because people don't want discussion about classification of these taxa. I changed these because I think that Wikipedia should express the plurality of opinions. The list linked in the article don't clear which taxonomists recognise what. I think that any information about history of classifications has some importance, even because they are not eternal. Berton 22:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Tiliaceae, Bombacaceae, etc
 * I'm with MPF on this one. The list of authors who accepted a particular circumscription of a particular family is being used purely as an appeal to authority to support the article author's POV, but what it boils down to is that there are two major treatments of this particular group (as with many groups), the "traditional" (i.e., pre-molecular) circumscription and new circumscriptions based on new (primarily molecular, but in the best cases morphological and other data as well) data, reflected in the APG classification system that has become the prevalent system on Wikipedia (and mind you, I'm not the APG's biggest fan). Many of the "traditional" circumscriptions of many groups were pretty bad in the first place (e.g., Liliaceae, Scrophulariaceae), a fact that was often recognized even by the specialists in those groups but who were waiting for new data to come along to refine their classifications. Well, that data has come and those classifications have been refined. Appealing to authors who published before the 1990's for the circumscription of a particular group is a losing battle. If you really want to appeal to authority, go to the scientists who are the published authorities on Sterculiaceae, or Tiliaceae, or Malvaceae, or Bombacaceae, and see what they have to say, and especially what they've had to say about the classifications of their groups since the APG classification came out (it's already been a a few years so you should be able to dig something up). The bottom line, for me, is that the APG system is already out of date, and I'm going to look to more recent research, and particular research by scientists who are specialists in particular groups, to tell me about the currently accepted classification of those groups. MrDarwin 03:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * MrDarwin, you are wrong! Taxonomy is what the great taxonomists did and not what APG and other "modernists" (including specialists or no) do! This is a pseudo-science, based on genetic survey of cpDNA (allogenome) and the erroneous cladistic method (that has nothing to do with Linnaean Taxonomy)! We don't know never even about human genome (thus we should await for proteomic analysis to know actually "what genes have to say").When I look to a Malvaceae or I look to Sterculiaceae I know what they are Malvaceae and Sterculiaceae, since this is intuitive. I do not need to make a genetic analysis of the cpDNA of these plants to classify them. That (the taxonomy of the "traditional" taxonomists) is the real TAXONOMY! The rest is fallacious pseudo-science! Berton 03:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Berton, I don't have time to address this in depth right now, so I'd just like to point out that the molecular studies are, by and large, backed up by characters of morphology, biogeography, chromosome numbers, chemical characters, and numerous other characters; in many cases, the "new" clades and taxa being identified today were recognized and described years ago by the "great" taxonomists of the 19th and early 20th centuries (although not necessarily at the same taxonomic ranks). In other words, classifications are not intuitive, they are based on characters. One of the surprises (and pleasures) in my own research has been to recognize "Aha! Hanstein got it right!" But I have also been in the position of recognizing relationships based on molecular phylogenies that had never been recognized before by any taxonomist, and realizing that they explained patterns of characters that otherwise didn't make sense. The bottom line is that the molecular phylogenies make sense in light of other data. If you study the history of plant classification--and not just the "big picture" of the major classifications but also the detailed classifications of the various groups by the specialists in those groups--you will see a very different picture of taxonomy as being based on both evidence and opinions, with most taxonomists being more than willing to change their classifications as more data became available. Classifications are hypotheses of relationships, and hypotheses must change as new data become available. MrDarwin 14:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Jusy FYI. I thought you might like to peek at this and Plant sexuality. I think someone believes there is strong enough difference to merit a separate article (gay plants?...nah, lol). Anyway, I thought it could use an MPF perusal. Just thought you might be interested. --DanielCD 15:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sexual reproduction of plants

Hi MPF, Tecoma is the same name of genus Tabebuia. It is right? I don't konw. But, there are many species such as Tabebuia alba who another name (synonymy) is Tabebuia alba. It is true. Best wishes, --Ricardo Carneiro Pires 11:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Tecoma

Thanks a lot. --Ricardo Carneiro Pires 11:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Michael, thank you for the explanation (but I never heard of). You are the perfect example of intuitive taxonomist, since that, you give a glance for a picture of Pinus in a chinese mountain is enough that you know your botanical identity.:-) Berton 16:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hanstein

Hi, MPF. I had not thought of that, though some people do seem to count them as the oldest and biggest anyway. It's kind of like the tallest building, with distinctions like the highest habitable floor and whether a spire or antenna is counted. -- Kjkolb 02:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Largest and oldest living things

You are actually advising me that you are going to revert "Maple Tree" from being allowed in the Category:Flora of Canada ?? The maple leaf is the national symbol of Canada see Canadian flag!! What do you propose, to avoid a revert war ?? SirIsaacBrock 13:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Category:Flora of Canada


 * It would be better to add a subcategory for trees only if you want to get that species specific. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 13:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I don't see any "over-categorisation" at this time. These categories are extremely helpful when using the Wikipedia for research purposes. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 12:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Category:Trees of Minnesota
 * Thanks for your message and for sharing your opinion. There are certainly many challenges to face, and I appreciate the philosophical considerations you raise, but I don't see any outstanding problems with the categorization scheme at this time.  I'm fully aware this is not a perfect system, nor could it be, but categories like Category:Trees of California are helpful and informative for the generalist. Regional categories are very common as well as useful across the board.  Thanks again for sharing your concerns. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 12:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, Springtime is returning to Texas, and today I found the first "mystery legume" of the season... I may be calling on you again soon, my fellow-plant-appreciating friend... --DanielCD 20:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Springtime


 * Snow? Never heard of it. Is it one of those new Japanese sports cars?


 * lol. --DanielCD 20:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You said: ...sometimes leaving pages linked to 'cypress' offers more precision than linking it on to Cupressaceae...
 * Cypress

Well, I think we have a difference of opinion on that, seeing as how the Cypress page includes references to angiosperms (!) and geographical place names (!!) and semiconductor companies (!!!) as well as members of the Cupressaceae. But if you feel that any of my re-links to Cupressaceae are inappropriate, go ahead and change them. Thanks for making some of them more specific, also. --Dcfleck 13:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was conforming to the American Ornithologists' Union checklist...which includes the hyphen. Guess it's one of the more annoying differences between American and European practice (some are better, Grey Plover vs Black-bellied for instance). - Aerobird 16:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Scrub jays


 * Hmm, interesting. To me "Scrub-Jay" rolls off the tongue better than "Scrub Jay" but then I've never been a stickler for "Yankee grammar". ;-)


 * PS spotted the 'Birder' userbox on your page and was inspired to create my own userbox, thanks! - Aerobird 16:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to where you are getting the lists of species you put into articles (e.g., Cycas). I am suspicious of such lists as they often contain errors, are time-consuming to check and edit and at best provide little useful information (and at worst are providing erroneous information). At the very least these lists should be referenced in some way. MrDarwin 14:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Species lists?

Any wikipedia has its own standards (and everybody has his own standards of what is ugly and what is nice!) so ... feel free to change everything you like!
 * Cycads

If you are interested in Cycads:

I've written some new pages on :it:Cycadales on it.wikipedia (some of them missing in the english version) and uploaded some new pictures on Commons. I focused mainly on :it:Encephalartos but there is also something else ... (see f.e. :it:Stangeria eriopus)

Feel free to use them to expand english cycads section!

Have a nice time! -- E SCULAPIO   (scrivimi, se vuoi)

User:Anlace has first suggested changing Oregon white oak to Oregon oak, and following a note by me has now suggested changing it to Garry oak. This is a heads up, since I assume you have an opinion on the matter. -- WormRunner 05:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oregon white oak