Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

User talk:Orchi/archive 2009

< User talk:Orchi



Dear Orchi, It is my intention to work a little bit with Dendrobium species on ptwiki (we have almost nothing there). I guess next week I'll start to do so. I have great many photographs of them and I will use Clements and Jones taxonomy on ptwiki and the uploaded photos to Commons, but as always, please, feel free to classify them as it suits better for you on commons. If you prefer to call them all Dendrobium, do so (and let me know if I make any mistake on identifications, it happens). I guess Clem. & Jones classifcation of Dendrobium is pretty good and attends phylogeny and morphology quite well, many of the species come from Australia, where they live... well, I don't see why Kew does not accept it (well , I actually do, but this is not the place to discuss it). Have a great New Year and hopefully this year more orchids affictionates will show to help us. Dalton (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Octomeria aloefolia or Octomeria aloifoliaEdit

Dear Orchi,

My very best wishes for 2009! I'm still happy with finding beautiful orchid illustrations, now in Flora Brasiliensis. I came upon a small problem, I copy the text I wrote for Mr. Dalton Holland Baptista:

"In Flora Brasiliensis 3.4 plate 127 fig. V ( I find Octomeria aloifolia. This is also in Kews checklist and in your article in the Portugese wikipedia. (pt:Octomeria aloifolia).
You uploaded a photo to Commons with filename File:Octomeria aloefolia.jpg, in gallery Octomeria aloefolia, I assume this is a typogr. error?" (etc..)

Maybe you can look into this, not a big problem. I'll upload the illustration from Flora Bras. to the page Octomeria aloefolia.
Thanks for your friendly words when I finished uploading the plates for "James Bateman - The Orchidaceae of Mexico and Guatemala", I never answered you then.
All the best, maarten Sepp (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Translation tableEdit

Hi, Orchi

I do not understand what you mean, sorry. I have added to the discussion page a request for somebody to add a new language, the maori language, because this is used in the Apteryx australis page. Do I have broken something just by this simple request ? I hope no. Maybe this is because of the "edit protected" template, that I am not sure to understand. So, please, give me more details on what goes wrong, on what has to be done, and I will see if I can help.

Yours, Frédéric (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Zygopetalum mackayi or Zygopetalum maculatumEdit

Hello Orchi,

In "Flora Brasiliensis" , 3-5-tab. 104 (here) is a drawing with the name Zygopetalum mackayi, which is also the name of the Commons gallery. When I checked it in the Kew list, it was given as a synonym of Zygopetalum maculatum. Also, in Mr. Batista's (e.a.) "ORCHIDSTUDIUM PROJECT: Preliminary checklist of the Orchidaceae of Brazil" the accepted name is Zygopetalum maculatum (here). Maybe you can check this?
I'll upload the illustration to gallery Zygopetalum mackayi.
Herzliche Grüße, maarten Sepp (talk) 08:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Maarten, thanks for your infos. I think, Zygopetalum mackayi is the more common horticultural name. KEW gives the two possibilities: "accepted by" and "not accepted by". In the moment we can give a "redirect" or a second article with Zygopetalum maculatum. By the way, I have your notice to Epidendrum imantophyllum used in the Spanish WP also. MBG uses the name without "n" too. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is a very good one! Brazilian Zygopetalum is in need of revision. I just followed Kew. Marcus Campacci says Kew is wrong. As I myself do not have info enough about Zygopetalum, I am just following Kew for now as it is easier. I am not sure if they are syn. or not. Dalton (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


Dear Orchi, I see you have a number of your own photos of Bifrenaria uploaded to commons. Some seem to be taken at the Botanical Garden. On the other hand, some seem to be mislabled. Were the IDs provided by the Botanical Garden? I'll upload some of my own and we may compare them. Later we can sort them out and clearify any doubts we have. Cheers Dalton (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Dalton, I am glad, if you classify my pictures of Bifrenaria with right names. Some names are from labels of botanical gardens.
Next I want to upload some photos of Dendrobium and I want to ask you to check the right name.
Can you give me information of your File:Pabstiella avenacea.jpg. I can not find the author.
Thanks and cheers. Orchi (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Orchi, tomorrow I'll finish to upload the Bifrenaria photos but I believe you have switched the photos of Bifr. inodora and B. calcarata. The one you have as B. tetragona I also believe is another B. inodora. B. tetragona is much diferent, it looks like with B wittigii.
B. tyrianthina and B. harrisoniae are much alike, both very variable. The only thing we can recognize as the diference beetwen them is the calcar lenght. Color, hair and inflorescence lenght are not good enough to separate them. Tomorrow you will see the diference for I have a good photo of the calcar. Tyrianthina's is twice longer than harrisoniae. Some of your photos of these plants do not show it thus it is not possible to be sure of what they are, for me them all seem to be harrisoniae, but I do not really know from the photos.
I told you I was going to upload my Dendrobium photos but I put off that for a while. I am having a war of editions here with an IP that wants to correct the list of species of Bifrenaria to something completely wrong and I'll fix the whole page before going on.
Pabstiella avenacea (Ames) Luer, Monogr. Syst. Bot. Missouri Bot. Gard. 112: 119 (2007) [Aug 2007] [Icon. Pleurothall. 29]. (=Pleurothallis avenacea) It is the same species of Pleurothallis mathildae thus you might merge all synonyms of both names under P. avenacea. Cheers from Brazil! Dalton (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I made some adjustments on Bifrenaria pages, please later check them out to see if I haven't mixed up your organization. Dalton (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
PS: I made a mistake with your fotos of (your inodora) that I placed under calcarata - They are in fact B. mellicolor. The main characteristic of calcarata is that its lips tip is never reflected. Later I'll fix it.
... so, I think, I made the corrections right. I thank you very much for the correct classifications. You are an excellent expert! My pictures are partially more than twenty or thirty years old and I hope, you can identify in future the correct name of photos, which are wrong labeled by me also. And now I sort your wonderful photos. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Orchi I see I am keeping you busy this evening! Thank you so much for the effort and great work you do keeping the orchids section so organized. Regarding the identifications, sometimes it is not easy to be sure of a species from a photo so I may make mistakes. Just let me know wen I say something strange! hehe. Now I am going to work with the text of our Portuguese article about Bifrenaria so it can become more than a sketch. By the way, I have not uploaded the photo of B. grandis because I the photo I have is from Gustavo Romero, I'll see if he allows me to uload it later. Anyway I beleive it is going to be classified under Lacaena and not Bifrenaria anymore. Not sure tho. Have a good night. Dalton (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC) I'm rather tired. Good night. Orchi (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


Dear Orchi, thank you for your always thoughtfull help. I was going to make this mistake more than a hundred times. Well, I will not really make a good article about Draculas as yet, I am just creating some sketches. I have very few photographs of them for they do not grow well here. I bought ten Darculas few years ago and all died in a few months. By the way, have you seen the spectacular bloom of that Bulbophyllum vaginatum I uploaded days ago. I friend came to visit and came back from my nursery with it. I had not seen it blooming. Well, I just finished an article about Scuticaria and am working with Leptotes now. Will finish the Leptotes article after ending the Draculas species. Cheers, Dalton

Dear Dalton, your Bulbophyllum vaginatum is a wonderful plant. I was fascinated, when I saw these pictures.
I hope to find some further (old) photos of Dracula. Perhaps you help to classify. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow, those are beautifull photos, I noticed all start with S, V, U.. By any chance do we have the rest of inicials too? Well, I have checked them all, all seem to be perfectly fine, the only one that is a little bit out of usual pattern is D. ubangina, because it is supposed to be almost completely black with few lighter spots on the joint of sepals, on the other hand the flowers on the photos weren't really wide open yet, so the shape isn't really verifiable, so I guess we may let them there as ubangina (they look like ubangina and may be), but maybe if anytime a more tipical one comes we may change the photos on the articles for the more typical. Great Orchi thanks a lot for the precious contribution. Dalton (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC) the next days (or weeks) I will upload further "inicials". I must search in my old photo-negatives. Many pictures are from the time, when this genus was still identified as Masdevallia. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I saw the new D. ubangina photo. Tomorrow will check it out. This evening it seems will be dedicated to follow the track ot that IP, you know who, correcting all the mistakes he's making here. Dalton (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Great worksEdit

You are really prolific hereby i want to express my sincere thanks for tireless work here .we have a Persian/Turkish expression which totally would mean "Don't be Tired" in English so Don't be tired --Mardetanha talk 01:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Btw i really enjoy patrolling your edits --Mardetanha talk 01:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Mardetanha, thank's for your kindly words. I'll do my best..... Cheers. Orchi (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi OrchiEdit

I just wanted you to know that I liked your edits to the Scuridae page that I created. I have tried to maintain the pages that I work on to be as accessible as possible to non-English speakers and to be as international as possible when I use terms. Your changes made me aware of areas where I can be more careful about that.

I would like to see a feature added to wikicommons whereby captions could be displayed in the selected language of the viewer. Currently the only feature along this line that I am aware of is the {{en|something written in English}}. The problem here is this just adds the name of the language in front of the text and all of the text is displayed regardless of what language the viewer has selected. This just seems like a way to make a big mess out of a page that is supported by a lot of languages. --Davefoc (talk) 06:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Peristeria from Panama (maybe P. Pendula?) - 2. Photos on P. Pendula -page maybe other spec.?Edit

Hello Orchi,

(1) I looked to the "Peristeria from Panama" photos, I'm not sure but maybe this can help us:

  • From Flora of Panama Checklist Index (here), only these in Panama:
Peristeria elata
Peristeria humboldtii = Acineta superba
Peristeria pendula

This checklist is compiled by the Missouri Botanical Garden, a very reliable source, as far as I know.

Peristeria elata has always white flowers, so that's out of the question.

Your photos don't look like Acineta superba, so that leaves only Peristeria pendula, and as far as I can say that is the right name for this species. From the plants I saw in Suriname (P. pendula and/or P. guttata) and many photos, I know that their flowers look more or less like a small "bird's egg", very rounded, sepals and petals without corners, flower always semi-closed. See also this pic at Mr. Batista's Orchidstudium site, this from Pu Chen conservatory, part of The Huntington Botanical Gardens, San Marino, California (11th pic), and another one

(2) But if you look at the Commons gallery Peristeria pendula, there are 3 photos by your hand, and I have the impression that these 3 are not Peristeria, but Acineta specs. The flowers are opened, and the sepals and petals are not round but more or less triangular. Also something to ask Mr. Batista, I know his opinion is much better than mine.

The illustration from the Bot. Mag. on the P. pendula-page shows flowers that are white on the outside, but I don't think that's typical for P. pendula, on most pics on the WWW we see flowers from very light to dark purple.

The only problem is the yellow colour inside in your Panama-pics, I can't find something like that, but colouring is so divers in many orchids.

Maybe this is of some help for you! Kind greetings, maarten Sepp (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I am no expert on this group at all. I find all species so alike and many hide the diferences on the calli inside their lips. I wondered if this might be some species recorded only for Colombia but also found in Panamá (maybe leucoxantha?). It is frequent that Kew database is missing some updating on distribution. I don't have much material on this group so, I'll pass on this one. Nevertheless, I asked for a friend in the US who may be able to shed some light. If he doesn't, maybe we will have to wait for some more knowledgeable opinion. Dear Maarten there is no need to call me Mr. Baptista, It is sooo formal, furthermore no one calls me so. Orchi, now I'll take some photos of random species that are blooming today and later you will have them. Oh, I'm still not sure about that Dracula, it seems a little different from ordinary ubanginas, oh, well let's let it there for now, maybe later we will come across a better fit. Dalton (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Maarten and Dalton, thank you very much for your detailed answers and informations.
1. Unidentified Peristeria. Until today nobody of the asked german experts could these plant classify exactly. All say the same as Maarten: Surely a plant by the pendula group. And so I will put the 4 photos in the article of Peristeria pendula as species from the group.
2. My tree pictures of Peristeria pendula. Maarten, I think you are right. I looked in the german "Die Orchidee" from 1992 page 207. In this article wrote Mr. Clarence Kl. Horich (Costa Rica) about Acineta-Species. The image from page 207, described as Peristeria spec. is nearly identical with my pictures, of them I supposed they would be "Peristeria pendula". I will change it in the moment as Unidentified Acineta.
3. Dracula ubangina. I identified this picture with help of the work Luer: "Thesaurus Dracularum" and I think, we will wait for further images and identifications.
Greeting and thanks to Amsterdam and Brasil. Orchi (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Eria and PeristeriaEdit

Dear Orchi, how are you? Thankfully that IP gave up on mixing up things on pt-wiki and I can work again. Thank you for your help erasing his mostly confusing additions.

Well, two things: I've gotten the answer from that friend about the Peristeria. He said it is impossible to know from the photos, furthermore he says he is no expert on that group either. The said also that Gerlach was intending to review the group. Gerlach went to Kew, anotated all the types but never published anything thereafter.

Other thing is I made a mistake with Eria ovata. That one is Eria tenuiflora Ridl. instead (See the site of Leiden, probably it is the most reliable on eria). Unfortunately I have soooo many unamed erias here and not that many info about them. Would you fix it for me, please? Cheers from a rainy Brazil. Dalton (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Neue Dateien aus L'Illustration horticole :Journal international populaire...Edit

Hi. Ich lade noch mehr von denen hoch. Aber ich mache das nur für die monopodialen Gattungen, da ich nur für diese die Bilder bei mir speichere. Ich überlege grad ob ich die nicht doch lieber kleiner machen soll. 15-20 MB sind ja schon etwas sehr groß. Gruß Badlydrawnboy22 (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hallo, Badlydrawnboy22, ich habe mich über die schönen Tafeln, die Du aus L'Illustration horticole hier eingesetzt hast, gefreut (bestimmt auch User:Maarten Sepp, der sehr eifrig aus den wunderbaren alten Büchern Bildtafeln in Commons hochlädt). Ich kenne keine Regel, die die Größe eines Bildes einschränkt. Für mich persönlich ist es manchmal nur etwas nervig, wenn sich so ein großes Bild auf dem Bildschirm aufbauen muss. Aber das ist kein sinnvolles Argument. Wenn jemand ein Bild im Großformat ausdrucken möchte, ist er sicherlich begeistert. Wenn Du noch mehr Orchideentafeln aus L'Illustration horticole bereit stellst, werde ich wie z.B. bei Category:Flora Brasiliensis (Orchidaceae) eine Unterkategorie für die Orchideen anlegen. Viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Orchi.

Problem ist, dass die Bilder oft nicht im großen Format runterladbar sind, sondern nur die kleine Vorschau. Ich hätte mal eine Liste machen sollen in welchem Band und auf welcher Seite eine interessante Zeichnung zu finden ist. Diese Liste hätte man dann abarbeiten können. Wenn ich mal Zeit habe dann mache ich das. Ich frage mich ob es sinnvoll wäre eine Email an die Admins von botanicus zu schreiben und die Probleme bezüglich der großen Bilder zu schildern. Gruß Badlydrawnboy22 (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Stanhopea ruckeri =Stanhopea inodora ??Edit

Hi Orchi!
I came upon a small problem in the Stanhopea galleries: according to the Kew list here: Stanhopea inodora is a syn. for Stanhopea ruckeri. S. ruckeri is the oldest name, so accepted.
On Commons, both names have their own gallery. Can you look into this? I leave it to you, maybe there is a difference between the two.
Thanks for all the "Further species"-lists, a lot of good new info! Cheers, maarten Sepp (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Maarten, as I know there are still different opinions between the status of Stanhopea inodora as species or as synonym. But here we should have the first orientation by KEW and therefore I will change the galleries according to your proposal. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 2d8ac8f24fdd61fb80d50dd8dc274fe9Edit

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!


Hi Orchi, I'm not here for some time, hope to see some beautiful birds and plants in the next weeks! Maybe some new photos in May or June.
Always a big pleasure working with you! All the best,
maarten Sepp (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Maarten, I'll miss you here, wish you all the best to see the birds and (orchids?). I wait for the first orchids in our region. Hopefully are you and Dalton soon here again. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Orchi Thank you very much for your concern, for your messages and for your help I don't have much more, this was just the beginning of the orchis and I didn't have the oportunity to see this particuliar one again. I uploaded two more photos I hope it will be helpful Greetings semprempe


Hi Orchi - saw you'd further identified a couple of pics I'd moved from Cat:Unidentified plants to Cat:Unidentified Orchidaceae, thanks! I'm thinking this is an orchid too, but didn't quite have the confidence to deal likewise with it. Do you know what it is? - MPF (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi MPF, thanks for the "transport" to the orchids. The pic. of the cultivar is probably a hybrid of many genera; among others withOdontoglossum.
The very fine foto of the Bulbophyllum I try to classify. (There are over thausend species in this genus and many cultivars.). Greetings. Orchi (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


Hallo! Ich hab gerade festgestellt, dass du für das Template:VN Vernacular Names mit 'Volkstümliche Namen' übersetzt hast und wollte noch einmal nachfragen, ob das die richtige Bezeichnung ist. Irgendwie würde ich damit nicht die Bezeichnungen in den jeweiligen Landessprachen assoziieren - sondern eher umgangssprachliche Begriffe oder gar etwas wie 'Lampe' für Hase... auch wenn wahrscheinlich die Grenze zwischen Umgangssprachlich und anerkannt oft schwer zu ziehen sein dürfte... --Anna reg (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hallo, Anna reg, ich hatte beim Schreiben in das template auch kein gutes Gefühl. Darum habe ich auch, nicht sichtbar, den Zusatz "--further search for this idiom is needed--" vermerkt. Zumal der ähnlich klingende Begriff "Volkstümelei" eher negativ besetzt ist. Ich bin beim Übersetzen von "Vernacular names" auf den Begriff "Mundart Namen" gekommen. Auch unglücklich. Dann habe ich mich, da es ja für Tiere und Pflanzen keine gültigen deutschen Namen gibt, an dem in der deutschen Wikipedia für Pflanzen benutzen Werk Standardliste der Farn- und Blütenpflanzen Deutschlands" von WISSKIRCHEN & HAEUPLER 1998, das den Namensbereich für [1] abdeckt, informiert. Dort fand ich folgendes Zitat: "Im Gegensatz zu den international verständlichen wissenschaftlichen Namen gibt es für «volkstümliche deutschsprachige Namen» keine verbindlichen Regeln. Daher kann es für eine Art mehrere, z.B. regional unterschiedliche deutsche Namen geben, die alle ihre Berechtigung haben. Der hier angebotene Name ist der jeweils erstgenannte in der "Standardliste der Farn- und Blütenpflanzen Deutschlands" von WISSKIRCHEN & HAEUPLER 1998."
Soweit meine Recherche. Auch ein "Privatabfrage" in der Familie nach einem deutschen Oberbegriff für VN brachte nichts Sinvolles zustande.
Ich würde mich sehr freuen, wenn Du einen besseren Begriff vorschlagen könntest, der meiner Meinung nach nicht nur den landesüblichen Namen von Tieren und Pflanzen abdecken sollte, sondern auch einen Hinweis auf Schriften mit nicht-lateinischen Buchstaben (z.B. russsisch, arabisch, japanisch etc.) geben sollte. Viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Als Chemiker fällt mir natürlich als erstes 'Trivialname' ein - und auch wenn's für mich im Zusammenhang mit 'Löwe' ziemlich sonderbar wirkt (und das, obwohl 'Trivialname' in der Chenie als neutraler Begriff häufig vorkommt), scheint die Bezeichnung doch auch von Biologen für landessprachliche Namen verwendet zu werden. (z.B. auch [2]) Andererseits zeigt die Duden-Definition, dass man es wohl mit 'volkstümliche Namen' gleichsetzen kann... --Anna reg (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ich hab mir auch nochmal ein paar Gedanken gemacht. Vielleicht eignet sich bei VN als Überschrift: Name oder Namen in Landessprachen. Orchi (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Another 2 orchid pics for better sortingEdit

Hi Orchi - can you put this one and this one in the best cat please? - Thanks, MPF (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

And another, please! - MPF (talk) 08:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Yet more: File:Lycaste grex hera 1.jpg, File:Lycaste grex hera 2.jpg, File:Miltonia - unnamed grex 1.jpg, File:Miltonia - unnamed grex 2.jpg, File:Miltonia grex Beethoven.jpg, File:Phalaenopsis grex abendrot 1.jpg, File:Phalaenopsis grex abendrot 2.jpg, File:Potinara - unnamed hybrid 1.jpg, File:Potinara - unnamed hybrid 2.jpg, please! That looks to be the last of the orchids dumped in Cat:Plants. Thanks, MPF (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Phaius tankervilleaeEdit

Thanks! I'd been going on the basis of USDA GRIN, but I think I'd rather trust Kew. - MPF (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Epipogium aphyllumEdit

Hi I am Sean Cole from England. I am new to this site and do not know how to send you a message directly. Sorry! Wanted to talk about the Epipogium aphyllum in Luxembourg..Can you contact me please??? Thanks

Hello, Sean Cole, I have got your message. What is your question? I'll try to answer you. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


I have created a discussion on Template talk:Genera after your modification of {{Genera}}.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Orchi, could you wait for our discussion before propagating your modification.
Only a robot should do that sort of modifications.
And we could discuss it before ;-(
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
o.k. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

We are interested in using your

photo of Physoplexis -

can you send me an email to discuss.

Thank you, Reader's Digest

Nice co-workingEdit

Beste Orchi,

I am a hobby botanist. See my user page.

When I have time I am reviewing the classification of the pictures of plants on Commons. There is lot to do... I am not an informatician. Therefore I appreciate any additional help from you and others as Wayne Ray and Túrelio.

Thank you very much for your nice recent co-working (Triteleia laxa & Dianthus).

Mit meinen besten Wünschen, --Réginald (To reply) 19:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

hello Réginald,
I'll try to do my best.... Thank you for the nice notice. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)♂


Why are you doing this? -- carol (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Because alphabetical sorting is usual.-- Orchi (talk)
A space before the the word does not prevent alphabetization. I am curious about edits like Category:Unidentified_Caryophyllaceae.
It was a mistake I made to respect the work of others via communication and thoughtful avoidance of areas of interest which was galleries?
Do you have any thoughts about the anonymous internet ever having the ability to show some maturity -- the ability to acquire communication skills and understand complexities? -- carol (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I do agree that in Unidentified_Caryophyllaceae there should be no space before *.
The syntax everyone seems to follow is:
{{Unidentified header|subject=Alaudidae|category=Alaudidae}}

[[Category:Alaudidae|*Unidentified Alaudidae]]
[[Category:Unidentified Passeriformes|Alaudidae]]
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Liné1, here is my aim only to bring the unidentified pictures uniform to the top of the sorting list. I think, people, who can identify plants or animals should find these categories very quick on the same place. Or do you know another or better way to bring the "Unidentifieds" to the top and not alphabetical sorted under the letter "U"? Cheers. Orchi (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

{{Taxa}}, {{Genera}}, {{Species}}Edit

Hello my friend,
When you can (like here for example), could you use {{Taxa}}, {{Genera}}, {{Species}} to list taxa.
Sometimes it is not possible because we want to add extra info in the list. But veru often {{Taxa}}, {{Genera}}, {{Species}} are really perfect.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Liné1, I will try to learn it.... (later). Cheers. Orchi (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal for Monotropa hypopitys and hypopithysEdit

Hi. Commons has two categories for the same species. They should be merged, but under which name?

Category:Monotropa hypopitysEdit

Category discussion notification Category:Monotropa hypopitys has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца) | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

--JerryFriedman (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for your expertise ;) --Pixeltoo (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Synonyms formatEdit

Are you intentionally formatting the synonyms like they are on Acianthus amplexicaulis? Or was the use of the bullets (•) instead of pipes (|) accidental? If you do not like the 3 column look, I can make you a new template but right now it looks bad and is hard to read. Rocket000 (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Rocket000, I'm not happy with this (my) formatting also. In the next days I will ask you to create a template to solve this (for example): Cephalanthera longifolia. My proposal like here: Campanula rotundifolia. Further questions the next days. I'm testing. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I like that! I'll start working on a template that scrolls like yours. Maybe I'll make {{synonyms}} do it automatically after a certain amount of names. Rocket000 (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I look forward to your work. As usual it will becomes perfectly. I think three visible names are enough. (My personal motto here: images as soon as possible).
Another personal question: Would it be able, to change automaticly the color of the background ot templates like "SN" or "VN" in categories (e.g. green) and galleries (e.g. blue)? .Orchi (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course! That's another good idea. What colors would you like? Rocket000 (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you will have a look on my User:Orchi/monobook.css. User:Bdk created this (for me wonderful) monobook against my wishes and so everytime I'm able to see, whether I open a category or a gallery. Therefore I like "blue" and "green". :) Orchi (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, try it out. Add |scroll=yes to any {{synonyms}} template. It shouldn't change anything if there's 3 rows or less, but a scrollbar will be added if there's more. I'm planing to make it automatic, but I want to test it a little first. Let me know what you think (demo and alternate version here; I went with the first version).
As for the color... I think {{VN}} and {{SN}} should be different colors. If we change them based on namespace also, we will need two more colors. Rocket000 (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I don't know if you ever had a chance to notice this since you have your own css, but the links in {{taxonavigation}} change colors based on what namespace they link to. Rocket000 (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The {{synonyms}} function is perfect! Thanks! The other themes I will check (with my mini - knowlegde of software syntax). Greetings Orchi (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Orchi, you don't need to add "scroll=yes" anymore. It does it automatically. That was just for testing. I also added documentation to Template:Synonyms. Cheers, Rocket000 (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Rocket000, thanks. You are a real perfectionist. Greetings. ......Orchi (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy of small Australian ground orchidsEdit

Dear Orchi: I am sorry - I have been very unfair to you. I just noticed on your User Page that you only have a "basic" level of English. The note I wrote to you (below) is quite complex and in difficult English - so, I wonder if you would be kind enough to tell me who I might write to and ask these questions? Many thanks, and all best wishes, John E. Hill (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Please be patient with me as I am not a botanist, nor am I sure of Wikipedia policy on botanical names. I notice this morning that you have reversed some names I entered recently for botanical illustrations by Lewis Roberts from Acianthella amplexicaulis to Acianthus amplexicaulis, and Cirrhopetalum gracillimum to Bulbophyllum gracillimum.
Now, I know the names you have chosen are the ones listed on the Royal Gardens of Kew's World Checklist of Names. I have, however, (because there has been a lot of recent work by experts to revise the taxonomy of Australian orchids) been using the fine 2006 book by David L. Jones (who is considered here to be Australia's leading taxonomist of orchids), A complete Guide of Native Orchids of Australia Including the Island Territories. This is more up-to-date than Kew's list and is accepted here by botanists as the most recent and authoritative source for the names of Australian orchids.
Have I been making a mistake using Jones' work? Perhaps it is Wikipedia policy to use the Kew list, but I can't seem to find any such policy. Please tell me if I am missing something obvious - but shouldn't we be accepting the latest classifications by the leading authority in this field? Many thanks for your help, Sincerely, John E. Hill (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi John E. Hill; I thought I'd respond to this thread here because this is where I first noticed this discussion.[3] I'm not a botanist, either, so I may be wrong about some things.
  • I think Orchi is our expert on orchids. He is able to communicate effectively in English, but it may require more effort for him than for you or me.
  • Your source, ISBN 9781877069123, isn't in my local research library, and does not seems to be widely available in the United States where I live.
  • By its nature, the orientation of Commons is to be helpful to those looking for a particular image. To give an example, if most of our users are seeking an image by its name in the Kew list, then it may make sense to use that name, even if it isn't the most current. Also, we run into problems of consistency and conflict among editors if we use too many sources and try to keep everything completely up to date. In practice, I think many of us rely on people like Orchi to provide some guidance and cohesion to the project.
  • en:Wikispecies, a sister project, is intended to provide a comprehensive free content catalogue of all species and may be helpful in some instances.
  • Please don't permit worries over nomenclature disrupt your contributions (some of which I enjoyed viewing via the list you provided on your talk page). Plant taxonomy is changing rapidly as molecular tools are exploited. It is straightforward to {{rename}} a file and {{move}} a category as information improves or with changes in the consensus. It is very much the Wiki way to do your best and not to worry too much about it.
Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear John E. Hill, there is an endless disussion about the right botanical taxonomy worldwide. In the catholic church the pope can say "ex cathedra", what there is the right way. In classification of plants this institution in botany is missing. Every country has botanical specialists, who say, that they are right; and I believe they are more right than KEW often. But in commons we can not attend a (e.g.) Brazilan, german, french or Australian taxonomy. The never ending disput between MBG or KEW (morphologic and/and or/or phylogenetic way) is not to solve here in commons. The best specialist of orchids in Commons, Dalton Holland Baptista, accepts the way to follow KEW as the most important orchid institution also, although he uses in the Brazilan WP the "Brazilian taxonomy" as you do it in the English WP. And here we have the wonderful possibility of "redirects".
The discussion about the right way will follow us the next hundred years also as the last hundred years, elsewhere there would not exist (e.g) thirty syonyms for Cephalanthera longifolia. Every author of these names believed he is right. Please let us accept the minimal consensus for the 35.000 species and surely over 100.000 names.
The new orchid taxonomy by KEW is in work and will be complete in the next two years.
Another theme:
Can you complete the 81 plates by Lewis Roberts?
File:LR053 72dpi Malaxis xanthochila.jpg (licence)
LR039_Grastidium cancroides (missing)
LR040_Grastidium tozerense (missing)
LR075_Taeniophyllum malianum (missing)
Thanks and greetings. Orchi (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Walter, thank you for help to understand my aims here. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Orchi; that is a good point about "redirects" whereby we can link a synonymous gallery page to the one that is used. Also, in Commons, we use {{Category redirect}} for synonymous categories.Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Platanthera strictaEdit

I uploaded some images of an individual I identified as Platanthera stricta (new to Commons) last night. It formerly was known as Platanthera hyperborea according to two local field guides, but that species is not listed in our area according to KEW. Individuals previously identified as Platanthera hyperborea are now classified as Platanthera huronensis at our local university website.[4] But Platanthera huronensis has not been reported in Skagit County, Washington. So, I'm calling it Platanthera stricta. The flower has a cylindrical, curved spur with a rounded tip, however, and that doesn't fit Platanthera stricta. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Walter, I found your Platanthera stricta. I think your identification is correct. My book: Carlyle A. Luer The native orchids of the United States and Canada (excluding Florida) from 1975 shows the distribution maps for all you mentioned species. Only Platanthera stricta and Platanthera hyperborea var. hyperborea are noticed for Skagit County, Washington. The leaves of these two species are different. Your images have the most similitude with the pictures of Luer's Platanthera stricta and Platanthera hyperborea var. gracilis. This varietas is classified in Kew gardens as a synonym of Platanthera stricta. KEW says there are 24 synonyms of Platanthera stricta. (I hope, Rocket000 will soon create a synonym-template like this: Campanula rotundifolia). Greetings. Orchi (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Orchi; thank you for checking my ID of Platanthera stricta. I've asked an expert at the University of Washington, also. Please let me know if Rocket000 can help. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
.....Rocket000 will help, as automatic-template. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the images I uploaded as Platanthera stricta, the University of Washington expert, David Gibblin, says, "I'm pretty sure that they are Platanthera stricta. Platanthera hyperborea is restricted to Greenland and Iceland, but that name has been misapplied to plants of P. huronensis that occur here in the Northwest. However, P. huronensis is not really known from west of the Cascades crest as you mentioned." He suggested consulting the Flora of North America key for Platanthera. I have done so and the description of P. stricta fits better than that of P. huronensis (e.g., flowers "not showy, green to yellowish green" and spur apex obtuse, not "usually slenderly tapered").[5]
I like the automatic template. I tend to specify col=1. Otherwise, lengthy synonyms sometimes are broken in the middle, split between the bottom of one column and the top of the next. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I am glad, that you are very successful in identification of the Platanthera in U.S. These species to classify is difficult. In Europe we have two species only, which are easy to identify (besides the hybrid Platanthera x hybrida.
Rocket000's SN template is very good. Because I used in the past the sign "*" and I have to use my keybord for all changes so I use "SN|" and "SN|scroll=yes" like here: Dendrobium bigibbum. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


Cher Liné1, I need an expert to create a functional link in "Taxasource" to KEW. As you can see I tried it some days ago, but without success. Here: Odontoglossum I had experimented and had the right function, but I was'nt able to make a general function. Could you please help? I thank you very much. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw your modification and revert. It seems a very good idea. I will try to solve it. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
My correction seems to work !
Perhaps we could extend your idea to other web sites.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to you! But I have a little problem still. When I put the "source=kew" in another genus as Odontoglossum nevertheless the KEW page of Odontoglossum will open. This [6] is ok. Perhaps is "&page=quickSearch" missing only? Cheers. Orchi (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
As you said, the "&page=quickSearch" was missing. Liné1 (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Perfect!! Thank's! And now a little proposol to you, if you would like it. The (wonderful) User:Bdk created last year my monobook. Every time I can see, whether I see a link to a gallery (blue letters) or to a category (green letters). A very good tool for me. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, it really is useful. Cheers 17:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy BirthdayEdit

Is the change of 37 to 38 just in time? Then my gratulation. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you my friend. Sadly I already reached this advanced age in july ;-). Not yet wise but already old. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I modified your monobook to have visited categories barred. You can see it User:Liné1/monobook.css. Liné1 (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Salu, my young friend. I tested your monobook also. In the moment I use the KEW link often, which is in function with your help. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Permissions - German WikipediaEdit

<permissions-de @>

Ich wünsche dir viel Erfolg bei deinem Vorhaben. Wenn sich bei einem von uns was grundlegendes tut, sollten wir vielleicht nochmal telefonieren? Beste Grüße und danke für das schöne Gespräch, Denis Barthel (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

....auch herzlichen Dank! Orchi (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


I'm curious as to what the purpose of [7] was. The scroll thing is automatic and only appears when you have more than 9 names. Adding scroll=yes appears to now add an extra line making the box bigger than it needs to be. Is this your intent? Is there something I can change in the template for you? Rocket000 (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Using the old synonyms e.g. like [8] under "Synonyma" it is possible to create your wonderful SN template without many effort. (to write the numbers in front of the synonyms is for me many time typing by keybord). I think the only three visible synonyms (e.g. Bulbophyllum) gives here in commons many place for pictures and enough info for the "taxonomy-specialists". Orchi (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, now I understand. You were doing that so if you add more names (>9) it would scroll. I normally don't use the numbers either because it makes it hard to insert new ones (everything after it would have to be renumbered) or rearrange them. Of course, having more to type isn't fun either. I just don't use line breaks but I know some people have trouble reading it that way when there's a lot. I'll try some things to see if I can fix this line break issue (until then use scroll=yes all you want :). Rocket000 (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Good news! I got it to work. Line breaks should not cause any more problems. No more numbers! :-) Rocket000 (talk) 07:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew Internet Explorer didn't do columns, but they're used everywhere now, so I figured it wouldn't be a problem. It should be fine in Opera though, since they are very standards-compliant. In the template I have "-moz-column-count:3; -webkit-column-count:3; column-count:3;". The first is for Mozilla browsers, the second is for Safari and Chrome, and the last is CSS3 for all modern browsers (once they implement it). Rocket000 (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thanks for the quick answer. Orchi (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


Hi Orchi - I'd edited this to match its updated taxonomy (falcons only, not all raptors as in older classifications); you put back in a whole lot of now-non-relevant vernacular names (ones which translate to "raptors" or "birds of prey"); I've removed them again. If adding more, please only add names which actually mean just "falcons" - thanks! - MPF (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, MPF, I'm not expert for falcons taxonomy, but I thought, the interwiki links to the national WPs would use the national names or the national spellings and scripts would be correct. E.G. in german is "Falconiformes" = "Greifvögel". (BTW. "raptors" or "birds of prey" was not my work now) Perhaps you can rectify the interwiki links also. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Difficult to deal with the interwikis, as many of the wikipedias are still using Falconiformes in its old broad sense; the link should remain to the same name page, against the pages being edited to reflect the updated taxonomy - MPF (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Pterygodium catholicumEdit

Hi Orchi, I know you maintain the orchid pages and want to know how you want me to upload?

Do I add a Category:Pterygodium catholicum or do you want me to do a page Pterygodium catholicum?
Also Do you want me to do the taxinomic data (I dont have it at hand) or will you put it in? I see you have a category for Petrygodium already. It is orchid season in Cape Town so I hope to add a few others as well. Kind Regards Andrew massyn (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Andrew massyn, thanks for your question. Unfortunately there is in the moment no chance in the commons system to find new pictures or categories, galleries with new orchid photos. Therefore it is both (category or / and gallery) the good way. I would be happy, if you could add the "Category:Orchidaceae" (temporarily) to all of your new pictures additionally. Then I see, that there are new species, genera or pictures in Commons. With pleasure I complete the taxonomy. Thank you very much, greetings and I am glad to see your new photos. Orchi (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Loaded Andrew massyn (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
....wonderful!! Cheers. Orchi (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


I notice you have recently rotated this image so it is upright. Would you please return it to its original position (which approximated the actual angle of the original flower to the ground) as I don't know how to do it? I would prefer to have it in its original position.

Also, when I look at the present page on Wikipedia the picture looks scrunched up and the main picture in the Taxobox is not showing at all. I can't seem to do anything - could you please look at it all and see what you could do to fix it? If you have any queries, do not hesitate to contact me. Many thanks for your help. Sincerely, John E. Hill (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I let rotate the photo according your personal wish. I prefered the normal growth of this inflorescence. Could you please help me. Which Taxobox do you mean (Link)? Greetings. Orchi (talk) 09:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Greetings! Thank you very much for your help. This was the angle the flower was at. Although sometimes the flowers stand upright, in this case (as with several other flowers we had here) the cane or raceme had bent under the weight of the flower so it was almost horizontal to the ground, and I wanted to show that in the photo.

Thank you for all the work you have done on this - it is much appreciated. The article looks absolutely beautiful now with everything showing clearly on my screen. Also, thank you for pointing out that plant articles should be listed under their scientific rather than common names. I will make sure I do this in future. I send you my very best wishes from Australia. John E. Hill (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


Hi. I have granted you autopatroller rights. This was done in an attempt to reduce a backlog at Special:NewPages. If you have any questions, please let me know. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 19:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and I'll do my best. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Note that this userright does not give you the ability to mark pages as patrolled. Instead, it automatically marks all your creations as patrolled. If you are interested in getting the "patroller" userright (which would allow you to mark pages as patrolled) you would need to do some new page patrol first and tag pages for deletion as needed. Then you would need to request the right. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 20:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Little orchidEdit

Congratulations for your identification on Commons of what I called "little orchid". I did not find the rignt family. This plant is a gift. It grows in an ordinary flat without greenhouse.--Tangopaso (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I wish you success in caring for the little orchid. Surely it becomes a big one than. My first orchid was an Phalaenopsis also. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 10:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Double Category ?Edit

--maarten Sepp (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Category in category

Hi Orchi, thanks for your welcome! I have a question: a lot of my "old" orchid-photos from Suriname are in Category: Flora of South America AND in Category: Flora of Suriname. But Category: Flora of Suriname is already in Category: Flora of South America, seems redundant to me. Can I remove Category: Flora of South America from these files (as I did already with File:Maxillaria discolor - pl.jpg)? Or is there a reason? Nice working with you again, after a very good spring and summer I'm now back in Holland and hope to have some time again for Commons! You did an unbelievable lot of work, you deserve a gold medal!

Kind greetings, Maarten

Dear Maarten, the old Category: "Flora of South America" was an old help to give the pictures a (pressure) category. It's not more needed on the pictures with other categories. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oncidium altissimum (Jacq.) Sw. (1800) or Oncidium altissimum Lindl. (1834)Edit

Hello Orchi,

I'll try to sort it out. What I've found so far is that the four photos on gallery Oncidium baueri are good (cf. this photo from Dalton Holland Batista: ). The first illustration from Jacquin) is NOT good, this is Oncidium abruptum (see here: Kew. I have uploaded a better copy of Jacquin's drawing here with the right name and I'll have the old one deleted.
I'll make the gallery for Oncidium abruptum (I hope tomorrow, the Kew checklist is not working good at the moment).

About the four other illustrations: I'll look at them later.

Kind greetings,

Maarten Sepp (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Replaced old upload of Cypripedium .Edit

Hi Orchi,

I've replaced one of your 2005-uploads with a new one, I found out that the name in Curtis' was wrong. Your old upload was File:Cypripedium-parviflorus.web.jpg, which I have "bad-name'd", the new upload is File:Cypripedium pubescens (as C. parviflorum) - Curtis' 23 pl. 911 (1806).jpg, with explanation of the name-change in the description. I hope you're OK with this.
All the best, Maarten
Maarten Sepp (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Maarten, of course I agree with you. Thanks and a very good day. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Unidentified OrchidaceaeEdit

Dear Orchi,

As agreed by our e-mail exchange I have put the pictures of the orchids I have taken in Thailand in Category:Unidentified Orchidaceae, Files File:Unid orchid01.JPG to File:Unid orchid22a.JPG, as well as File:Oncidium sp.01.JPG (total = 30 pictures).

Thank you in advance for your help, --Réginald (To reply) 12:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Réginald, just I sorted your pictures. 26 of them are Dendrobium cultivars. No. 10 and no. 10a are Cattleya cultivars. Picture no. 16: I am not sure, but the main genus should be Cattleya. Probably one or two other genera are in this hybrid. At your picture File:Oncidium sp.01.JPG I'm not sure, whether it is a natural species or an cultivar. Here is the difference difficult. Soon I can ask an expert in Oncidium. Greetings and thanks for the fine images. Orchi (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Orchi, thanks for doing it. Generally speaking I never put pictures which are not correctly or fully identified. However, I found these orchids so beautifull that I made an exception... Most were taken in a small nursery in the neighbourhood of Uthai Thani, Thailand. Some other were taken in a private garden or near Buddhist temples.
I just have uploaded another one as File:Unid orchid23.JPG. Could you please identify it too? Best regards, --Réginald (To reply) 11:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Orchi, I have uploaded one more unidentified orchid File:Unid orchis24.JPG. Can you identify it?
Best regards, --Réginald (To reply) 15:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Réginald, ....that was not so difficult for me as your pic. no. 23. Here I do not have knowlegde. A part of this hybrid seems to be Vanda also. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

unidentified sp., Vanda??Edit

Hi Orchi,

Sorry, but I don't have an idea. I'm not good at all with Asian or Australian orchids!

Over 500 genera, not bad at all! I still like looking for plates, now I'm working through The Botanical Magazine, a goldmine!

All the best, greetings,


Maarten Sepp (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

...thanks. "The Botanical Magazine, a goldmine" and very very much work for you. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I would say it's a Papilionanthe-Hybrid. Difficult to say which one. There are so many of them. Maybe something with Vanda sanderiana and Papilionanthe Miss Joaquim. But rather a higher hybrid. Cheers Badlydrawnboy22 (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Hallo Badlydrawnboy22, danke für Deine Mitteilung! Ich habe User:Meneerke bloem von Deiner Bestimmung eine Notiz hinterlassen. (Bist Du in Neu-Ulm?) Gruß.Orchi (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Hallo Orchi. Gern geschehen. Ich arbeite derzeit an meiner Diplomarbeit und kann nicht zu dieser Ausstellung. In Bad Salzuflen bin ich aber. Gruß Badlydrawnboy22 (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you again for your appreciated help!--Réginald (To reply) 10:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


Hello Orchi,

Thanks, and to you also "Fröhliche Weihnachten und ein glückliches Neues Jahr!"!

All the best,


Maarten Sepp (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


Dera Orchi,

Merry Christmas and Happy Newyear to you too!

As you know I have uploaded more than 1,000 pictures on Commons. I realise that not all -mainly the first I uploaded- are of premium quality. However I have always tried to identify and classify them correctly, so that they are of scientific interest for other people.

Thank you again for your help in identifying the orchid cultivars. When I was in Thailand I have seen a lot of epiphytic orchids. Unfortunately they were not flowering at that time...

BR, --Réginald (To reply) 11:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Orchi/archive 2009".