User talk:Peter coxhead/Archive 21

Dipsacus fullonum
Hi Peter - the recently published Stace 4 places Dipsacus fullonum in Dipsacaceae, unchanged from Stace 3. Is that now incorrect? The article Dipsacaceae states "The species are currently placed in the family Caprifoliaceae" but does not give any further information. Is there a reliable source for that change? Plant surfer 10:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Stace has a number of variations from the APG IV system we use here, which does not recognize Dipsacaceae. So the source is APG IV – . The reason underlying the differences is that Stace accepts paraphyletic taxa when they are clearly morphologically distinguishable (and has argued for their acceptance in several published papers), but the APG, like the majority of botanical taxonomists, does not. I'm with Stace, myself (e.g. on the value of Lemnaceae as opposed to sinking it into Araceae), but trend is very clear. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but since Stace 4 is the go-to work on ID of British plants, it would be helpful if the reason for that discrepancy was made clear to readers of the affected articles. As it is, the APG IV source is inaccessible except to subscribers, so we're mostly in the dark. Plant surfer  13:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, you can use PoWO as the reference, which I do now, because it uses APG IV (at least in my experience). See here and upwards to the genus and family. Yes, I had to buy the new Stace, because it's essential for even amateur UK botanists like me, but as I noted above, he's in a minority on family placements not in APG IV. Peter coxhead (talk)


 * AGP IV is inaccessible? The article at the Botanical Journal is accessible to me. Is there something else that I'm missing?  Jts1882 &#124; talk 17:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes. I can only access Bot J Linn Soc if I am connected to the internet from within my University or from outside by the University's proxy server. As a private individual I have no access, and I am sure that applies to most other private individuals without corporate permissions. Plant surfer  18:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * talk page stalker: have you tried Sci-Hub? If you aren't opposed to morally ambiguous behavior, it's the way to go. I've been able to locate pretty much every article I've searched for on Sci-Hub. Enwebb (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not connecting through a university. I get access as a nobody on the web (assuming there is not something else I'm missing). Try diabling Javascript, this sometimes works, although I can't block my access this way.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 19:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocking JavaScript is no longer an option in Microsoft Edge. Plant surfer  19:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's very odd, because I just looked from home in the UK on my iPad and access was fine. It can't be Javascript, because that's on. The paper is marked as free access by the journal. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And I can access it from the publisher as full text or PDF via the hotel internet connection I'm using tonight. Plantdrew (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The article on family Caprifoliaceae has bit more information and includes Dipsacaceae genera under subfamily Dipsacoideae. The Angiosperm Phylogeny website has some explanation in the classification section for Caprifoliaceae about the reasons for (AGP III) and against (AGP II) subsuming Dipsacaceae and Valerianaceae in Caprifoliaceae s.l. (see section Dipsacales). There is also mention of a new phylogentic analysis by Xiang et al. 2019 that retains the traditional families (Edit: added cladogram of their Fig. 1). Perhaps the subfamily Dipsacoideae should appear in the taxobox for Dipsacus fullonum.    Jts1882 &#124; talk 07:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Groan!! But this is even more reason for articles to have a clear statement of where the stated taxonomy is coming from, and also, perhaps, not to be too eager to comply with the findings of the most recent published analysis. I am not arguing against following APG, far from it, but British readers need an explanation for the discrepancies between APG and Stace IV, and currently this is not being given in the relevant articles.
 * we can't reasonably be expected to add this information to every species article. I argued long ago when I started editing here that taxoboxes should have some way of indicating the system in use (it would help with the current muddle over the classification used for pteridophytes, as just one example). So angiosperm taxoboxes would have some way of indicating that an APG system was in use (and indeed which one). I don't recall getting much support. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, agreed, the explanation cannot be given in extenso for each species, but it would be a simple(r) matter to add the relevant citation to the taxobox. Dipsacus and the species articles, for example, do not cite APG IV anywhere, so an immediate improvement would be simply to add the citation to the Speciesbox/Automatic taxobox after Caprifoliaceae. Ordinary editors cannot do that of course. Plant surfer  12:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Some way of indicating the taxonomy system would be a valued edition. There is the parameter classification_status that could indicate the system (see example right), although integrating it with the automated taxonomy system would be better.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 13:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with both points. The problem, though, with integrating it into the automated taxobox system is that in principle every taxonomy template could be using a different system (at present the taxonomy templates for some pteridophyte taxa use different systems at different ranks – it's something I've been working on). So there would have to be an optional field in every taxonomy template giving the system, and then some way of summarizing/showing it in the taxobox. It's technically possible (as you will know); the issue is one of presentation, and whether editors would fill in system – refs is very patchy. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A few thoughts on this.
 * The taxonomy templates have a reference that is expected to provide a source for its parent taxon and nothing more about the system. In practice many references are missing or inaccurate; often the parent is changed without the reference being changed. So as you suggest something else in taxonomy templates should be considered.
 * A yes/no parameter could be used to indicate that the reference refers to a system. A system-reference parameter could give a reference for a broader system.
 * Alternatively the system reference could refer to a code for an approved system. Approval of systems would be a matter for various projects (e.g. Plants could approve AGP IV, Gastropods could approve the Bouchet (?) system used by WoRMS).
 * Taxonomic systems have range: APG-IV covers angiosperms down to class. Ruggiero covers kingdoms down to order, etc. The range could be indicated by a background colour in the taxonomy listing or a border around the appropriate cells, with a reference applied to the top taxon.
 * The biggest problem is getting people to fill in the appropriate parameters. Overall, I think it will only work when the projects take a strong interest in the taxonomy, which is why I favour an approved taxonomy approach, but the barriers to getting such a system working will be substantial.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 08:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I will have another look at why I seem to be unable to access pdfs from Bot.J.Linn.Soc. except under corporate proxy. I see a demand for payment. Plant surfer  10:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * just a thought – could it be something to do with tracking and cookies? I have Firefox's strong "don't track me" option on most of the time. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Taxonomy template refs indicator in the taxobox
Butting in here. I would support displaying the ref parameter in the box. I think it is poorly maintained because it remains only of arcane use to template editors. If all readers could see it, I think editors would more likely pay attention to it. Adding another parameter for people to brush off wouldn’t work, in my view. Start with what we have and then if that doesn’t work maybe add another parameter. --Nessie (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree, and it's actually on my to-do list (well, stack actually), but hasn't been given high priority. Currently I'm trying to sort out pteridophytes to PPG I; after that?? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I agree too. Writing out the options made the scale of any changes to deal with taxonomy systems clear to me. It's likely to get resistance even if a good approach can be devised. Starting with the references already present in the taxonomy templates seems a good step in the right direction. One issue would be duplicate references, both with the article and within the taxobox, but improving sourcing of information is presumably more important.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 15:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We can't display the content of the ref field in the taxobox because (1) as you say, it may be a duplicate (2) it may be in a different reference style from the article, which isn't allowed. Templates cannot display refs, for these reasons. My idea was to have a small marker to show there is a ref, which if clicked on would go to the taxonomy template. Perhaps a superscript "r" to the right of the cell? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO those reasons are dumb, but I guess we're stuck with them. The R option is the best remaining option.  It should have hovertext that says "reference" though. --Nessie (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC) (P.S. I don’t mean to imply that you are dumb nor that your reasoning is dumb --Nessie (talk) 12:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC))
 * I'm not convinced WP:CITESTYLE or WP:CITEVAR prevent the display of the reference. They are style preferences, but there are also indications that providing a RS is more important than the style guidelines (e.g. see WP:DUPCITES). However, there are complications with including the reference.
 * I've made some changes to the automated taxonomy in Module:Autotaxobox/sandbox with a demo in User:Jts1882/sandbox/templates/test. For demonstration purposes, the presence of a reference is displayed three ways: adding the reference, with an icon, and with just text. All have a tooltip. Any suggestions?  Jts1882 &#124; talk 11:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I can only say with respect to WP:CITESTYLE and WP:CITEVAR that I know from experience that this issue raises huge passions among some editors (CS1 vs. CS2, YYYY-MM-DD access dates vs. MMM DD, YYYY or DD MMM YYYY, etc. (See WP:WikiProject Citation cleanup's first goal, for example.) It has been a killer in the past when editors wanted to display references via templates. In an ideal world, we would have style-free information in citation templates plus an entirely separate indication of the styles to be used. But we don't. (And many refs don't use templates anyway.)
 * I prefer the superscript R, with or without the brackets, and the tool tip "Reference in taxonomy template". Peter coxhead (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hibiscus and it being saponaceous
, shalom. I noticed where you were reluctant to add the category "Saponaceous plants" to the genera "Hibiscus." First, the word "saponaceous" simply means that the plant produces a "soap-like" lather. This is evident for the Hibiscus plant from two sources: One, a YouTube video seen here, and the other a written account in the book, in vol. 1, where the editor, Yosef Qafih, writes about a soap being derived from the plant Althaea officinalis, based on an earlier Arabic designation which calls the plant خطمي (transliterated = ḫaṭmī), or what is also known as Hibiscus. In all places, the Arabic word for this plant is explained as Hibiscus, as you can also see here, in this online Arabic-French dictionary, and which Yosef Qafih names explicitly, using its taxonomic name, as being the species in question. It is my understanding, from Yosef Qafih's identification of this plant and from which a soap compound was made, that the common denominator between all these species of Hibiscus is that they produce a lathery, soap-like latex. Feel free to do with the category as you wish, but, in my view, it is still accurate with respect to the genus. shalom, Davidbena (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * the article at Hibiscus is about the genus Hibiscus, not the set of plants called by the English name "hibiscus" or the equivalent vernacular name in any other language. It's about the genus, which necessarily includes all of the species in that genus (whose scientific names will be Hibiscus ...). Thus Althaea officinalis may be known as "hibiscus" but is not in any way part of the article. The question is whether all the species in the genus Hibiscus are saponaceous, and I haven't seen any source that says so. You can, of course, add the category to articles about individual species where there are reliable sources to support it, including Althaea officinalis. Ideally there should be text in the article to support the categorization. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I accept your analysis on this, because this is your special field of expertise. When I find the time, I'll search more about the genus Hibiscus on Jstor and elsewhere. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

One of these days...
...I'll manage to implement a speciesbox without creating more work for someone else. Thanks. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * no worries, I monitor the error-tracking categories for taxoboxes and taxonomy templates most days, and it's unusual not to find fixes needed. (I make mistakes myself sometimes, and even does occasionally!) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I accidentally made Template:Taxonomy/Gaussia yesterday. I'd intended to include the disambiguation (plant) as there is also a copepod genus Gaussia. I'm not going to worry about it since other editors don't necessarily follow my practice of always disambiguating taxonomy templates when multiple taxa share a name. However, the reason the template ended up without a disambiguation was that I hadn't changed genus to taxon. I did have "genus = Gaussia (plant)", but apparently when taxon isn't specified, the link to create the taxonomy template uses the page name, but drops any disambiguator. I'm not sure that is desirable; ambiguity with another taxon is the single biggest source of ambiguity in taxon names, and it wouldn't do any harm to include the disambiguator (and it might make the code simpler if the full page title is used by default in the template creation link, rather than stripping the disambiguator). Plantdrew (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand your comment I hadn't changed genus to taxon. I did have "genus = Gaussia (plant)". What article were you editing? If I look at the history of Gaussia (plant), you do seem to have changed directly to Gaussia. As far as I know, if you click the "fix" link in an Automatic taxobox, then:
 * the value of taxon will be used if set
 * if the taxon isn't set, then way back in the creation of the template, decided to use the page name, stripped of any disambiguator, as the default value for this parameter.
 * Personally, I think the default was a mistake, and I now use the tracking category to 'fix' automated taxoboxes relying on the page name. But the default behaviour is deeply embedded in the system. The problem for me with your suggestion is that the disambiguator is often there because of uses other than as a taxon name, and there's then no reason to put the disambiguator in the taxonomy template name – which forces every Speciesbox to use the disambiguated name, unnecessarily. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I was using preview mode to display the link to create the template. Created the template in a new tab, saved it, and then noticed it didn't have the disambiguator. Went back the tab with the preview to double check that I had included the disambiguator and realized I hadn't changed genus to taxon; I made that change and saved. It's a rare set of circumstances (disambiguated page name+taxon unspecified), so I won't worry about it further. Plantdrew (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I feel an idiot! I always try to use preview mode, as you did, to avoid creating entries in the taxobox error-tracking categories, which don't always disappear when fixed. I should have thought of that. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Taxobox
Ah ok. Thanks! So if I make a taxobox for a genus and then in the speciesbox indicate genus = "___", then it will link to the information of the taxobox?Crawdaunt (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the WP:Automated taxobox system is quite complicated, and ideally you should read about it at the link. Basically, you create a taxonomy template for a genus, and then Automatic taxobox with GENUSNANE or Speciesbox with BINOMIAL will pick up the taxonomy. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah ok. Great! Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Cheers, Crawdaunt (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Abelia
Sorry this article is factually incorrect. It is the sort of article that gives WP a bad name. Abelia is only recognised as a synonym of Linnaea by Christenhusz and PWO. The majority of botanists and secondary sources hold to the three species circumscription used on COL. I can provide numerous scientific papers that support my view. In addition, Abelia is maintained as a segregate by the RHS and other horticulture sources, and also by Flora of China. This sort of page and constant hatting are the reasons I do not contribute to WP preferring the more factual and scientific WS. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * it's always difficult to know in what detail to respond to other Wikipedia editors; I have a tendency to assume too little knowledge on the part of others (a generic fault of ex-teachers). So just some short responses to start:
 * We should really be discussing this either at the article or at WT:PLANTS.
 * What the Flora of China does is irrelevant; it's much too old. Similarly many RHS sources. Also the RHS, rightly in my view, and for very good reasons, takes a conservative view on changing names of horticulturally relevant plants, but it does, usually via the Plant Finder, eventually accept changes.
 * So the issue is whether there are sources after the molecular phylogenetic studies that lead to the name changes that dispute the science involved.
 * More generally, although we must always report all views in articles, for the names (and hence categorizaton) of articles we have to use a single self-consistent secondary source. Otherwise we end up with the problems I'm currently trying to correct for ferns: separate articles on the same taxon under different names (our articles are about taxa, not names); species that everyone agrees belong in the same genus, even if they differ as to which, written about under different generic names. The most up-to-date secondary source for Caprifoliaceae appears to be PoWO. If you think there's a better one, then let's have a discussion. (We don't use PoWO for ferns, for example.)
 * Peter coxhead (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The article isn't factually incorrect. It states that Abelia was found to be non-monophyletic and that there was a proposal to subsume it into an enlarged Linnaea and raise Zabelia to genus. This is verifiable by sources, e.g. POWO accepts this approach. Now it seems that this approach is not uiniversal, with other sources retaining a revised Abelia, so there is room for discussion. However, the discussion has to be to decide what to include in the acticle to best represent current taxonomy, not to make a determination on favoured facts.
 * This seems an extreme case of lumpers and splitters at war. Christenhusz chooses to lump a number of genera into an enlarged genus Linnaea, while others split the same plant species among different subfamilies or even families. The Linnaea of the lumpers includes several families of the splitters.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 08:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * exactly. (And precisely the same issue arises for ferns, involving some of the same personalities, but there we have had a discussion and agreed on the splitters' approach of PPG I, whereas PoWO takes the lumpers' approach.) I have little or no interest in Caprifoliaceae (other than as a gardener) so I'm happy to leave this to others to sort out. (1) Articles must state clearly all currently verifiable views. (2) There must also be a single self-consistent taxonomy, based on reliable secondary sources, used for article titles to avoid duplication and muddle. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ferns have the advantage that PPG I goes down to genus level so provides one secondary source for the whole group. APG IV doesn't and you have to rely on a variety of conflicting resources to get the genera. There are also far more genera and more flux. The Angiosperm Phylogeny Website is probably the most useful resource, but its hard to get a listing of genera covering higher order taxa. Overall, though, land plants are pretty well served with general resources, land animals are even more fragmented.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 09:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. For the families covered by WCSP, PoWO is fine in my experience (they use the same underlying database). But for other families, I understand that PoWO usually corresponds to WCSP's "in review" as yet, so isn't as good.
 * Species are often the real problem without something like PoWO. As for animals, I stick to spiders, partly from interest, but also because the Workd Spider Catalog is wonderful! Peter coxhead (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Totally agree as regards PoWO. It is not definitive, but getting better and looks good. WCSP is some 99.5% correct and updated regularly and errors are dealt with if they are pointed out. PoWO, like World Flora Online, is just a basic transfer of The Plant List (static since 2013), with upgrades as and when time permits I assume. Personally, I now use WCSP and COL, as my first port of call for plants, as they are better for species. Updates are very regular and the editors can be contacted for opinions. The problem with all secondary sources is when it comes to taxonomic opinions and this is highlighted by Linnaea, where COL and PoWO reflect opposite views. In respect to this genus both opinions are factually correct and therefore it is a major of preference and not science. Wikis, in my opinion, are more powerful, as they should not take sides and ideally must present both cases with equal weight and evidence, allowing the reader to make up their own mind. See my work on WS, as an example ( we are encouraged not to discuss, by the way). Incidentally, the recent work by Christenhusz and colleagues is increasingly being questioned by specialist botanists, for example, see Capparaceae. I think many workers are concerned about the The Global Flora project, which aims to set discussion in stone without proper consensus. Put two taxonomists in a room you get a heated row, put a dozen in the room and you may at least get consensus! Finally, editors on WP or WD can be just as opinionated as an average taxonomist and revert edits they do not like, in spite of the papers provided, often citing secondary sources over science. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we all agree, up to the point that you wrote in spite of the papers provided, often citing secondary sources over science. (1) We are required to prefer secondary sources by WP policies; indeed, I (like and other WP:PLANTS editors) have been criticized for using journal papers as sources (which I still do, by the way). (2) The issue you don't address is how to maintain consistency and coherence. The specialists prefer Hyacinthaceae over APG's Scilloideae, and it's very, very easy to source the use of this family from recent papers. But if we used this family for the article title and taxonomic hierarchy, it would be inconsistent with the use of the other subfamilies of Asparagaceae by specialists in these groups, which can also be easily sourced. It's not at all a case of secondary sources over science as regards article titles and categories . There's a difference between writing papers about a single taxonomic group and constructing an encyclopedia covering all taxa, which you don't seem to be recognizing. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I do understand the differences, sorry if this was not clearer in my earlier posts. Scilloideae is a good example where it presents the two views in a dispassionate way. I was going to attempt a similar approach with Abelia. I appreciate that WP encourages the use of secondary sources, but in the case of some plants secondary sources differ in circumscription and surely in these cases WP should show both views, assuming the secondary sources are reputable, of course. I really do not know how to address consistency where there is differing views held with strength and rationality, except by the sort of approach you use in Scilloideae, as at least this gives a level of coherence. I am very much a novice at contributing on WP! Andyboorman (talk) 08:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As an aside, isn't the Scilloideae article treating two different questions as one? There is the rank and the name. I assume that the APG chose the name "Scilloideae" over Hyacinthoideae (sp?) for some technical reason of nomenclature rather than because it was a subfamily and that they would have used Scillaceae (sp?) at family level if that was their chosen rank.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 08:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

It's because of conservation: "at present, the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (McNeill et al., 2006) governing plant names does not permit the conservation of names at the rank of subfamily". See. As I [now] understand it, "Hyacinthaceae" is conserved has priority over "Scillaceae", but "Hyacinthoideae" can't be conserved over "Scilloideae". If this is correct, and it may not be, it needs sourcing and adding to the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This naming business always confuses me and when I think I have finally understood the rules I forget them. What you say is clear and explains the Scilloidea-Hyacinthaceae switch. What isn't clear is why Scilloidea has precedence. Both Scilla and Hyacintha were formally named by Linnaeus at the same time (1 May 1753). Does one appear first and get precedence? Or is it that someone put them in subfamily Scilloidea [Scilloideae Burnett, Outl. Bot.: 428. Feb 1835] before anyone placed them in subfamily Hyacinthoideae? This conservation request might have a explanation.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 11:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I totally understand the position yet, but here's what I think.
 * "Hyacinthaceae" was published in 1797. "Scillaceae" in 1818. (Both according to Tropicos.) So the correct name for a family that contains Hyacinthus and Scilla (among other genera) is "Hyacinthaceae", as it's the oldest and so has priority.
 * "Scilloideae" was published in 1835 (Tropicos). "Hyacinthoideae" is problematic. Tropicos attributes it to Link without a date. Some sources give Link 1829. However, according to other sources, it was not validly published as a subfamily name then because there was no Latin diagnosis and the first valid publication was by Speta in 1998 (as per here). It's this view that seems to be accepted. In which case, the correct name for a subfamily that contains Hyacinthus and Scilla (among other genera) is "Scilloideae", as it's the oldest and so has priority. So what is being said is that it would be good to be able to conserve "Hyacinthoideae" because it was long used before Speta validated it, but the ICNafp doesn't provide for conserving subfamily names, so we have to use "Scilloideae".
 * I must stress that as of now this is my interpretation of primary sources, so WP:OR and can't be used in an article. We need to find a discussion of this issue (a) to see if I'm right (b) to be able to put it in an article. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alsophila (plant), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alsophila fenicis ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Alsophila_%28plant%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Alsophila_%28plant%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Autonym authorities
I didn't realize until yesterday that species_authority was functional in infraspeciesboxes. I've been holding off implementing infraspeciesboxes because I thought additional coding would be needed to get autonym authorities to display properly. It's nice to find out the feature I wanted was already there. Plantdrew (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It was only added in a big update I made in December 2018. Anyway, I'm glad it's useful; it compensates for my not noticing the autonym.
 * There's an issue I think with the wording at Ulmus davidiana var. davidiana: "was distinguished as a variety by L. K. Fu." The autonymous varietas is surely distinguished by whoever first named another varietas. Peter coxhead (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Whoops. I actually noticed that, but I assumed Fu WAS the first to name another varietas. Plantdrew (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

as a taxonomic source
Hi Peter, how are things? Some time ago there was a discussion about taxonomic sources, and you made your position clear (and we are in accord with that, I think). I don't suppose you disagree, but can I confirm that you also think the Australian Faunal Directory matches the desirable standards of thoroughness and proper attribution? ~ cygnis insignis 15:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'm really qualified to comment on this – does more on animal taxonomy than me. My only concern is that any geographically restricted taxonomic database might be internally self-consistent, reflecting taxonomic traditions in that region, but might not be consistent worldwide. Peter coxhead (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not really familiar enough with any regional taxonomic databases outside of the United States to have a well-informed opinion. I would generally assume that any regional taxonomic database maintained by a governmental entity is reliable source that should be considered in the taxonomic circumscriptions presented on Wikipedia. I am inclined to give regional databases a little more weight over global databases when it comes to taxa endemic to the area covered by the regional database. Plantdrew (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitely for endemic taxa. Peter coxhead (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. ~ cygnis insignis 02:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)