Open main menu

Andyboorman (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Andyboorman!

-- 12:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2015 is open!Edit

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2015 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear Andyboorman,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the tenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2015) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 28 May 2016, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
-- Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 09:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Please be carefulEdit

About your changes here. The lists of genera are sourced and dated. If you want to update them, you have to check on the sources.
Reichenbachia is also a valid plant genus.
And yes, biologist creates different taxon with the same names.
The same way, if you update a genus list like here you have to update the accessdate (I detect vandalism and bad contributions by detecting that kind of contributions).
Regards Liné1 (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Liné1: I know Reichenbachia is an accepted and valid plant genus, but here it links to an insect you need to correct this. Andyboorman (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Valeriana supina & Valeriana saliuncaEdit

Dear Andy,

According to the Catalogue of Life in which Valeriana supina DC. is put as synonym of Valeriana saliunca All., MILEPRI has put the category Valeriana supina, which was put without author name, as synonym of the category Valeriana saliunca.

Valeriana saliunca All. is an erect species with small leaves, which is a rare and endangered, endemic plant of acidic grounds, mainly found in the Western Alps. See Weidenblättriger Baldrian for a detailed description.
Valeriana supina Ard. is a dwarf and supine species with much broader leaves, which is widespread on lime grounds of the Eastern Alps. See Zwerg-Baldrian for a detailed description.

Herewith a picture of Valeriana saliunca All., which I have photographed in the French Alps (the only picture of this true species currently on Commons), and a picture of Valeriana supina Ard. by another user. (I have encountered it in the Dolomites, but my own pictures of it are not of very high quality.)

According to their very different habitus and the places where they are living, I cannot believe that Valeriana supina Ard. and Valeriana saliunca All. could be considered as the same species.

So far I did understand from the exchange I had with MILEPRI (I do not understand Spanish very well), Valeriana supina Ard. is not recorded in the Catalogue of Life and he contacted you already about it. Please resolve the issue.

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

OK @Meneerke bloem: @MILEPRI: I will have a look at this one. However, there is a bigger issue involving the circumscription of Valeriana. Recently, Christenhusz et al., 2018 in Global Flora have circumscribed an expanded Valeriana s.l. to include; Belonanthus, Centranthus, Fedia, Phuodendron and Valerianella. This is supported by PWO, but not in its entirety by COL. The approach adopted by Christenhusz et al., 2018 is not supported by many specialists across a range of families and genera. However, thus is a discussion for another time and requires more research. Andyboorman (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Andy, for your reply. Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: @MILEPRI: As Andy writes, there is a bigger issue involving the circumscription of Valeriana. Until this issue is solved, I suggest to restore the category Valeriana supina with Ard. (Pietro Arduino) as author, so that all, but one picture should not be incorrectly identified as Valeriana saliunca All. OK? --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
OK. Ya se ha restaurado. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@MILEPRI: Thanks for the restoring it. Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 16:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@Meneerke bloem: @MILEPRI: I have used IPNI and got to the protologues. Clearly Valeriana supina DC., Fl. Franc. ed. 3. 4: 237 (1805) and Valeriana supina Ard., Animadv. Bot. Spec. Alt. 13 (1764) are two different taxa, as can be seen from the protolgues. In addition Candolle indicates that Valeriana supina DC. and Valeriana saliunca All., Fl. Pedem. i. 3. t. 70. f. 1. (1785) are one and the same. Under ICBN Valeriana saliunca All. has precedence. Therefore COL is correct with their synonymy, but in error in leaving out Valeriana supina Ard. from their list. I will try to contact them and point this out. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: @MILEPRI: Thank you very much, Andy, for this update. It confirms that it was OK to restore the category Valeriana supina with Ard. (Pietro Arduino) as author. Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Dianthus hyssopifolius, Dianthus superbus and Dianthus gallicusEdit

Hi Andy,

MILEPRI has put Dianthus hyssopifolius - also called Dianthus monspessulanus - as synonym of Dianthus superbus. In my experience and that of many others (see e.g.: Œillet de Montpellier and Œillet superbe), they are different taxa, with different size, biotopes and distribution.

In addition, what about the taxonomic position of Dianthus gallicus, an endemic taxon of the Atlantic dunes of France (see: Œillet de France), which is sometimes considered as a subspecies of Dianthus hyssopifolius?

Please, let me know. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Meneerke bloem:

Taxonomy has very little to do with size, biotopes and distribution and even external appearance of the inflorescence can be misleading. In the absence of detailed treatments of a taxon, we are left with relying on secondary sources. With this group of plants, unfortunately, there is little consensus. MILEPRI has used Hassler in COL [1], which is generally considered to be robust. But contrast this with PWO [2] and also Euro+Med [3] both of which are authoritative. Not uncommon, but fortunately there is consensus in 95%+ of the time. Have you had a look at local flora? I cannot find a monograph.

Equally there is no consensus with Dianthus gallicus, PWO has it as a synonym of Dianthus hyssopifolius subsp. gallicus and the other two accept it as a segregate species!

So we have what is called a taxonomic opinion.

Wikis can not force judgements, therefor @MILEPRI: is incorrect taking one view over another. In my opinion the conservative approach would be to keep all three separate, unless there is a very good reason for not doing so. Dianthus hyssopifolius subsp. gallicus may have more acceptance across the literature, but more work will be needed. In WS this work needs to be reflected in the list of references.

Hope this helps, sorry not to be more definitive, but that is the real world, where "one plant one name" can occasionally break down into an opinion. Best Regards Andyboorman (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

script createRedirects.jsEdit

Hello @Rillke: The above script does not appear to be working. When I look at importScript('User:Rillke/createRedirects.js') on my page at Wikispecies it shows as a redlink. Hopefully you can help, as it is a very useful procedure. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Andyboorman".