Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Hi Peter,

I trust you are well. I've been appointed Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador to ARKive, who have kindly agreed to donate an initial 200 article texts about endangered species from their project, to Wikipedia, under a CC-BY-SA license. Details are on the GLAM/ARKive project page. The donated texts include many about plants. Your help, to merge the donated texts into articles, would be appreciated. Guidelines for doing so are also on the above page. Once articles have been expanded using the donated texts, we are also seeking assistance in having those articles translated into other languages. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, on the project's talk page, or my own. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Peter, if you have a moment, and if its appropriate, could you look in on Talk:Myrmica ruginodis. We're banging heads and no progress has been made. Perhaps "progress" is unnecessary and the article is supported with reasonable interpretation of sources, or perhaps it needs tweaking. The case is laid out on the Talk page although there's a lot of repeating, etc. A 3rd opinion might shed some light. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

RE: Your 08:29, 9 August 2011 contribution to Talk:Crown group

Point well taken, and thank you for your attention to the matter. I have accordingly added {{Citation needed}} to the Crocodilia article. I would appreciate it if you would point me to some of the "long-running battles" over the correctness of vernacular terms. I am interested but not familiar with the literature.

{{Dubious}} is probably in better accord with Wikipedia policy than {{Citation needed}}, but I see little difference and [dubious—discuss], with its dash and imperative verb, seems unnecessarily disruptive. Peter M. Brown (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

For another battle, see for example Talk:Ape, starting from Talk:Ape/Archive 1#Vanished_section_on_terminology. In the Ape article itself, the excessive number of references after "first four" in the sentence "Either the first four^[3][4][5] or all five^[6] are collectively called the great apes" are because some editors insisted that "great ape" must include humans. (You might also be interested in this, which lists inconsistent uses I found in Dawkins.) The switch from traditional paraphyletic groups where the scientific and common names were aligned to monophyletic groups for scientific taxa leaves a whole raft of common names somewhat "stranded" (e.g. reptile, monkey, ape, algae, gymnosperm, dicot, etc.). Peter coxhead (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

re zephranthes not sure why i need to change anything, it was up to code when i wrote it

this stuff is all wayyyyyyyyyyyy too technical for me, i am a published author of a number of books and write over 90,000 words in articles per year. you guys want to play iwth computers and i just want to help people learn about and grow plants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koibeatu (talk • contribs) 21:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The content is fine and useful. The problem is that Wikipedia policy says that articles mustn't look like manuals, i.e. mustn't contain instructions, etc. I'm not responsible for the policy! It was just a courtesy message to you for information. Hopefully I or some other editor will have time to edit it to fit WP:NOTMANUAL before someone deletes chunks (which, I repeat, I've seen happen elsewhere). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Peter. I'm glad you found the article useful. Nepenthes macfarlanei is a beautiful species, probably my favourite of the peninsular endemics. This is a great time to get into Nepenthes, with new discoveries (and rediscoveries) being made all the time. Indeed, there's a fair chance that a new species or two will be found in the next few weeks (expeditions in Indochina and the Philippines are currently underway)! Cheers, mgiganteus1 (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Indeed, the ICN versus ICBN situation is confusing at present. The new code is in force, as they always are from the moment that the IBC approves the actions of the Nomenclature Section. The final text is not available yet, however. In particular cases it may be possible to cite the proposal that the Section was discussing, or the report of a nomenclature committee. Do you see particular examples that are problematic right now that could benefit from such treatment? There is some more discussion at User talk:Denis Barthel that you might want to read; editing in other languages is going on too ... I think that we are dealing with some Wikipedia pages that were not good to start with, and it will be a while before we achieve something polished, but hopefully this provides impetus to several people to help build something good. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. In most cases, the new code will say exactly what the Vienna code does, so in a sense the Vienna code is a suitable reference. Dr McNeill says that the editorial committee will meet in December. I hope that in the last six years their ability to rapidly produce the final version of the Code and post it electronically has increased, so hopefully we won't have to wait as long as last time (though that was quite quick for production of a book). Nadiatalent (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue is, I think, exactly when to update what. My feeling is that at present the relevant articles should all say that the ICBN has been renamed the ICN and that there's a new version, but as the referencing can only be to the Vienna Code, I wouldn't myself remove all references to the ICBN. Thus I would have kept the two articles, "International Code of Botanical Nomenclature" and "International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants" until the latter was online. A "Wiki-purist" could argue, for example, that the opening sentence of International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants is synthesis; the reference does not support the sentence as written. Anyway, the change is made now, but I'll probably make a few modifications based on my point about referencing. Peter coxhead (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it wasn't I who removed the old page about the ICBN (I just cleaned up the FOR/OF mess). If you want to put it back, I'd support you. In fact, I can see an argument for keeping it permanently. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry if I wasn't clear; I knew that it wasn't you that made the article move. I wasn't sure about what to do, ultimately, and thought it would be discussed first. Ok, I'll go to Talk:International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants and join in there! Peter coxhead (talk) 04:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Communication via words on the internet are difficult I know. I'm not trying to have a go at you, but I find it frustrating to start a topic about a criticial subject only for it to be sidelined about another minor subject. Once is not good, but you've done it twice. The taxon reference as I see it is a make or break issue for the automatic taxobox, it's a critical thing because from my view without it the whole subject will ultimately be abandoned. While I agree that a authority ref would be nice it's so minor, because currently it can be done(although appriecate it could be improved) and really messy to bring it into a converation. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that communication via intermittent messages to each other is tricky; I've often felt that I hadn't succeeded in conveying what I actually meant. I thought that I was supporting your point, albeit widening it a bit. So, let's see if we can be clear about what we both mean:

• When you say "taxon reference" I think you mean a reference for the name/authority combination. So for my Adoketophyton example, the taxon reference is "Li, C.-S.; Edwards, D. (1992), "A new genus of early land plants with novel strobilar construction from the Lower Devonian Posongchong Formation of Yunnan Province, China", Palaeontology, 35: 257–272 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)".
• When you say "authority reference" I don't think you mean what I do by "reference", I think you mean just the "author/authority". So for my Adoketophyton example, the authority is "C.S.Li & D.Edwards (1992)" (the date is not required by the Botanical Code but paleobotanists usually give it).

So if my understanding is correct, then I agree that a "taxon reference", that is a reference which supports the name/authority combination, is critical. Ideally it should be the original source in which the name was published, although sometimes this is not practical. In any article I've worked on I have always tried very hard to include such a reference – which is why I thought I was agreeing with you. (There's a separate, but related issue, of where to put this reference: in the call/use of {{automatic taxobox}} or in the "Template:Taxonomy/..." page.)

If my understanding is not correct, could you explain what you mean by "taxon reference"?

If my understanding is correct, then my proposal is that the parameter |taxon_ref= be added to both {{automatic taxobox}} and the taxonomy template, being picked up and displayed in the taxobox in that order of preference. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Peter. In trying to copy/move the comments made about objective synonyms at the WP:Plants talk page (here) to the talk page at Name-bearing type, I considered it perhaps prudent to edit the discussion slightly. Before I make the move, you might want to check out my pruned version (and intro to the discussion) at my sandbox here, to see if you approve. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. A good idea to move it there. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Peter. I've copied the comments from my sandbox. I added a bit more of my own comments at the end, as that seemed to round off the discussion a bit better (I've left everyone else's comments as they were). Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for cleanup up that page, it was a daunting task. Nadiatalent (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thanks -- it's appreciated since I was a little hesitant to edit an article which is outside my area of personal knowledge. (But if you want to see really daunting tasks, consider how much work there would be to make both coherent and scientifically acceptable almost any of the plant articles which involve some "folk medicine" aspect, such as Garlic or Aloe vera...) Peter coxhead (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Oogh, indeed. Scientific investigation of herbal medicine (some of it very powerful/dangerous) seems to be increasing, so hopefully in a while that sort of thing will start to make some sense. Just backed out an addition to micropyle that said that it is the site of the Soul of the seed; it is amazing what comes through in edits. Some parts of wikipedia are magnificent; I just found the description of the neighbour-joining algorithm to be far more useful than a textbook that I had to read. One sentence at a time, we might eventually drag botany out of the mire! Nadiatalent (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you are right about "other Latin words" not being italicized in the code of nomenclature, but we can't follow them entirely because they italicize all scientific names, such as family names. Nadiatalent (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I was initially resistant to not italicizing words like "sensu" or "nom. illeg.", but I realized from talking to a friend that although we can automatically pick out the boundary of the binomial in something like Johnsonia johnsonii sensu Smith, it's much easier for non-biologist readers if you typeset it as Johnsonia johnsonii sensu Smith. So I've stopped italicizing Latin words which immediately follow an epithet. But then I'm not clear what to do about supra-generic names. The ICBN (and I assume the ICN) write Fabaceae sensu Bloggs, but as you say we don't italicize above genus. So perhaps here it should be Fabaceae sensu Bloggs. It's confusing. I probably shouldn't have changed the article, but I'll blame you for admitting encouraging pedantry via your edit summary. :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, I can live with being a pedant. Not italicizing seems okay, and it is a tiny bit easier ... Nadiatalent (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A big smile entirely free of Heracleum burns! Nadiatalent (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! Peter coxhead (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I'm sorry that you don't wish to add further to the discussion, and think I understand why. But thanks very much for what you have added: your incites really helped! :) Hamamelis (talk) 02:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Peter coxhead, Just wanted to let you know that I saw that you created the new article Roscoea capitata-- Happy editing! Hope your day is going well and you are having fun.Amy Z (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Peter coxhead! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been well over two weeks now, and I'd love to get this closed. Would you revisit Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates and add your final recommendation to the discussion? Thanks. Waitak (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Waitak (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I see that you have participated in the peer review of Ionian islands under Venetian rule, which I am reviewing for GA. I have some questions and concerns I'd like to convey to Marcofran, but it seems like he's no longer active on the website. Do you know anything about his activity, or if he is indeed around? DCI2026 (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry, I don't. (I listed an article for review and while doing so happened to look at those awaiting a review. As I'm interested in Greece and its history – while having no expertise in this area – I thought I'd have a look and perhaps learn something about reviewing. As a piece of writing the article seemed quite good, but I didn't check any of the sources and don't know if it presents a balanced NPOV.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think he might be back, and will give him more time (and my help) if he'd like it, to improve his article. Thanks, DCItalk

Hi Peter. Did you mean to write what you did in your last edit about dropping aitches at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Indefinite articles before certain words beginning with a (pronounced) 'h'? I think you must have got the "a" and "an" the wrong way round - otherwise you're contradicting yourself. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Whoops! Thanks, you were quite right: I had written it the wrong way round. Sigh... Now corrected! Peter coxhead (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a relief - I would think there must be something going wrong in the world if you were to start being inconsistent! (Incidentally, I raised it here rather than on the page itself as discussions sometimes don't make sense when read back later, not if corrections are made in response to posting a question, as the question can become confusingly redundant after the correction is made - although I note that you've put a line through the incorrect form, which would get round that issue...) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

(And of course also I thought I might spare a fellow Plants person a few blushes.....) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Your concern is appreciated! Peter coxhead (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I am a neophyte with monocots, so this is appreciated. We have so few native plants like this here - loads of folks grow the usual exotic bulbs and lilies etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

They look interesting plants; from the illustrations I would have expected them to grow from bulbs or corms. I see that they should be in flower now; rather a contrast to the weather where I am at present. Peter coxhead (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Aw! This would have been great to have expanded for DYK in time for Christmas. Maybe next year... --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

	An apple for the teacher
	Thank you very much for giving the online link to the ICNCP on its talk page. I wasn't aware of that, and it is very useful! Nadiatalent (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I've returned to this article. I've outlined in the Talk page what I would like to do. You might like to look in, since you were taking an interest earlier. PiCo (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Peter, you were wondering why R. debilis was named this. A clue may be found at the source (but you have to know how to read Latin and French). You may or may not know that many original botany papers are downloadable from the Biodiversity Heritage Library in PDF form. I find it to be a really marvelous resource... Starting at the front page, Bulletin de la Société Botanique de France can be found here; the following description of Roscoea debilis is located on the PDF page 538 (but it's actually LXXVI on the page itself, which can be directly linked to at http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/321310#page/538/mode/1up) :

Roscoea debilis Gagnep.

Radices... Caulis gracilis, elongatus. Vaginae infimae aphyllae 2-3. Folia lanceolata, acuminata, attenuata, longe pedunculata, ligulae inconspicuae. Scapus gracilis, 2-3 bracteis distantibus. Flores purpurascentes; calyx spathaceo-fissus, bidentatus, duplo minor quam tubus corollae cujus lobi lineares, posticus duplo latior, concavus. Staminodia late lanceolata asymetrica, nervis mediis in laminam prominentissimam abeuntibus; labellum ovato-lanceolatum profunde emarginatum (?) vel bifidum (?) lobis corollae aequilongum. Anthera falciformis angustata vix in parte media constricta bicalcarata, filamento calcaribus aequilongo.

Herba 50-60 cm. alta; folium usque ad 18 cm. longum, 3 1/2 cm. latum, scapus 15-17 cm. altus; flos explicatus 5 cm. latus.

Yunnan (Chine), Fr. Ducloux, n° 688. « Plante cueillie par le P. Liétard, dans le bois de Lan-ngy-tien, fleurs rouges, août 1899. »

Plante remarquable par sa gracilité, sa longue tige faible, ses feuilles très longuement pétiolées et longuement acuminées, ses fleurs rares distantes sur une hampe grêle. Elle est bien distincte du Roscoea capitata dont il faut la rapprocher; par l'inflorescence, elle tend vers Cautlea.

Hope this is useful (and sans any typographical errors on my part, but, of course, you can check it for yourself). Good Luck! Hamamelis (talk) 08:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! Yes, I left myself a note because I wrote the text on a plane away from the internet and my reference books; I knew what debilis means but not why it was used for this species. So I had intended to look it up now that I'm back in contact again. Now you've saved me some work. (I can read botanical Latin and French.) It's always a bit tricky in Wikipedia articles, I think, if the author doesn't explicitly say why the name was given. Thus Roscoea australis is the most southerly in occurrence, but the paper which named it doesn't actually say that this is why it was named, so it would be SYNTH for me to say so. I'm not sure that writing "The epithet australis means southern. The species has the most southerly occurrence." is actually less SYNTH than writing "It was named australis because it has the most southerly distribution", but there it is. Happy New Year! Peter coxhead (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

SYNTH tangent

Happy 2012 to you!

I feel the same way about the trickiness of SYNTH, as I'm sure I've done it before, unconsciously. I felt very lucky when writing Spenceria ramalana, as the authority, Henry Trimen said explicitly how he arrived at the name of the genus; and, um, ramalana is (please correct me if I am wrong) "from Ramala" or "of Ramala". Trimen very nearly says outright that this was his reason for choosing the epithet (but doesn't quite), by writing “Among a few specimens brought home by Capt. Gill … are some interesting species collected on Ra-Ma-La, a mountain …”. Would it be SYNTH to make the connection that I have? Strictly speaking, I think yes; but also think it would hold up after scrutinizing the text (Trimen's). However, I would like your take on this, if you don't mind. Did I overstep? This link takes you to (a jpg of) Trimen's description.

By the way, like what you did with the naming origin of Roscoea debilis; the semicolon was used very judiciously, I think, as it allowed for an implicit inference to be made, while avoiding any pitfall-laden claims to fact. The relevant information is simply there, side-by-side, for the reader to use their judgement. Hamamelis (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone could conceivably doubt that what you've written is true. But could an editor argue that it's not verifiable? Possibly given that the source doesn't specifically say what you've written. On the other hand, is there really an difference between writing what you have and writing "Trimen gave it the specific epithet ramalana; it was found on a mountain called Ra-Ma-La"? Not in my view, and as I noted before, I don't like being pushed into writing in this evasive way. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking and responding. Well, I think the semicoloned style you've hit upon actually works pretty well, at least in this instance. I hope you didn't feel I was pushing you to edit in a certain way or anything. That very much wasn't my intention. I did want to point out, in case you were unaware of it, that the original sources (many, not all) are available at BHL, as many editors, I think, haven't known about it; and that it can be great for things like finding out why a plant was named such-and-such (though, obviously not always); R. debilis was a possible example of where it could be helpful.

I've changed the appropriate text of Spenceria ramalana, as you've convinced me that it was synthesis. See what you think of it now. Thanks again. Hamamelis (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't thinking that you were pushing me to write in this evasive way – it's the wording of policies such as WP:SYNTH which do that and which I'm not happy about. However, given that these are the policies, it seems that leading the reader to make the deduction for themselves is open to less criticism than making it for them, so in that sense (and only in that sense) I think that your change is an improvement. Peter coxhead (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reassurance. Unfortunately, I've just now been told I am about to lose my internet access (for how long, I don't know). See you later, whenever I can find a computer with access. Hamamelis (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've been granted a temporary internet reprieve for now. I didn't have the time to comment completely last time, so I just wanted to add that it is sometimes difficult to interpret what is written on the internet (e.g. Wikipedia correspondences). Judging by what I've seen you write in the past, I know that you are one who strives mightily to not have your words misinterpreted by others (more so than most); but, alas it happens sometimes anyway. I just wasn't sure, in this case. I'll end this boring tangent here; sorry for the fuss. Hamamelis (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to copy my previous statement here to show you the issue

This is just a self-admitted crusade on Kauffner's part to eliminate any sort of leeway in MOS:TM and the other manuals of style when it comes to people's stage names. Kauffner, Dicklyon, and Greg L are simply editors who think that the manual of style is a set of rules written in stone. I believe they are seeking to make a point after I attempted to get some clarity at WT:AT#Names of individuals over the apparent kerfluffle I started when I requested that Kesha be moved to "Ke$ha", with an RM at DJ OZMA, based on the fact that this page is at k.d. lang and we have pages like bell hooks, brian d foy, and will.i.am. I believe you, and other interested parties, should add your opinion to the discussion at WT:AT, because this very vocal minority of 3 editors should not be the ones to enforce a set of guidelines as unbending rules, such as Greg L's insistence that "[he] can only assume that a bat-shit-crazy, rabid following on [k.d. lang] established a local consensus in violation of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS".—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Petaloid monocots thumb.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

WRT Agapanthus in New Zealand, if you are taking a discussion from a user talk page to a project page, or elsewhere for that matter, it is a good idea to notify the editor. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, I had thought that the wording of what I wrote on your talk page ("I think this is worth discussing at WT:PLANTS to see what others think") made it clear that I was going to do this, but on re-reading I didn't specifically say that I was going to do it. Please accept that I didn't intend you not to know. I can genuinely see the arguments either way on this one, and would really like to see what others think. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It all cool. I s'pose I should have picked up on yr comment. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what I was trying to do there, but I certainly messed up. Thanks for catching that! mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. There was quite a bit of vandalism/silly editing there, and it can be very confusing sometimes to get back to a "clean" version without omitting the one sensible edit in the middle. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

New article: Birmingham Natural History Society. Regards, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this. I've added a little more more factual material. I think there is a history of the Society in one of the volumes of the Proceedings; I'll try to find it.

I'd like to see more in Wikipedia on the history of natural history societies in Midlands in the late 1880s period (e.g. the "Midland Union" and its journal The Midland Naturalist). Maybe later... Peter coxhead (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I took the article on Bambusa vulgaris to a peer review here. Would you take a look and advice on improvement? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your observations. I would favour the tdes option if necessary, however, I am aware that within the horticultural trade there is an insistence that upper case spellings are used wherever, including, presumably, Wikipedia. Moreover, this the style adopted by IPNI. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I've now added something at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)#Selling names which (I think) records the limited consensus WikiProject:Plants reached in previous discussions. I'm not sure that it's correct that upper-case spelling are "insisted" on. The ICNCP, which is the authority here, just requires typographical distinction from cultivar names. It uses small capitals, but Wikipedia editors don't seem to like either all caps or small caps. The RHS uses a different font face.

Where does IPNI cover selling names? I can only find scientific names. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear PC, Thank you for your encouragement and suggestion on 'selling names', which I shall attempt to incorporate forthwith. I've had a fascination with the genus since childhood, but what started here as a labour of love has become a labour of Hercules. Hopefully when all is done, it will offer more accurate and complete information than can be found in a certain one of the monographs. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Peter. I noticed you quickly found my Rhizanthes articles, thanks for adding the templates. I'll have to remember to do that for future articles I create. I've been wondering if there is some way to see a list of newly created plant articles, to see what new and interesting things are coming down the line; and the speed with which you found my articles suggest you might know of one? Anyways, thanks again, and best regards. --Tom Hulse (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

When the prospect of working on my "to do" list palls, I look at User:AlexNewArtBot/PlantsSearchResult in search of some "quick fixes"! Peter coxhead (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tom Hulse (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the snowdrop page is better than a start class, it needs a bit more work though as in the list of snow drop varieties and also what was highlighted on the talk page was that the galanthus and galanthus nivalis redirect to the same page and they shouldnt! JMRH6 (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually they don't now; follow these links: Galanthus and Galanthus nivalis. But there should be many more species articles, given the number of galanthophiles there are (in the UK anyway). Peter coxhead (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The {{Xt}} template was created to "green-light" examples of the solidly endorsed recommendation of MOS (specifically, though it's used all over the place now), which the WP:BIRDS usage isn't. MOS cannot endorse the practice because it is still broadly disputed on Wikipedia, so it should not use {{Xt}} there, which strongly indicates endorsement. If we need to discuss it further I guess we can start yet another subthread at WT:MOS.  :-) PS: I'm not using {{Xtd}} on it, to indicate solid deprecation, and I probably shouldn't've used that word, though I'm not sure it's inaccurate. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 09:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If someone had added this template, you would have a case, I agree, for removing it, as there is no consensus. However, the situation is symmetrical: as it is there, you should not remove it as there is no consensus. You know perfectly well that a significant number of editors do not agree with the changes you have been trying to make in regard to capitalization of the common names of species. You keep asserting that there is a consensus behind your position, but assertion does not make something the case. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The subsequent edit by User:Edokter shows, I think, that your edit doesn't really work even in its own terms. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I went with his suggestion. The fact that there's no consensus is why it's not appropriate. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Only if the style of {{xt}} is clearly understood to mean that it's a "full consensus" example, which I don't think it is. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

How could it not be? Whenever MOS gives an example of something it disagrees with, it does so in screaming red. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Rather than editwar about it, I just opened a discussion about the usage of the template at WT:MOS for wider consensus. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a pity that {{xt}} has become used for other purposes; when you write style guides you definitely need a way of indicating what you are recommending or deprecating (see my referencing style guide for evidence of me being directive in another context). But as the template has been used for other purpose, I'm not sure that discussion is really helpful. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

On a completely different note, I've become dimly aware that the capitalization of cultivars, in forms like Genus species × G. species2 ('Cultivar') or Genus ('Cultivar') or Genus species ('Cultivar'), if I recall the formatting correctly, has different rationales behind it, that are similar to those for capitalization of the names of animal breeds as recognized by major international breeder organizations. You'll probably be shocked, but I'm actually leaning in favor of the latter, for reasons too complicated to get into here. I know there are opponents of the practice, as I used to be one. Is /are there good previous debate(s) you can think of that presents the reasoning for capitalizing cultivar variety names? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I just noticed your "I think the usage is now reasonably well explained at Wikipedia:FLORA#Hybrids, cultivars and provisional names; ..." post at WT:MOS. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd already started a long explanation when the edit conflict came up, so I may as well use it. :-)

The naming of cultivars is governed by the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, available online here. Article 21.3 (p. 25) says "Each word of a cultivar epithet must start with an initial capital letter unless linguistic custom demands otherwise. Exceptions are words after a hyphen […] unless they are proper nouns, conjunctions, and prepositions other than those in the first word of the epithet." [Looking at the surrounding text, "linguistic custom" seems to refer to different languages, e.g. there's a note on not being able to capitalize in Chinese scripts.] The Code then gives examples such as 'Beauty of Bath', 'Pompon de Paris' and 'Akane-Fuji'. Most cultivated plants belong to groups for which there is an active International Registrar which publishes lists of approved cultivar names conforming to the Code.

Looking at old books (i.e. those published before the ICNCP came into force), I think the Code just codifies what was universally practised (at least in English).

The requirement for single quotes in cultivar names comes from Article 14.1 (p. 19): "Cultivar status is indicated by enclosing the cultivar epithet within single quotation marks. Double quotation marks [and some other things] are not to be used within a name to distinguish cultivar epithets; such use is to be corrected."

So as far as I know, there haven't been any debates here. It's been taken for granted that we will follow the ICNCP in regard to cultivar names, just as we follow all the other nomenclature codes for scientific names.

The real difficulty, where there have been several discussions but no consensus, is over trade designations. A cultivar can have only one cultivar name, but can have any number of "selling names" or "trade designations" in different countries. The ICNCP requires these to be "typographically distinguished" from cultivar names. A common convention is to use small capitals (which I hate!) or to switch from serif to sans serif or vice versa (but this doesn't work in Wikipedia). The current state of play is summarized here. It's not very satisfactory, but if editors can be persuaded to use {{tdes}} at least it can be fixed if a consensus ever emerges. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Peter,

I disagreed with your resolution of the Heterogamy matter, and reverted your removal of the disambig status. If you still think it should be removed, just re-revert me, but please then also comment what I write about the concepts on Talk:Heterogamy or on Talk:Alternation of generations. (Briefly, I think that both these pages should refer to a new article titled Heterogony.) Cheers, JoergenB (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a pretty tight definition of what a disambiguation page is; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). See also Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts; most of the "dos" are not followed. Whatever Heterogamy is, it's not a disambiguation page. So I will remove the category again. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It is a badly written dab page to a much higher level than it is a badly written article. JoergenB (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, we can agree that it's in need of a lot more work! But a dab page exists to redirect, not to explain. It "lists articles associated with the same title" (as the dab template says). It will never have explanations or references. Look at proper dab pages (e.g. Style). Heterogamy can't be turned into a well constructed dab page by removing all the information and references and adding relevant wikilinks because there aren't articles to link to at present. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

So, of course the page could be fixed to a proper dab; the only questiobn is whether the amount of work it would take is reasonable. The problems you point at are amendable; it's only if you a priori decide that some clean-up actions are no options that you get an insoluble situation.

Some of the * points of the page indeed already do quote one reasonable article on the subject (but contain some more information). After checking that that information is available at the target, these points may be trimmed.

The appropriate heterogony article should be written; until then, the corresponding point cannot be fixed completely.

I think there were some other remaining point (in sociology, or something); whether that merits a short dab-direct to an existing article, a new article, or removal, I don't know. There is much less to fix than there is, if you want to make an appropriate article of it. If we leave/restore the dab, but include the {{disambiguation cleanup}}, the disambig people may consider it, and may change the cleanup, if they think that this should turn to an article instead. JoergenB (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's any point in adding {{disambiguation cleanup}}. The "disambig people" can't write substantive material in biology, which is what I think is required first. Until then, this page is the only source of some of the information. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The page now is left in limbo. If you really think it should be turned into an article, then you ought to add numerous templates, inter alia, {{wikify}}, {{multiple issues}}, and five {{expand section}}'s. Anyhow,I very much doubt that the community would accept a proper article covering all these senses of homogamy. On the other hand, fixing the page as a dab should involve much less work.

IMHO, point 1 demands a new article, and will not be fixed in either a dab or an article without some serious editing. In practice,this means that a dab page fix would leave a red link. Points 2 and 3 are fixable by any "dabber"; it's a question of removing information, not adding it. (The footnotes to point 2 seem not to be very relevant, to judge from just reading the titles.)

The content of point 4 is more than covered by Plant sexuality, I think. A minimal fix might involve e.g. linking to the subsection Plant sexuality#Flower morphology, and boldfacing the term heterogamous therein. I'm sure you could make a better solution without much effort.

The only really unclear point is the last one, from sociology. The stub-like content was added here by Nadiatalent in response to this edit by Vyyikes (talk · contribs); and since both of them are active, they might be persuaded either to fix a short new article Heterogamy (sociology), or to agree on clarifying the term in existing articles, e.g., in Morganatic marriage. I suspect that adding that material was a mistake, due to confusing a dab with an article; see Nadiatalent's comment, where she talks about clarifying a "section" of the page. JoergenB (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to change it into a proper dab page, which fully meets Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts, and then add the template, then you're free to do so. I understand Nadia's comment on the talk page, but as rightly you said there, there isn't a consensus in Wikipedia to have what I called "differentiation pages". The only points I make are:

• As the page stands it shouldn't be called a dab page.
• Adding a "cleanup template" isn't useful; someone with appropriate biological knowledge needs to sort it out.

Peter coxhead (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Re:Difference_between_Indica_and_Sativa

You may want to reread WP:PROD (especially "You are encouraged, but not required")Bulwersator (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, my mistake (but I had hoped to avoid a full AfD discussion if the creator explained first). I'll now move on. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For the ingenious solution for autotaxoboxes of monotypic taxa!  OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right of course, used them frequently when writing pages on obscure ancient elm cultivars, a habit I should get into again, though you would have thought the paucity of information was invitation enough. Ptelea (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Peter! I trust completely that your recent move of Yucca guatemalensis is correct, but since GRIN (the cited authority in the article references) and Tropicos don't yet agree with Kew on this, and also because Yucca elephantipes is used about 40:1 more on Google scholar than Y. Gigantea; do you think perhaps you should include a recent reference that discusses the use of all three names for a undiscussed article move like this? --Tom Hulse (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, whoops, I see that I forgot to add the WCSP reference to the article. Now done. (For those families it covers, the WCSP seems to be the most up to date source at present. GRIN seems to take some time to come in line with WCSP, but I've seen it happen in other genera.) Peter coxhead (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but do you think we should keep looking for a real author source, since Google scholar uses Y. elephantipes 40:1 over Y. gigantea, and because Kew does not seem to be aware of Y. elephantipes Regel 1859, which predates the October publication of Y. gigantea Lem. 1859 (wish I spoke French)? Perhaps Regel 1859 is invalid or illegitimate? --Tom Hulse (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The WCSP source for Regel ex Trel. is online at Botanicus and it clearly references Regel (1859), so I don't see why WCSP doesn't cite Regel, Gartenflora 8:35 (1859) directly for Y. elephantipes rather than Regel ex Trel., Annual Rep. Missouri Bot. Gard. 13: 94 (1902). I'd assumed it was because there is evidence in Trelease's paper that the name was illegitimate, but now I've looked at Trelease, it doesn't seem so.

GRIN is equally clear that Y. elephantipes is wrong, but their Y. guatemalensis Baker (1972) is clearly predated by Y. gigantea Lem. (1859), so if the correct name is not Y. elephantipes then it seems that it should definitely be Y. gigantea.

I agree that more research is need before we understand why Y. elephantipes is illegitimate according to WCSP and GRIN. One general issue for Yucca is that a lot seem to have been named on the basis of individual cultivated specimens in European gardens (the same problem arises with cacti), so that tying the name to a native locality is problematic.

By the way, if you need to understand a French source, ask User:Circeus, a member of WP:PLANTS and a native French speaker... Peter coxhead (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed that Tropicos is inconsistent. It claims to rely on Flora Mesoamericana, but here this says that Y. elephantipes Regel (1859) is "invalid" and Y. elephantipes Regel ex Trel. (1902) is "illegitimate". However, these are the same names since Trelease is just quoting Regel. Um...

I'll copy some of this to the Talk:Yucca gigantea, where it probably belongs. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently I made the article in 2010. At the time I was doing other plant articles (I believe), and was trying to get more out of the Book/ the bound, hardcover (3rd)-volume: ATLAS OF UNITED STATES TREES, Volume 3. Minor Western Hardwoods, by Elbert L. Little, Jr., c. 1976, U.S. Govt Printing Office, (Misc Publ. no. 1314, Dept. of Agriculture)...
So.... it is a book of maps, and some lists (Genus-species). A 10-page Introduction, (I've only read part of it...?), and 2.5 pages of Refs, (about 105)----
so, I was just going to put the new species you changed to...in the book, Only problem is Y. torreyi is Map 209, (authority Shafer)...and Y. faxoniana is Map 205 (authority Sarg.)... Y. Fax is only represented in west Texas, southeast of Las Cruces, (and halfway to Big Bend area-(plus (+) one spot locale in central-north Coahuila).. Y. torr. is represented as the page is originally still shown in (eastern Chihuahua (state), north & northwest Coahuila, and southwestern Texas).... so What Yucca is represented in the Book as Map 205-? (a mislabelled subspecies called ?)-(Y. torreyi is also represented by 5 other (satellite, (disjunct distribution) locales): 3 other Mexican states,(besides Chih. and Coahuila, and 2 sites in Texas)... I actually don't expect you to have an answer...but maybe an expert on Yucca's has an answer. (from SWest ArizonaSonora Desert)...--Mmcannis (talk) 06:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm certainly not an expert on yuccas! However, from reading the literature, it's clear that the names of Yucca species have been muddled for many years, and are now being sorted out. I started by making the list of species at Yucca fit the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families, and then worked my way down to the species. Two species which seemed to me to change significantly were Y. elephantipes (a very commonly used name) and Y. torreyi. After some further research by me and User:Tom Hulse, we understand why the name Y. elephantipes was wrong (see Yucca gigantea#Taxonomy). Y. torreyi is a bit different, and I hesitated because GRIN maintains both names (Y. torreyi and Y. faxoniana) whereas WCSPF (which in my experience has always been more up to date) rejects Y. torreyi. I'll see if I can find out more. Unfortunately, knowing what names are correct doesn't tell you what plants should be called by those names, and for that we do need a yucca expert (or more accurately a reliable source of yucca expertise). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the Yucca faxoniana article a bit re names, but the situation remains unclear other than that Y. torreyi is not the right name. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I won't change the citation style again. Thanks. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 21:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Crassulacean acid metabolism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Respiration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at User:SMcCandlish's talk page. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 14:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

In Botany#Research is there some sort of banner/notice tag/template that can be used instead of the "note" I put? 512bits (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, just use {{under construction|placedby=512bits}}. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. There is a present for you on my user page. 512bits (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Peter, thanks for looking over the article on phyllochron. I figured I could bounce some ideas off of you here about what can be done with the article. Measurements in phyllochron, to my understanding, are primarily for grasses and are often done as part of surveys by agronomists (rather than botanists). Though the principles may be applied to other plants (e.g. soybeans, as one reference I utilized concluded), the agriculture portal article on cereals doesn't really seem like it has room for the issue as it's a lot more technical. Perhaps it can be included in Poaceae, under growth and development? There is quite a bit of information to contain if that route is taken, since there are also multiple related concepts: phytomers^{(stub - low - oprhan)} (everything from leaf to internode) and plastochron^{(stub - ???)}, plus additional terminology not on Wikipedia like phyllome. I'm basing most of these conclusions off of McMaster, 2005 (J. Agricultural Science), which has is DOI: 10.1017/S0021859605005083 if you'd like to take a glance. I'm open to anything — let me know your thoughts, or if there's a better arena I can bring this to. Thanks for your help! --Pusillanimous (talk•contribs) 16:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the article. After skimming it and then thinking a bit, I can see that phyllochron and related concepts can only be applied to a limited range of plants – I had before thought that they might be more general & so fit under leaf or plant development or something. But they won't be useful for a perennial branched plant, only really for a plant where there's a single deterministic development line to maturity. It does largely seem to relate to "Cereal development". I wonder if a single article under this title might work for a start, then you could see whether there is enough on specific bits to spin off. See Zadoks scale and the suggested related articles which would seem to fit here too (and which at the least might provide cross-links). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for your suggestions. In a nice twist, I am also trying to work on a project to merge the different cereal developmental stage scales, with the proposal available here. Perhaps a new page called Cereal development can include headings like Cereal Developmental Stage Scales and Developmental Terminology. Thanks for the help, and I appreciate any and all suggestions (especially because WikiProject Agriculture seems somewhat defunct). --Pusillanimous (talk•contribs) 17:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the change to Template:Under construction‎ . Can you add yet another parameter for new pages. I occasionally use it in that situation. The text could read "this new page is the middle of expansion" or for a section "this new section is the middle of expansion". It is not an important requirement but it is a nice touch. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see that someone else has found my addition useful! I think that your idea to be able to add "new" is a good one. However, I'm reluctant to add this just yet because there's a discussion going on here about deleting {{New page}} which may have implications for this change (there seems to be a feeling that {{Under construction}} shouldn't be used on new pages but if {{New page}} went the situation would be different). Peter coxhead (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Contrary to your recent comment at WP:TOL, the WP:BIRDS page actually says that the project's preference for the capitalization of bird names generally applies only to bird articles, and not all across Wikipedia. The relevant paragraph reads: Note that the convention for capitalisation of names applies primarily to articles about birds, not to the whole encyclopedia. Contributors to other areas of the 'pedia (botany, politics, music, sport, and so on) cannot be expected to know or conform to the conventions of ornithology. Please don't drag us back into those endless arguments again! MeegsC | Talk 13:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've commented on capitalization in several places, so I'm not sure quite which comment you're referring to (or was it the edit summary of a recent revert I made?) Anyway, here's my overall position on the issue, which may or may not be relevant to the specific item you raised.

• On the general issue of whether English names of species should always be capitalized, or only in some classes of article, there is, as far as I can see, no consensus at present. Various protagonists on both sides have claimed that there is, but I can't see the evidence for it, bearing in mind that a consensus is not a majority vote. There are reasoned arguments both ways.
• The only issue on which I have seen what seems to me to be a consensus is that there should be consistency within an article; not everyone agrees, of course, but those few who disagree don't seem to have produced reasoned arguments.
• WP:BIRDS cannot create a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS which applies anywhere in Wikipedia, whether to bird articles or any other articles. WP:BIRDS does not WP:OWN bird articles, any more than WP:PLANTS owns plant articles. There is no argument which applies to the English names of birds which does not apply to other cases (e.g. to lepidoptera, plants or fungi occurring in countries where there are equally 'official' lists of capitalized English names, such as Australia or the UK).
• There have been constant attempts, by both "sides", to change one or other of the several pages which describe the current confused position, usually under the argument that they are trying to "synchronize" or "rationalize" the pages. I'm against all such changes unless and until a proper consensus is reached.

As I said above, none of this may be relevant to the issue you raised! Peter coxhead (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Nope, none of this is relevant!  :) This morning, you reverted someone's change to the TOL page, saying (in your edit summary) the change may reflect what the MOS says, but it does not reflect what the linked WP:BIRDS says. Except that the change was exactly what WP:BIRDS says! So somewhere there was a disconnect... MeegsC | Talk 23:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, right. Actually the changed text does not say what WP:BIRDS says. As you correctly quoted above, it says "applies primarily [my emphasis] to articles about birds". This is not what the changed text says. (Nor is it what the original text says either, but my point was not about the original text but about the changed text.) The changed text is weaker than the WP:BIRDS text. (The original text is stronger.) Peter coxhead (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Peter how are you? I saw you removed again my picture writing "Be bold; if it's probably not H. lilioasphodelus, remove the image!"

I know the comment of anonymous author must have been misleading. I really am convinced the species is well identified. I was hoping for the anonymous guy to regret his actions and restore my picture. He didn't even answer of course. I think it's pretty unfair that an anonymous guy comes, says it is not the declared species, and then I get the picture removed. Please do read my long comment here before removing my picture as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Huge_problem_with_a_featured_picture_-_it_is_not_what_it_claims_to_be

Picture should be replace as the principal picture of the article. There's all the proof needed to identify it as H. l., and no proof at all of it not being, besides the fact that it is described as a lemon yellow flower (Btw, try typing "lemon" on google, you'll see how many different tones of yellow you'll get). If we take it this way, then no animal at all is 100% certainly well identified in the whole Wikipedia! "The picture on the bear page is probably not a bear, because I saw one with lighter brown". "The rose is not a rose, because I saw one that was more "gracile"". Isn't this nonsense? To believe an anonymous guy that this is not H. lilioasphodelus only cos' he says he has seen some with lighter tones of yellow?

As I said in my answer to the topic, you guys can remove the picture if democratically decide it should not be there, but for now it is really unfair to remove it! Only because some anonymous guy decided so!

Last, but not least, before nominating this image on Wikipedia, it was nominated on Commons. A frequent participant user wrote this on the Candidate Nomination:

Support - I cultivate Hemerocallis and also Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus for decades. Therefore I can say: this image is very good. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Hemerocallis_Lilioasphodelus.jpg

Please, try to be open minded and do read my long comment on this topic before you give a final judgement. I will appreciate it a lot. It really has to be a Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus. The opposite has not been proven. But how could you prove a cat is a cat??? If it looks exactly like a cat, then it is a cat, I cannot do DNA test on the flower! It should definitely be restored as a cover picture of the article. It will also be removed as a featured picture since it would no longer appear on the article, which would be the most ungrateful thing to do to a user who dedicates lots of time donating high quality images to the Wikipedia. It is really unfair to remove my pic just because someone said it looks different in the UK! I hope my picture is restored soon, after all the work I did and the evidence I collected, which should have never been needed in the first place. Hope we can sort it out the best way, and asap. Thank you, best regards, --Paolo Costa 20:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is about the wild species Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus. It's not about the cultivars of Hemerocallis. So, ideally, we need photographs of this plant growing in the wild in its native range. Only then can we have a reasonable chance of being sure that the photograph is accurate. Your photograph was taken in Venezuala, so immediately we know that the plant was either planted or an escape from cultivation. Example after example shows that plants cultivated in gardens and those which escape from cultivation are usually not the same as the wild species. As you say, we cannot prove now that the plant either is or is not H. lilioasphodelus. So what should we do? My view is that if there is reasonable doubt – and the grounds for reasonable doubt are (1) where it was photographed (2) its colour – then we should leave it out, given that there are other photographs. It's an excellent photograph to use to illustrate the shape of Hemerocallis flowers; its identification is not sufficiently certain, in my opinion, to use to illustrate the wild species. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)