User talk:MrDarwin

Welcome!

Hello, MrDarwin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Kingturtle 21:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Anodiscus, Koellikeria

Hi MrDarwin - how definitive is the inclusion of these in Gloxinia? - if very certain and widely accepted, they should be made into redirects to their new combinations in Gloxinia; if the new treatment is significantly disputed, then they should retain pages of their own. - MPF 15:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe the new classification is authoritative and based on sound science (I have cited and/or linked to all the relevant references), but as it is very new it remains to be seen whether it will be controversial. I'm not sure about redirecting as the older names are well-established in the literature, both botanical and horticultural; I imagine they will remain in use for some years to come as most new classifications are not accepted overnight. MrDarwin 20:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I guess in that case they could be retained for the time being. On Kohleria, I've restored the 'Cultivation' header; I think it is best to follow the format of keeping cultivation separate from the main botanical details - MPF 21:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Secondary xylem

Yes, secondary xylem definitely occurs in Gnetum, but I had hoped to avoid discussing it. It proves hard enough to avoid ambiguities on the occurrence in conifers and angiosperms. Trying to be complete will likely confuse the reader even more. Not so sure about Cycads, and actually I like not knowing. Brya 21:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

PS: in case this should not be perfectly clear, I am perfectly fine with additions to the various botany entries, provided they are done with care. Brya 21:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Taxonomic system

IIRC the discussion on the taxonomic system adopted will be somewhere in the archives at Tree of Life. Brya 22:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (APG II) system has merit, but I don't believe that Wikipedia should be in the position of adopting it over other systems, except to acknowledge the degree to which a consensus of systematic botanists have accepted (or rejected) this system. For one thing, the APG II system, like any system of classification, is simply a snapshot of our knowledge at one point in time and is subject to change; such systems are out of date the minute they are published (and there have certainly been many modifications to the APG II system at the family level). Systematic botany was, is, and will continue to be a dynamic field, and is currently in a particular rapid state of flux.

It also makes no sense to me to say that "Wikipedia has adopted the APG II system" when there is a constant turnover of contributors, who may or may not adhere to this policy (and like me may have been completely unaware of it). I have searched for discussion of this policy and have not found it. If it's buried in the archives, I simply don't have the time to search for it, and if it's that significant, it should be somewhere prominent and easily found. Anywhere the statement "Wikipedia has adopted the APG II system" appears, it should be linked to an article or discussion verifying that assertion. MrDarwin 15:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Repeat for safety's sake

Yes, somebody did decide that. It was more than one person and it happened before I came along: there are pages in the archives that document this. Yes, any taxonomic system is a PoV, by its very nature. Yes, plant classification is in flux, and always has been. At some point APG II will become obsolete, but wikipedia is likely to be the first to switch to the new system. Personally I am at least moderately in favor of having this as the standard. Certainly this is the taxonomic system with the best qualifications and very many other reference works have adopted it as standard. Also, indeed it does provide at least a measure of peace and quiet. There are plenty of other issues that are more in need of attention. One of the issues that bother me is that the "taxoboxes" only adopt APG to the level of order, and not above that level. Brya 22:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the decision was first taken here: discussion. Anyway, it is not me you have to convince. I am fine with wikipedia having adopted APG II, but I could well do without it. Brya 17:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently a standard was adopted for vertebrates as well: vertebrate standard. Brya 18:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Parthenocissus

Hi MrDarwin - I've added some notes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life - MPF 19:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Rhus/Toxicodendron

Hi MrDarwin - do you know what is the most up to date conclusion on the latter genus? The USDA accept it, but I'm not convinced they're up to date; MOBOT give it as a synonym of Rhus. I've generally understood that Rhus excluding Toxicodendron is paraphyletic, but I haven't seen any detailed recent references on the subject - MPF 00:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not entirely certain. I'll have to check. I think there's still disagreement as to which genus to put it in. This is one of those rare examples where the common name is universally accepted and stable that it completely eclipses the scientific name, even among biologists! MrDarwin 14:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; actually, the common name isn't settled either (which is why I want to move it to the sci name), there was a big row recently over whether it should be Poison-ivy (correct, but not liked by the traditionalists), or Poison Ivy (i.e., a species of Hedera). And of course several of the species have other names (Poison Sumac, Varnish Tree, etc) - MPF 16:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was thinking only of "poison ivy" as you figured out, but that's probably the best-known member of Toxicodendron if that genus is recognized.

However, I'd like to point out that there is no such thing as a "correct" common name. "Poison-ivy" is no more correct than "Poison ivy" (and it is certainly less "common"!). "Ivy" has been applied as a common name to many plants other than members of the genus Hedera (much the way the terms "fly" and "bug" are commonly used for many insects other than members of the orders Diptera and Hemiptera). The hyphenated form in such cases is a recent linguistic invention that has had very limited acceptance when it comes to common names as used by the general public (who are and will remain the final arbiters of the acceptance of "common" names!). MrDarwin 16:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I take your point to an extent, but - at least historically - 'ivy' is strictly Hedera; I don't see why the subsequent misapplication of the name to other plants by people with bad (or no) plant identification education should be allowed to wreck things for those who use it in its original application. The 'general public' are not actually the arbiters of common names; it is the authors of the field guides which are bought and used by the general public (and, maybe in the future, the authors of wikipedia articles, as that's what's going to influence people in the future??). If the field guide authors (and wikipedia authors??) use names with more care, then the general public soon follows suit - MPF 18:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"Common" (i.e., vernacular) names predated Linnaeus by several thousand years! "Ivy" is not a botanical name, any more than the word "vine" is. The English word "ivy" has a derivation separate from that of Hedera, and predates the Linnaean concept of the genus. The very fact that word "ivy" is used for many species outside the genus Hedera in the English language rather weakens your point that "historically", ivy = Hedera. (Meanwhile whould we use the term "vine" only to refer to members of the Vitaceae, given its historical derivation?)

Linnaeus and other early botanists often based their names on the Latin or Greek vernacular names for European plants, and in other cases Latinized (Greekified?) vernacular names from other languages (sometimes even mistakenly); but to expect folk taxonomies to correspond to botanical ones is simply unrealistic. Common names are not the same as botanical names, which is why they are often confusing, misleading, or imprecise. I would expect any good field guide to plants to give the botanical names of the plant species it discusses, and provide the various common names by which many plant species are known.

For better or for worse, there is no International Code of Vernacular Nomenclature, and I think it's a mistake to try to create one. MrDarwin 18:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course the word Ivy predates Linnaeus, but does not predate the word Hedera, which is the Latin (Roman) name for the same plant, nor the fact that Linnaeus anchored the name Hedera to the plant then commonly known in Swedish as Murgröna and in English as Ivy. "The very fact that word "ivy" is used for many species outside the genus Hedera in the English language rather weakens your point that "historically", ivy = Hedera" - not in traditional British English, it isn't; here, Ivy = Hedera. I guess a large part of our different attitudes lies in this; we (people in the UK) coined these names, and stick to them, and resent it when others misuse the names and make it impossible for us to continue using our own names as we would wish. Your view (i.e., that of [some? many? most?] people in the US) regarding naming as a complete free-for-all anarchy is very much at odds with UK attitudes (though some US people take more of the UK attitude as in e.g. the US Forest Service's hyphenation of many names). Quite a significant cultural difference in attitudes to names; I suspect this one will need a bit more careful thought in an international situation - MPF 19:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It's always so refreshing to see snobbishness with a bit of anti-Americanism mixed in! If I were chauvinistic I would be tempted to point out that languages evolve (after all we're not having this conversation in Latin), that the U.K. does not have a monopoly on the English language, and that it's a wee bit hypocritical of the English to complain that Americans speak a bastardized language. Instead I'll be satisfied with having you make the point that I've been trying to make all along: that it makes no sense whatsoever to rely upon common names when they are subject to such broad interpretation and potential confusion. "Hedera" is unambiguous; "ivy" is not. Nevertheless, you are quite correct that Linnaeus used the classical term to "fix" the name Hedera (although I would argue that he did not "fix" it in the vernacular sense, as botanical rules have no application to vernacular uses). I expect that I will find no use of the word "ivy" to refer to any plant other than Hedera in any books published in the U.K.? In the meantime, please accept my apologies for all Americans, everywhere, for having usurped the language that our English ancestors brought to this continent, and for having the temerity to expect Wikipedia to reflect reality. MrDarwin 20:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just couldn't resist so I thought I'd look up the name of one of our nuisance "ivies", Glechoma hederacea, an introduced weed that is sometimes known as "ground ivy" or, more colorfully, "gill-over-the-ground". First stop: "Flora of the British Isles" (Clapham et al. 1952). Much to my surprise, the common name this references gives is... "Ground Ivy". Convinced this must surely be a terrible introduced Americanism, I went to a somewhat older reference, Bentham's 1865 "Handbook of the British Flora". Bentham classified this species in the genus Nepeta so he called it "Ground-ivy Nepeta", but also listing "Ground ivy" (no hyphen) as a common name (and the latter is the only common name to appear in the index). Finally, I went to Hudson's 1762 "Flora Anglica". Surely this would give me the "correct" common name? Well, what do you know... "ground-ivy". (Although I suppose MPF will take some comfort in knowing that the name was hyphenated.) MrDarwin 21:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Precisely, hyphenated to show it's a Ground-ivy, not an Ivy! QED - MPF 21:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sabal palmetto

Thanks for the clarification - one would have thought the USFS would have checked this! MPF 16:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The government publication was correct and entirely accurate in saying "A disjunct population has been reported at Cape Hatteras, NC", which is not the same as saying a population "exists". Verb tense is important. Fortunately it provided a reference for its statement. As for checking it, I suspect the agency, like most government agencies, is underfunded and understaffed. Sometimes you simply have to rely on secondary references (although in this case I agree it would have been nice if they had confirmed it a little better). MrDarwin 16:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The cabbage palm range map was from a book on gardening using coastal plants that my mom gave me (she is an avid gardener.) The book cites the source as the USDA. Growing up in the Chesapeake Bay area, I can tell you that sabal palmetto are hardy to that region, surviging down to about 8 degrees F. They are very popular landscaping plants in Ocean City, and my mother has two very healthy 8 footers that have been growing unprotected in her Baltimore front yard for over 5 years. Granted, in some cold spells they do get some brown on the leaves, but they have yet to die! Her Trachycarpus Wagneriansis has never browned, even in the coldest spells they've had there. Cabbage palms are becoming more common as a landscaping plant here in Dallas, where I live. Some of them brown in winter, but they are fast growing and always make a full recovery (although the same can't be said for the poor Wahingtonias that are planted in this area.!)

Thanks, but without knowing the source of that map or what information it is based on, I'm still a bit skeptical about it and I'm inclined to delete it. All information presented in Wikipedia should be verifiable in some way, and there is no way to verify the information you've provided. A more pressing concern is that Wikipedia may be violating copyright by reproducing this map from a book--all the more reason not to include it. BTW, I have been to Ocean City and the only Sabal palmettos I saw there were planted as temporary ornamentals and I have never heard any reports of this species surviving in Baltimore (I am active in a hardy palm group in the mid-Atlantic area). MrDarwin 04:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Brazil Nut

Agreed - I don't see it has any useful relevance. Best left unrecorded, I think. I'm aware of several other similarly offensive common names of various plants which I've deliberately not added (and in one or two other cases, deleted) - MPF 17:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving pages

Hi MrDarwin - please don't use cut-and-paste for page moves, it results in the loss of the page history! The one to use is the 'move' tag at the top of the page; that gives full details of how to proceed. I've done this now for Cabbage Palmetto -> Sabal palmetto, and added in your extra edits on cultivation. Thanks! - MPF 23:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, and thanks for fixing it. So much for "be bold"... MrDarwin 04:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Trachycarpus fortunei

Done, now at Trachycarpus fortunei. I've also added some extra details myself, whether they were the same as yours I don't know! - MPF 21:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much, the article reads much better. I will be making minor edits, if any. MrDarwin 21:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Cactuses or cacti

Hi MrDarwin - I was going partly on what was already there (see the page history as of just before my edit, which I had doubts about), and then confirmation of that when I checked in the OED. But by all means change it if you think it can be improved. I've always used the plural 'cacti' myself (and was surprised when the OED said otherwise, but felt I had to follow it) so wouldn't object to it being changed (I had been more-or-less planning to get rid of the 'cactuses' citation before I checked the OED). Of the use as a scientific name, since (if I remember rightly) Cactus L. is a rejected name, I'm not sure how important that is to discuss. Add whatever you think is worthwhile. - MPF 13:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks much better! - MPF 14:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Canna

Hi MrDarwin - Agreed 100% on not using the confusing 'canna lily' (tho' it's far from the most confusing common name I can think of!). I'd guess Canna will have to be a disambig page, there's not only the island (which I know, but haven't visited; I'll move that to Canna, Scotland by analogy with the nearby Muck, Scotland), it is also (from my atlas gazetteer) places in Italy and Australia, and Geordie dialect for "can't". My solution would be to put the plant at Canna (plant), that's the commonest proceedure for shared names like this (e.g. several plant genera named after Greek gods which also need to have a page). I'll tackle it all tomorrow, I canna do it just now, long past bedtime! - MPF 01:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Done; I've also merged in Cannaceae. There's a bit of a problem over species; the two refs I checked (Fl. N. Amer. and New RHS Dict. Gard.) respectively state 10 and 9 species in the genus; combining the lists in GRIN and RHS, I ended up with 9 species names, but when I merged in the Cannaceae page, there were another 5 names there, only one of which I was able to synonymise (C. lutea, = C. indica, according to both GRIN and RHS). This leaves the species list currently with 13 names in it, which of course doesn't tally with the page's intro. Can you check out Cc. lambertii, neglecta, pertusa, sylvestris (and/or any others synonymised since the RHS Dictionary came out), and remove the ones no longer accepted, please? - MPF 14:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad to help! On the species list, it is definitely useful to have one; as the individual species get their own pages written, they need to be linked from the genus page, and I'd suspect it is also something most readers will want to see. Knowing what is reliable is always going to be a problem and open to taxonomic debate; even primary sources can disagree with each other, and be out of date and/or opinionated. My feeling is to be fairly cautious and if need be have a shorter list titled 'selected species' rather than a full list, but not to worry overly much if an odd synonym creeps into the list (they can always be removed when someone more familiar with the genus comes along). I'll take a look at the Hemerocallis list tomorrow and see how it compares with what else I can find. - MPF 01:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Laxmanniaceae

MrDarwin, sorry, but my English is very bad! What is Hanstein? By the way, I started the article Laxmanniaceae, although IPNI and Conran recognize Lomandraceae. Taxonomy is a priori intuitive. Berton 14:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

War Edit in Malvales

MrDarwin my goal in Wikipedia is not get making war of editions! I think that we can arrive to a consent, you respecting my POV and me yours. Berton 15:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for Bombacaceae and Sterculiaceae, but please do not revert Malvaceae. Berton 15:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Kubitzki system

Congratulations I applaud your initiative! Without resentments! Berton 16:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I am dubious if this is correct. AFAIK, Kubitzki follows Cronquist, with some variations. Perhaps the most recent volumes have switched (closer to APG), but not the earlier ones? I am not sure if I am going to make it to the library soon, so I would suggest you try and check? Brya 21:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Kubitzki system, you may be correct. What I had in front of me was the volume covering Malvales, which almost exactly followed the APG classification. But come to think of it, the Lamiales volume, which I believe is even more recent, does mostly follow the Cronquist system if I recall correctly. I don't have time to check right now so feel free to modify the article any way you see fit; I mainly wanted to add another "system", both a major and a recent one at that, that had been overlooked. MrDarwin 21:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not Kubitzki that follows APG the correct it is APG that follows Kubitzki(but not always)! And Mabberley and Kew too.Berton 23:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That was what I was afraid of. There is no guarantee all the volumes follow the same system. In editing I like to have definite information, and I have none of the volumes to hand, so I have no real basis to do much editing. I can only suggest that you reconsider on what you are sure of ... Brya 21:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Kubitzki chapter on Gymnosperms (by Chris Page) does its own thing, different from every other classification (e.g. 11 families of conifers, including separate Taxodiaceae, Phyllocladaceae, Sciadopityaceae, but only one order Pinales [not accepting Taxales]) - MPF 22:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Page call Coniferophytina to these taxa, btw Mabberley (in The Plant-book) says: "Goldberg...has produced a new system for the angiosperms, little followed, while Thorne (Aliso 1992) has updated his. The latter has much to commend it but as Kubitzki's book (which often follows Thorne in amending Cronquist) has full descriptions and is a guide to the literature it is being followed in this and future editions of The Plant-book". Berton 23:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually Kubitzki is "the legitimate heir" of the tradition of A. Engler & K. Prantl:Die Natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien and Bentham & Hooker:Genera Plantarum! Berton 00:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep; the full Kubitzki breakdown is:

Gymnosperms

Coniferophytina

Ginkgoatae

Ginkgoales

Pinatae

Pinales

Cycadophytina

Cycadatae

Cycadales

Gnetatae

Gnetales

MPF 00:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Maryland

My dear colleague of editions MrDarwin, are you from Maryland? :-) You don't need to answer if you don't want.Berton 19:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I live in Washington, DC. Not Maryland, but close enough. MrDarwin 02:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Prose

Brya, please take this as a constructive criticism rather than an insult: while your information is generally factually correct, I have found much of your prose presenting that information to be awkwardly written and in need of improvement. MrDarwin 15:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I am taking this as neither a constructive criticism or an insult, but rather as an observation. Most of the time I am not writing prose. I am using text as a means to carry information. In a medium like wikipedia which can be read by people all over the world from many different backgrounds it is rather pointless to try and match the reader's preferences. My main concern is to avoid ambiguity and misleading detail. Misconceptions are hard to eradicate, once they are out there. In most cases I keep things as short as possible and as close as possible to the structure of the topic, as the best way to minimize the chance of misreading by any of those "readers from all over the world from many different backgrounds". This will lead to text that may not always be easy to understand at a first glance, but I have long been convinced that it is better to have a reader occasionally being obliged to read something twice, do a quick think, or do some further checking, rather than to have a reader feel he understands something at first glance, only to have him go away with a misconception.

This is a strategy that would work poorly in a book or long magazine article, especially if the target audience were known. However, this is wikipedia. The section on botany is 95% empty, and the percentage of error must be close to 1% (of the total 100% that should be there). It is not in need of beautiful prose but of some backbone and some hard fact. So I am adding short entries that are rock solid, rather than beautiful, with as many links to useful spots on the internet. Hope this clarifies matters a little? 17:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Species lists

Hi MrDarwin - from a variety of sources; the Cycas one will have been from the Cycad Pages (at RBG Sydney, Australia) and/or the Gymnosperm Database (if I remember rightly, the same as each other). Other sources; USDA GRIN, USDA Plant Profiles, eFloras, Flora Europaea, various field guides, RHS Dictionary of Gardening (generally last resort as that has a few errors in). I do add sources now when I'm doing them; true I often neglected to do so in the past! (the Cycas list I did just over a year ago; it isn't easy to remember which I did to go back to for adding refs). Any you spot, drop me a reminder and I'll add the refs. - MPF 15:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I just finished cleaning up the Canna species list, which was quite a mess (although I don't think you were responsible for that one!). I also checked over the Saintpaulia list; found a couple of spelling errors but otherwise it was good. I would like to see such lists only if they are referenced and at least somewhat authoritative. MrDarwin 15:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Saintpaulia I did from RHSD; checked back, one of the typos was mine (RHSD has S. difficilis correct; sadly, I'm not immune to the odd typo!), the other was a typo in RHSD, I'd got the spelling as they give. - MPF 15:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Talking of lists - the classification list at Monimiaceae is incomplete, lacking the type genus & subfamily (!): can you check it over? - thanks, MPF 01:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Taking a short break

I have been quite ill for the past few days and have not been able to do any editing or respond to any discussions. I don't know when I will be able to get back to Wikipedia, hopefully no more than 2-3 more days. MrDarwin 20:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that. If this helps, it is my experience that Wikipedia is not hurt by periods of taking it slow. My best wishes to you and I hope you recover fully! Brya 21:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Brya, thank you for the kind words. I have had a bad case of the flu and didn't have the energy to so much as read email. I am finally feeling better, although I will probably not be spending a lot of time here in the immediate future--I have far too many other things to catch up on! MrDarwin 20:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Phylocode

MrDarwin, this citation is integrally on the talk page of the article, and is like a manifest of 150 notable botanists against the Phylocode and excesses of Cladistics, thence your relevance. Berton 17:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Taxon letter

Hi MrDarwin - thanks for the note; you're right, we have no right to reproduce it on wikipedia without permission from the Editor of Taxon (and potentially, from each of the 150 signatories, too!), so I've removed it. - MPF 14:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Editing discussions

MrDarwin, please, try to understand that I am not posting my opinions for they be discussed one by one, I am using the talk page as a forum to place my arguments and I am only completing these arguments, because these themes (Cladistics, etc) are very complex and is need to deepen them and this is gradual, I don't have anything against other they have a counterargument, on the contrary, I appreciate the several opinions on the theme, but the discussions should be added after the logical sequence of my arguments, or else it would be everything very incomprehensible. Thanks. Berton 16:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

(Brugmansia) ext links

Hi MrDarwin - such links are not outright banned, but they're not generally considered desirable; particularly not when the same user adds the same or related ext links to lots of pages without adding anything else, i.e., spamming. Generally ext links are best added only when they provide reference to something cited in the text of the page (which yahoo discussion groups don't). There are more detailed guidelines at Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. - MPF 15:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Washingtonia

Hi MrDarwin - moves done as requested - MPF 16:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem! Do you know if Image:2003ZoneMapUSDA.jpg is validly added - it appears (despite its "I, the creator of this work" tagging) to be a direct copy of the AHS/USDA zone map. If that is an USDA original production it is public domain, but it doesn't appear to be solely so, in which case I presume the AHS holds copyright to it unless they have also released it. Do you know of any such release or not? - MPF 17:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering that same thing, and had the same misgivings about it. I think the older map is in the public domain, but can't say for sure. I didn't see any copyright statement on the 2003 map, but since it is prominently labeled DRAFT and the AHS seems to be letting it quietly die (I have heard numerous rumors that the map will be overhauled and re-released), I'm not sure it's worth including even if it's not copyright protected. The editor who added it, Munch10, has a history of adding questionable images that have been flagged for deletion as possible copyright violations. It's probably best to provide only a link to the map (I think I put it under "external links"?). MrDarwin 17:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm fairly certain the old map is public domain. The absence of a copyright statement on the 2003 map doesn't mean it isn't copyright; it very likely is, since it isn't a US Govt production. Spot on about the user's history of copyvios! I agree with linking it only under ext links. Be interesting to see what they do with the new map; I hope it will be sensibly based on standard measurements and get rid of that ridiculous archaic F cr@p! - MPF 18:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Found this at the AHS website main page:

Copyright © 1998-2006 American Horticultural Society. All rights reserved. No part of this website may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any electrical, mechanical, photocopying, recording means or otherwise without prior written permission of the American Horticultural Society.

I'll delete the image as copyvio - MPF 10:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. The user who added it should be warned about using copyrighted images. MrDarwin 14:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the status of the 2003 map, I contacted the American Horticultural Society directly, and was told by David Ellis (who wrote the article about the new zone map) that the AHS draft map has been scrapped and the USDA is working on a new version using more years' worth of data, as the draft version was criticized for being based on only 14 years' worth of data. In the meantime he referred me to a separately produced map by the Arbor Day Foundation that is based on 20 years' worth of data. The only version of that map I could find on their website is at http://www.arborday.org/treeinfo/zonelookup.cfm MrDarwin 15:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In the Baltimore article, I've added the link to the arbor day map that is based on 20 yrs of data. I saved it to my hard drive and enlarged it with photoshop, and parts of Baltimore city (as well as SE Balto. County) are in Zone 8 on that map as well, but a small part of western and northern Baltimore are still in Zone 7. About 80% of Washington, DC is in Zone 8, but the edges of the city are also still 7. Seems very similar to the 2003 AHS map (I mean, average winter minimums don't change THAT much!) Thanks

-munch10, Allen, TX

I've looked at the Arbor Day Foundation map at full resolution and don't see that it indicates either Baltimore or Washington, DC as zone 8. MrDarwin 15:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

hardiestpalms.com

Hi MrDarwin - the reason I removed this one is that (a) its documentation is no more verified than most of the unsupported stuff you (quite rightly!) removed from the hardy palms article, and (b) its data presentation is very poor. So I don't think it is a good ext link to include. Generally, ext links should only be added if they are of very good quality. - MPF 15:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Edlin on Malvales s.s.

Should you be interested, copies can be found at Blackwell Synergy (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com). Lavateraguy 10:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Contribs

Hi MrDarwin - thanks for the note! I'd been wondering where you'd disappeared to (and had suspected on the reasons!), had tried e-mailing a while ago but you didn't have that enabled. I for one would be very glad to see you returning and would strongly encourage you to do so, I've thought your edits have been very good - MPF 21:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Brya RFC

You might want to know that a RFC has been opened regarding User:Bryaat Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Brya. Circeus 15:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

About the word cockroach

Hello!
According to Oxford English Dictionary the word cockroach comes from "Sp. cucaracha..., with assimilation, by popular etymology, to cock and app. to roach."
According to Online Etymology Dictionary the variant roach is a "shortened form of cockroach, in contemporary writing said to be from a polite desire to avoid the sexual connotation in the first syllable." In accordance with this idea is the first quotation of the word roach (also from OED):
"1836-48 B. D. WALSH Aristoph. 89 note, ‘Cock-roaches’ in the United States..are always called ‘roaches’ by the fair sex, for the sake of euphony."

Tavilis 21:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Capparaceae

Hi, MrDarwin, as you may notice, I am back after a Wikibreak. With regard to Capparaceae: From APG Site: "In the eurosid II clade, several minor changes have been made relative to APG (1998). Although Brassicales have remained unchanged here, resurrection of Capparaceae and Cleomaceae may be appropriate in the future based on the results of Hall, Sytsma & Iltis (2002), who showed that Brassicaceae (sensu APG,1998) comprise three strongly supported, monophyletic groups representing Brassicaceae in the narrow sense, Capparaceae subfamily Capparoideae and Capparaceae subfamily Cleomoideae. They also point out that there are some morphological features consistent with this three-family view. " Thanks. Berton 16:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Palm drupes

Hi MrDarwin - I've restored 'usually' in the palm fruit description; most may be single seeded drupes, but from the photo at Salacca, it clearly isn't always so. If you can clarify further, please do - I'm merely going on the basis of the photo. I suppose there is the possibility that the photo may show something else, but it is an USDA pic so I would hope it is reliable! - MPF 15:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Dug out a bit more info (from Huxley, New RHS Dictionary of Gardening): "ovary usually three-loculed, with one fertile and two abortive locules ... Fruit a berry or fleshy or fibrous drupe, one-seeded, rarely 2-10 seeded". Seems reasonable to me, with 3 being the base monocot number; can you verify? - MPF 16:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hyacinthaceae

Hi MrDarwin, I used the list of genus in the following link, which is cited in the article Hyacinthaceae.

• Hyacinthaceae in L. Watson and M.J. Dallwitz (1992 onwards). The families of flowering plants: descriptions, illustrations, identification, information retrieval. Version: 9th March 2006. http://delta-intkey.com

Best wishes, --Ricardo Carneiro Pires 14:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Vinca minor

Hi Mr Darwin - the reason I took out the UConn ref is that it is rather confusing, as it deals with a European plant from an entirely eastern US point of view, which makes it an inappropriate reference in this situation (and the same applies to the OSU ref). The Flora Europaea ref provided the distribution detail used in the article, so is important; the borealforest ref is at least region-neutral. Some more references from the species' native range would be useful, if you have any. - MPF 08:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mr Darwin - on the OSU ref, the following are not good: "maturing at about 6" tall and up to 3' in diameter for each individual plant" - if I'm right with my calculations, that's about 15 cm tall, and 90 cm diameter. The species readily gets 30-40 cm tall/deep, and to keep it to 90 cm diameter at maturity would necessitate a lot of cutting back; it would reach that size in a couple of years, and go on to reach 3-4 m diameter easily. Also, as an aside, the details given only in imperial measures are unsuitable for an international audience, where the main reaction to reading that would be 'wtf does all that mean?'. Then "Foliage ... elliptic" - that is not a good term for the leaf shape, as it fits V. major much better than V. minor (which is much narrower than what is usually understood by 'elliptic'), and thereby invites confusion between the two (which are actually very easy to distinguish; see Image:Vinca major-minor leaves.jpg, V. minor above, V. major below]]); and "with a subtle white mid-vein" - anyone expecting to find even a subtle white mid-vein will be searching a long time; yellowish-green is more realistic. Of the flowers, perhaps a quibble, but when most wiki editors are using the term 'corolla', "five fused pinwheel-like petals" doesn't come over well. "Variants" - they really ought to be using the term 'cultivar'. Finally, while it is fair to record that the name 'myrtle' is sometimes being misapplied to Vinca, it really isn't something they should be actively promoting when it is so likely to cause confusion with Myrtus. Their role should be to educate, not to reinforce past identification errors. - MPF 14:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to mention - I know what you mean about using website links rather than books that people might not have access to - it is something I'm aware of and appreciate, but there is also a counter argument that I think is also valid, that websites are less reliable (and also often ephemeral, I've hit plenty of '404 error does not exist' pages following others' links); see User:Bunchofgrapes#Rant for an exposition of it! - MPF 14:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain your objections in more detail. Unfortunately your objections seem to be almost entirely of interpretation and wording, not of factual content. V. major most certainly does not have "elliptic" leaves. Please check your terminology and then take another look at the leaves of V. minor. Surely you are aware of the difficulty of providing accurate and objective descriptions when the language we use is subjective (even such terms as "elliptic" are open to interpretation) and the plants themselves do not necessarily fit into neat definitions. For example, how do you measure an individual "plant" of V. minor or any other clonally propagating species that forms large colonies? (In my experience the stems extend up to perhaps half a meter, usually less, then take root and start another plant.) And "variants" is a by-product of using a particular template to produce consistent descriptions for a large number of taxa, some of which may have "variants" that are not "cultivars" (click on "Features" in that reference for an explanation, where it explains quite clearly that "variants" means cultivars, varieties, hybrids, etc.).

With regard to your complaint about measurements, I would find that objection more persuasive if you hadn't provided a link to an article that is in Spanish. If an article in Spanish on the English-language Wikipedia doesn't have a regional bias, I don't know what does. If we can expect users to translate from Spanish into English, we can expect them to translate American measurements into metric. (What I find more disturbing about your objection is the implication that you are going to systematically delete all links that aren't in metric or include metric translations, or are otherwise aimed primariy at American readers, no matter how authoritative or accurate they are otherwise.)

As far as the ephemeral nature of links, yes that is certainly a problem and will continue to be, but I see that it hasn't stopped you from providing such links anyway. So again, your own actions argue against you. Regarding the comon names, I've already commented at length elsewhere. (And perhaps I'm overly suspicious but I find it just a bit too convenient that you deleted the links I added that documented the common names that you objected to.) The bottom line is that I shouldn't have to justify the inclusion of this link, especially when your objections are simply a bunch of quibbles, and I shouldn't have to worry about another editor following me around and immediately deleting the factual additions and changes I've made to articles. MrDarwin 23:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Periwinkles generally

They're all at sci names now (good suggestion!). It might be worth moving most of the text at Catharanthus to the Catharanthus roseus page, and try to dig out some more info on the other species - MPF 15:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Notes on reversions, deletions, and editing in general

Thanks for the note, I'll try to answer it below.

On common names, many will differ with your opinion that "there is no such thing as a correct common name" - that is itself a POV, and as such, cannot be taken as a standard for wikipedia. Many others - perhaps particularly outside of the USA - would agree that there is such a thing as a correct, or at least recommended or advised, common name, based on education to avoid confusion and misunderstanding by deliberately not using the same name for two or more unrelated taxa. If anyone can call anything by any name, the result is meaningless anarchy. When someone calls a Vinca a "myrtle", it is because of historical misidentification of the plant as Myrtus, which is the plant originally, and usually, so named in English. A misidentification is someone getting something wrong; if they then tried to sell that plant with the name of the misidentification, they would - at least in UK law - be liable to prosecution under trades descriptions legislation.

"I should not have to convince you that we benighted Americans really do have our own set of common names for plants that don't always correspond to the ones in use in England" - no, I'm well aware of it, and also that sometimes we benighted Britons use names that don't always correspond to the ones in use in America. What matters is that names that cause less botanical confusion, names with a longer history of use, and names used in the species' native continent, should be given greater prominence. Names used otherwise may often give offense as perceived cultural imperialism ("them lot trying to change the names of our plants for us"). Note that I try as far as possible to be internationally neutral in this, see e.g. my edit to Sequoiadendron for an example where I favoured the US use for a US species.

On the Acer discolor, I removed it as it was a link to a page of nonsense (now deleted) that had been added by an IP number, so I had some reason to believe the name was a fake. The name can easily be added to the list again as/when the list is checked. Yes, I agree that the Acer list does badly need checking over and referencing, it's on my list of things to do, along with many others.

I am very sorry if you have felt offended or put off by my edits; that was certainly not my intention, and I do hope you'll stick around. - MPF 15:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC) [cc. to Talk:Plants page]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants

Hi MrDarwin,

I noticed your remark I see that Brya is back and still up to his/her same old tricks. I feel this comes close to a personal attack, and would like to ask you to refrain from such remarks. Please try to be polite, and try to sticks to facts - that prevents a lot of trouble. TeunSpaans 20:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Common names and such

I agree, on all counts. My first encounter with the common names debate was with Cytisus scoparius. I was completely unaware of my bias because "Scotch broom" was the only name I had ever known that plant by. I was then accused of perpetuating US imperialism. The other editor in question could have assumed good faith and calmly discussed it with me. But that's in the past. During that debacle I came to the conclusion that plant articles, mostly because of debates over common names like this, should be located under their scientific name, both for external and internal continuity. I've often thought about proposing this as a new naming convention under WP:NC but have come to realize it probably wouldn't gain enough support among non-botanists/biologists. Wouldn't hurt to try, though, and make our case for it.

And thanks for the note. Hope to work with you further in the future. --Rkitko 17:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Limosella

MrDarwin, Why did you delete the information about Limosella? See Taxon 54(2):417-418. Berton 15:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Verbenaceae

Hi MrDarwin - I know; trouble is, I don't have a handy list of which genera have been moved, so can't do much about it without a longer search for info - MPF 14:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles to be expanded

I'm afraid I don't understand the purpose of creating a category called "Articles to be expanded" and using it to tag pages upon pages of articles. And how is this different from the existing stub tags? There are thousands of articles in Wikipedia that could be expanded, we all know it, there are thousands of stub tags out there already, and I don't think tagging thousands more with a "please expand this article" message is going to accomplish much unless it can magically cure us of the need to sleep, or the need to spend time earning a living. MrDarwin 00:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The template you are referring to is use in wikipedia for long, and the community has allowed its use in the manner being used by me. Please do not get much worried, and feel happy. There are two million wikipedians, and some day some one shall expand the page. The template is just another way to attract attention of editors interested in the pages. Cheers. --Bhadani 14:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You are a better judge.. In case, you want, I would help you in removing the tags. --Bhadani 14:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine. --Bhadani 14:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Chloranthales

I'm going by the orders listed as accepted on the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. Where else would I find this information? Is their website not considered up to date for their phylogenies? http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/Research/APweb/welcome.html KP Botany 21:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have the article, however, is the AP website considered to be not up to date? In fact it quotes all the same authors as the paper, but more recent resources than this paper. Is botanical classification and knowledge stopped to this one single paper? KP Botany 21:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't actually realized it was not affiliated with the APG. KP Botany 21:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see, my citations are wrong, not my classifications. Yes, the classifications are the current APG, as in the group of scientists. I will add specicific references to specific literature and to the MOBOT website to change this over the next few days. However, I'm not so certain that APG and AP Website are completely disassociated. For one thing, the MOBOT AP Website IS the link that Wikipedia has to APG. But, heck, another level, one with APG and one with AP Website would be fine, if that's what you think would be most useful, or remove APG II specific paper and just site later papers? Or I could ask the various authors (is Chase the lead?) or the lead author to explicitly state something to clarify the confusion. However, the authors of the APG II paper are using these orders as I used them in their papers right right now. And I'm thoroughly confused why they wouldn't be the ones who are the APG. "Or is it still just the referencing?

I'm not worried about web publications in particular as long as I know the references for the web publication. I will change the references for now. But, still, this is what Wikipedia says the APG is.... So, I'm not sure. KP Botany 21:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to think about this. By APG I and APG II I thought, and from the article here, that Wikipedians meant the group of plant systematists (Soltis, Chase, Endres, Qiu, etc., etc.,) doing the current angiosperm and angiosperm/gymnosperm molecular phylogenetic systematics who are pooling efforts and computer strengths under the title of Angisoperm Phylogeny Group, much of whose research is updated on the MOBOT website. I did not realize that APG meant simply the current and most recent group article published by APG, although I realize that these articles tied to a particular reference, and I should have made my additions tie to the correct specific references or at least removed their reference to APG II. KP Botany 21:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I'll just edit them to site my textbook, a verifiable tertiary source, as a reference for all the orders, and someone else can put in the APG II system, if they're so enamored of it. But don't REVERT them, please, because it takes a long time to debryde them.

However, I would like to point out that even APG I is more robust and less dynamic than APG II, so it's beyond me why Wikipedia use a system as primary that was never designed to be anything more than a single report in an ongoing work--the authors themselves are not welded to the report Wikipedia has set sale upon, they're using the newer orders as listed on MOBOT's AP Website, as are other authors working in plant systematics. Takhtajan is also more robust than APG II, and Wikipedians have "Reveal system" listed with a question mark, apparently it's not known who Professor Reveal is and what his 'system' is. Watson and Dallwitz only refer to APG I, and Watson and Dallwitz are used extensively on Wikipedia as a reference.

Please don't be so condescending and jump all over me about something--it's rampant on Wikipedia and meaningless. The botany pages here are an absolute worthless mess of useless, out of date, improper, and just plain wrong information. Jumping on everyone who tries to do anything to correct them, especially in good faith, and within the constraints already set by the botany community on Wikipedia is not particularly helpful. This useless, wrong and out-of-date information on Wikipedia is then copied and spread all over the Internet like a virus. Making botanical information current is the least of things people should be attacked for on Wikipedia. Our conversation, for example, would not be happening had the Brya issue been dealt with long ago. KP Botany 02:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I edited the articles to remove references to the AP web. See if you agree with the dits. Brya has been putting speculation all over Wikipedia articles about APG III. Look up APG III some time and you will see it is a creation of Brya at Wikipedia:

"As I said earlier I am not afraid of APG II becoming obsolete and Wikipedia being stuck with it; if ever APG III is published Wikipedia will be the first to adopt it. Don't underestimate the appeal of a shiny new gadget. Brya 20:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I wish others had stopped this nonsense right away. I removed references to APG III in Wikipedia that I could find. They were easy to find by googling APG III, because about half of 40 references were to Brya's speculations on APG III in Wikipedia and the others were unrelated to plants. I also removed comments like this:

"It is not inconceivable that in future a new and much smaller family will be accepted, consisting only of this genus and its close allies (conforming to Tilioideae sensu APG)."

Which are not just POV and OR but raw speculation! I have been trying to go by what Wikipedians decided to use already on the assumption you have made decisions and debated issues--but what I see is that many WP:Plants folks appear to have succumbed to being bullied by Brya. I tried to get some advice on article format because of my concern about some of these things that you trounced on me about, and that seem to be the target of edit wars and rage-attacks by other Wikipedians, however, no one offered a single word of feedback. I accept your apology, but would appreciate in the future if people made suggestions before-hand instead of ignoring my requests for input, then disagreeing with me when I am simply trying to follow the existing standards. I assume that with as many edit wars over italicizing higher taxa that you have had with Brya that she has your talk page on watch and will see this. However, feel free to copy and paste it over there, if this is of concern. KP Botany 18:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Herding Cats

I've never heard this expression but I'll look it up. I hope Wikipedia's not that bad.

Unfortunately Wikipedia is a volunteer situation where effective people will have the least time to do a lot of editing. I'm studying angiosperm evolution so I have some time I can devote to it, but deleting italics that make articles hard to read is a waste of time.

The English language thing gets interesting. I've been cleaning up articles on Afghanistan with poor English. However, just this week, it went into ethnic warfare. Someone with better English than the original articles, but a strong ethnic bias, although historically correct, is attempting to edit articles written largely by one person with a different and somewhat incorrect strong ethnic bias, but better English skills and more Wikipedia skills.

Thanks for the help, please support my removal of the italics on higher taxa when it explodes all over the place, and the nonexistant APG III and the biases that indicated that mid-19th century plants were discovered relatively recently and the speculation about what the APG III, should it ever exist, might do in the future. I'll add textbook references, try to include public domain scientific articles links and flesh out the basal angiosperms soon if someone else doesn't get to them first. KP Botany 20:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Categories for Delection

I would nominate it, but I'm not certain I nominated the other one correctly. Once I figure out whether or not I did it correctly for the first one, I'll put it up. I wonder if there are a whole bunch more, though? But, yes, in a general encyclopedia I suspect it's not a category that's going to be brimming with anything other than itself.KP Botany 00:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Mountain ash and Rowan

Thanks for your note. I've made some minor changes to Sorbus and Rowan. To my knowledge, the name Mountain Ash is very widely and commonly used in the UK to describe Rowans, certainly in the west of the country. Velela 22:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC) <nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki>

Brya

Hi Darwin,

You are right with your comment - I incorrrectly remebered the person who started the discussion. It seems to have been user Peta who started the discussion. I will apologize to KP Botany on his talk page, as the section where I made the remark has been closed.

kind regards,

TeunSpaans 22:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement on RfAr

Thank you very much for your just declarations, it was much important to say those things.Berton 15:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Phylo diagram

Drat, I thought I'd got it to match the deep green tree. The diagram is easily edited though, if you can let me know what to change (and/or make duplicates for different phylogenies from other sources). I fear using actual published diagrams would be outside of the fair use criteria, which are very strict (see Wikipedia:Fair use criteria) - MPF 14:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Flowers

Hi MrDarwin,

I am indeed working on the flower page. I started revising it weeks ago, and had hoped others would join in. KP Botany had, but unfortunetaly seems to have left, at least temporarily, the Wikipedia community. Right now I am just tring to add enough material to the sections I created weeks ago to give the article a basic flow. There is still a lot of fleshing out to do, I don't know how much of that I'll get around to. Please feel free to integrate your link/info into the article. There is still a lot of info missing, so take a look and add material as you see fit. I'm hoping to get around to making some decent photos and diagrams some time soon to go along with the text, but I just started a new job so it may be a while. Cheers, --NoahElhardt 21:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

KP Botany

I inadvertently deleted your comment when I reverted KP Botany's talk page to restore his comments that you had removed. I don't think it's appopriate to delete comments from somebody else's talk page. If you think his comments are inappropriate, take it up with an admin. MrDarwin 22:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I am an admin. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops! I didn't realize that you're an admin. Sorry, my bad; I won't do it again. MrDarwin 22:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries, not a big deal. I'm trying to keep KPB from getting himself blocked. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia on darwin-TheGreat

I've read Darwin's actual words from the book about all his correspondences, by the British author/Br. psychologist, copyright about 1985,... When he wrote to Alfred Russel Wallace duriing his "Origin of Species" tome, there were the public speeches, the debates about "Science", the forum for discussions at the time. Apparently he had a French nemesis (a guy) (who was probably a religionist (?) ), and he Darwin wrote to Wallace saying:

"This discussion [of Origins] will continue, ..long after we are dead and gone. Great is the power of "Misrepresentation". [in Ref to the Frenchman]

I do think his statement was cogent. Those two guys, their club, their cabal of good-'ol-boys must have been quite something. (Plus they were hard-working.) They lived in their Brains, and their Passions. I actually think that the CREatiON of 'wikipedia' is something beyond what people claim it is. It even has the possibilty of helping our race evolve. Obviously, some things could help our race evolve. Just my personal feelings, and I'd pull up the name of that book if i could. (I just added a commet at Talk:List of Anthurium species. (Out here in the Sonoran Desert )..Enjoy...Mmcannis 16:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Monocots article

I'm a bit mystified also, what the monocots article is all about and why it was written. Should I put a merge tag? Did you have other discussions about this to decide it should stay as is? KP Botany 19:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it won't be the case with all of the groups defined by APG, but it is with the monocots and this should be taken into consideration and even emphasized, it's not like they created a new group, they simply established this one group was good. Yes, I saw your futile attempts at sanity on the talk page for the article. Enjoy your break, you do a lot of good work, and try much harder than I do, at making consensus work. KP Botany 18:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Bermuda cedar

... I saw that, but have been trending towards biting my tongue these days. Go Mr Darwin!!!! --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 21:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't understand this anymore. This is so lame, so repetitive, so unnecessary, so time wasting. We do need to get a formal policy, it seems, and get MPF committed to it once and for all. KP Botany 17:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess I don't consider it such a waste of time, as I have learned so much from these discussions and arguments. I just hope others are learning from these discussions and arguments as well! MrDarwin 20:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, when I get irritated at something I do forget that. I had not thought, for example, of what an actual "incorrect common name" could be. Yes, I have learned more from discussing these issues and trying to figure out how to handle things, like the difference in application and usage between applying Linnaean classifications and phylogenetic classifications. Thanks for the reminder. KP Botany 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, although it would help if I wasn't such a hothead. I am obsessed with language and human culture, and continually awed by how little I know about plants compared to my ancestors in their indigenous areas. I would starve in a salad bowl, and get ill in a pharmacy, while they would grow fat, and make a profit off of their herbal knowledge while ridding the world of disease. Every time I hear a new common name of a plant, I want to know everything about it and its people, is Manitoba Maple the most common maple in Manitoba, or is it that it is more common there than north or east of Manitoba? Why a box elder, as there is nothing boxy looking about it, and it is not really good box-making wood? Why an elder, when the color of the leaves are so different, is it because they're small and similarly shaped trees from a distance? These names have stories, and they're the stories of the peoples who have lived with the plants. I have gotten the opportunity over the years to meet native healers from Africa, Eastern Europea and South Asia, in addition to the Americas, sadly before I was really obsessed with plants, but every plant they talked about had a name that made me want to meet it in situ--tree-with-arrow-branches, bush-with-small-animal-poison, bulb-with-large-animal-poison, box-elder, poison-ivy, blue-cloth-dye-plant, red-rug-dye-plant. I can't imagine walking through a forest and looking at it like a grocery store or department store, knowing what I could eat, use to dull a tooth ache or headache, what I could toss in the lake to stun fish for dinner, tan leather with instead of brains, make into shoes and a shelter. These names are human history, the history of the peoples who lived on and survived off of the land. And plants are versatile and many have multiple uses, it makes sense that they have multiple names to reflect these uses, how widespread they are, and their interactions with the peoples of their area over the ages. I worry that so many of the North American Indian plant names may become lost before they are preserved--it's human knowledge disappearing forever, because soon the plants may be gone, too.

I still can't stand having the articles use common names, though. KP Botany 03:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The situation is getting absurd, ie the attempt to bring the Scots to the rescue. I think it's time for an RfC. KP Botany 23:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wollemi

"although it is not a true pine (genus Pinus)" Well stated, imo. I will try to ignore the communications and stick with just editing. I'm doing peer reviews on Cetacean articles (I studied marine biology, primarily, before deciding to focus on my art), and dinosaurs. It is an area where other editors value the possibilities of collaborative work on an article. KP Botany 16:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Research instead of opinions

Interesting, isn't it, what a little research will turn up? To find out information on the common name "English Walnut" I went out and talked to neighbors, instead of researching. Common names are fascinating. KP Botany 17:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Rosopsida

Didn't really take much to make it readable. KP Botany 22:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Herbarium

Thank you very much for the internationalisation of Herbarium! Aelwyn 19:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Rafflesiaceae

Did you read the article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6251517.stm

"The botanists used DNA analysis to delve into the ancestry of the Rafflesiaceae,

revealing that the plants belong to the Euphorbiaceae family."

Your change indicate that Rafflesiaceae does not belong to the Euphorbiaceae family —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sdp1978 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

First, the linked "article" is a secondary source, a news story about the original research and the paper that was published (and so far, published only online). Second, nobody working on this Wikipedia article, as far as I can tell, has actually read the original article. So I don't think anybody can confirm whether the authors have officially classified Rafflesia and its relatives in Euphorbiaceae--the abstract at Science doesn't suggest that. The classification of Euphorbiaceae is still a bit of a mess, and at least some genera have been removed to their own families, so I would actually be surprised if they took that step. Perhaps they have, but I want to read the original research paper in its entirety, or see confirmation that somebody else has, before these changes are made. MrDarwin 14:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok that's fine however I don't like it that you simply removed my update without a good explanation. If you and others weren't looking into this then I believe it would have been a reasonable. By a good explanation I mean reffering to why the BBC should not be considered a reasonable source. Doesn't it say in the pillars of wikipedia that we should be considered equals which implies you don't need to speak to some one in a position of authority. Sdp1978 14:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)