User talk:Sminthopsis84/Archive 2

Message

Please see Talk:Capsicum frutescens#Possible synonymy with Capsicum annuum. Thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all your good work with the peppers. And thank you for the infobox feedback. And thanks for changing the synonomy heading. Just to let you know, although I didn't mind, others get rubbed quite the wrong way when somebody modifies what they've written. It's considered bad form. Anyhow, you're a great asset to the whole botany thing. We're very pleased to see you here. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Redirect blanking (tuberoid)

Thanks for your (level headedness), Sminthopsis84. If we had to depend on the nazi patrol, we would all be screwed. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gabriel, I'm not sure if the disambig is in the best format, particularly whether there is a way to point directly to the definition within the glossary page. Yes, it's a tough and patronizing crowd in here, time for me at least to take a refreshing break. (What a silly name for a drug, huh? Seems rather "hard to swallow".) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps easier to 'swallow' if it was meant for haemorrhoids? tuberoid ... tube + rrhoid .... okay, just forget the 'hole' thing .... Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Ha ha! Indeed, best forgotten. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Tree

I had been trying to improve the Tree article but now things are getting nasty over there. See here for how things should have been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your work creating useful redirects, as well as the article on shattering :). Ironholds (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! It is nice to see that someone other than a botanist could think that redirects for species names might be useful (my cover of working in an obscure area is blown). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

and

	Staring-them-down award
	Because I forgot you went through it too. :) -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Lovely detail! It looks as if someone, probably either you or I, might have spat at them. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Haha. That's one way of looking at it. Though I <3 dragonflies too much to ever spit on one. :P -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Aha, those lovely faceted eyes must be ours! Sometimes it can be difficult to recognize one's self, or one's species in a mirror. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Failing a mirror test usually means either the absence of sentience or the presence of vampirism. Har! -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"Self-awareness and the virtual self: Are wikipedia editors vampires?" — a title waiting for its thesis to be written. This would presumably be a collaborative thesis-writing, by anonymous contributors. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I really appreciate the recent edits you made in cleaning up a few issues found in some of those orchid articles, e.g. Eria. Thanks for those! And since the internet is held together by cats and their associated debris, I thought you ought to have one on your talk page. Enjoy! (meow)

Rkitko ^(talk) 21:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! It's nice to have one's drop-in-the-bucket appreciated! The associated debris sounds a bit alarming; if you haven't seen it, I recommend an item by Gideon Lewis-Kraus in last month's Wired. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I should also say I appreciate more than just the drop-in-the-bucket! Oh dear, I think I just spent about an hour watching cat videos on YouTube thanks to that article. Clever, it was, to trick people into procrastinating. Thanks for that ;-) Rkitko ^(talk) 23:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear indeed. Tomorrow is a new day, perhaps some wikipedia-polishing can happen then. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Information for Oil palm History

Sminthopsis84, thanks for looking at the information I put forward on the Oil palm talk page, here. I found that you made a few changes and added it in the Palm oil article, rather than the Oil palm article and I'm curious to know if you feel it's appropriate for the Oil palm History where I intended the text to be added. If so, would you add it there too? Thanks in advance. YellowOwl (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Oops! i didn't notice that there were two articles. That doesn't seem to be the best arrangement, so I'll solicit opinions at WT:PLANTS. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Parthenogenesis

Hi Sminthopsis84! I'm sorry I destabilised the page, I had no idea how precious the situation was. Maybe we should first try to clean up the Talk page of the article? In its current form, discussion is quite hindered because of the chaos. Then everyone could explain their reasoning and we could pick a version which best suits Wikipedia's content guidelines. Sincerely. --Tervan (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Eleaeis (Oil palm)

Thank you for going ahead with those changes, and I understand your point about the confusion between the pages even still. I haven't looked at "Palm oil" closely, but maybe I could offer some assistance later. I am also working on some additional suggestions in this topic area, and if you don't mind I may ask you later. I realize you are busy with other things as well, so if you are not able or not immediately that is understandable. --YellowOwl (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, your help would be important to improving the quality of the content as well, some of which is clearly confused, and some of it is so brief that it isn't readable by anyone but an oil-palm breeder. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Rosalind Franklin

Sminthopsis84, thanks for sorting that mess out at Rosalind Franklin. Sometimes when there is a lot of vandalism it's hard to tell how far back you need to revert. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, it was easier to figure out after you had reverted most of it! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be more vandalism all of a sudden, that Cluebot isn't handling. Perhaps it's due to the start of the fall term in North America. Ugh. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note that biographies by Maddox etc are correct - Rosalind Franklin's ONLY school was St Paul's. Any other schoool mentioned is incorrect, and I'm not sure who has decided to add the other school's name. Hence only St Paul's should nbe mentioned asher school — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.126.107 (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no knowledge one way or the other, but I've made a note on the talk page for the article. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Elaeis summarizing Social and environmental impacts

Hi Sminthopsis84, my second try at the Social and environmental impacts summarized text for the Elaeis article is ready now if you'd like to review again. It includes some peer reviewed articles as references and I've also made the other changes Sepilok2007 mentioned. Thanks in advance. YellowOwl (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sminthopsis84, I see that the name change has been made to the Environmental impacts of palm oil article. Thanks for making that happen. Have you had time to consider the revision I posted last week for the Social and environmental impacts section of the Elaeis article? Also, if you are interested, I have put forward another change to text in the Palm kernel oil article, adding more references and suggesting moving information on nutrition to the appropriate section. Please let me know if you have any questions. YellowOwl (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry that real life (whatever that is) is getting in the way quite a bit at the moment, so I haven't made further changes. At the moment I don't think your suggestion at Elaeis is ready to put into place, it deletes too much. There is also the matter of moving/copying material to the renamed Social and Environmental impacts page from other pages that discuss the social impacts. When a page points to another page as the "main article" on the subject, I'd like to see the bulk of citations on the target page, so that will require careful re-working, and that gets into the area of removing the duplications on various pages, so it becomes difficult to subdivide the project into manageable tasks ... it's a bit overwhelming. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sminthopsis84, thank you for revisiting the Elaeis and Palm kernel oil articles over the weekend. I have left you messages on both talk pages, here and here. This way we can keep the discussion in one place in case other editors want to contribute. YellowOwl (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Tree

Great to see somebody else doing some work on Tree. Give me a shout if you would welcome help. I have a rather jaundiced view of the article because of some past editors behaviour but would be happy to work cooperatively in a more benign environment.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I saw the discussion on the talk page. This is a case where I think that the extreme slowness that comes quite naturally to me might be helpful, in effect waiting to see if there's a backlash before proceeding. I certainly hope that the page can be brought up to a standard where that leading template can be removed! (Can't resist saying here what I almost wrote on the talk page: surely flowery language is appropriate on a page about trees.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks, Sminthopsis84, for all you do on Wikipedia, especially keeping my personal pages free of vandalism. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome! I have quite a good idea of the feeling of relief that comes when someone else clears vandalism from my personal pages. And thanks to you for fighting that vandal and others, amongst the many contributions that you make to Wikipedia. Best wishes, Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

<grin> Snap!

That tepals/petals correction (including the link to tepal) — you beat me to it by seconds! :-) JonRichfield (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Can't remember where we had that confusion happen before, fairly recently, I think. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hedera canariensis

Hello, and many thanks for the heads-up. I had not been following these articles sufficiently to notice that history, but consider myself warned. Beats me what kind of satisfaction these people gain from their behaviour. All the best.Plantsurfer (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Phyllotaxis in Architecture

Hi, I do hope you aren't discouraged about this or any other topic - I'm not entirely clear why you might feel so. The article that was deleted was not of the best, too narrow for its sources, or to put it another way, the sources cover a broad and rich area but the article was mainly an essay on one aspect, and on one person's work in that aspect to boot. Not really a reason to feel down, I suggest. If you're interested, we could collaborate on a new article? all the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I had only briefly glanced at the article some time ago, hadn't seen that there was a deletion discussion, and then came back to find what looked like evidence that I had goofed, spent the night wondering how I could have made such a mistake. This has happened at the same time that I'm working to correct a lot of deletions in the simple English wikipedia that seem to be based on the pages having been copied from here without sufficient simplification, which I consider to be a very harsh reaction to somebody doing their best to make information available to people who find English difficult. Don't think I have time to start building another page just now, but if you make a start please let me know and I'll add it to my watch list and might come up with suggestions. Best wishes, Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Aconitum Edit

You must be mistaken with respect to my edit. I did include an edit summary, which was simply that I fixed a missing space between two words. I didn't delete any content; perhaps that was one of the other editors of have made changes in the time since. 209.6.31.68 (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I caught the problem almost immediately, will apologize also on your talk page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar for you

		The Original Barnstar
		For the repetitive task of editing of Hindu temples in Bangladesh, I award you this barnstar Sidsahu (talk • contributions) sids (talk) 06:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

the Rajshahi mangoes were virtually sweet. regards

• sids (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

"reduced weaseling"

I like that phrase. I'll probably use it myself. Maproom (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Uh, oh, turning nouns into verbs is contagious! Be warned, I've been told that it is an aspect of English that makes it an abominable language. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The Plant List and obscure Accepted names

I've noticed a real problem with obscure names being flagged as Accepted in TPL, although Laurocerasus caroliniana is the first case I've seen where a Tropicos derived record is being treated this way.

The worst culprit contributing to TPL is TICA (Global Compositae Checklist), to the point where I wouldn't trust TPL for filling out the species in any Asteraceae genera; I even found an instance where TPL has two synonymous combinations both flagged as accepted (Anthemis/Cota tinctoria, although TICA itself is consistent in this case). TICA seems to use "Accepted" as the default status in the absence of any explicit statements of synonymy. Names which are so obscure that explicit synonymizations haven't been published (or at least, published synonymizations haven't made it into any of the major databases as references) are being called Accepted rather than Unresolved. Of course, some of these names may indeed be good species, but the obscurity is still an issue; I'd hesistate to classify something as Accepted if there are few references in the literature besides the original description.

Tropicos doesn't call anything Accepted or a Synonym without a referenced explicit statement to that effect. Although Prunus caroliniana and Laurocerasus caroliniana are clearly a pair of synonymous names, the Tropicos record for Lauro-cerasus caroliniana doesn't note any synonyms. TPL usually treats (as it should) Tropicos records without references to synonyms or accepted usage as Unresolved. In this case, the hyphen complicates the matter. Tropicos doesn't have any records for Laurocerasus, only Lauro-cerasus. TPL shouldn't be attributing the unhyphenated name to Tropicos, and it appears that in doing so, TPL fell into the same trap going on with composites attributed to TICA; a name was listed as accepted solely because explicit synonymization was missing (and by dropping the hyphen used in Tropicos, the name somehow escaped the default Unresolved condition for Tropicos names).

I suspect some of the problems with TICA may go back to Tropicos itself. There's a surprising amount of overlap between TPL's accepted names in e.g. Anthemis (attributed to TICA), and Anthemis records in Tropicos that lack publication details, or even authorship (for many of these, the only reference Tropicos cites is for a chromosome count). TICA itself draws heavily from "Govaerts World Compositae Checklist", and I suspect Govaerts may have pulled data from Tropicos, tracked down missing authorship, and then flagged all names not explicitly synonymized as accepted. They may well be good species, but the references to that effect just aren't there.

TLDR: TPL is erroneously flagging some names as Accepted rather than Unresolved, when the source databases don't actually support that position.Plantdrew (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Butting in as an aside (apologies, Sminthopsis84) but this sheds some light on this revert that I made recently. I thought it was just creative vandalism! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Goodness gracious, what a tangle. Yes, I've seen similar things happen in Rosaceae, where data that was too difficult to resolve resulted in a name being marked as "accepted". It is also a pity that IUCN hasn't caught up with synonymized names, so that quite a lot of "species" that haven't been seen under that name since the original collection are marked as critically endangered but are actually synonyms of something better known. What we are doing is, I'm convinced, also feeding back in various ways, not just to EOL that deliberately loaded data from wikipedia, but to scientists who check wikipedia even while not trusting it, hoping for hints that might illuminate something. There are discrepancies also between IPNI and Tropicos, though perhaps not many, and perhaps in the process of being resolved. It sounds as if TPL might perhaps be able to correct their software at some point and re-load ... Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Macondo (disambiguation)

Hello Sminthopsis84,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Macondo (disambiguation) for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, MJH (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

List of Agave species

Sorry to have over-written your work on "A" but I thought it was better to start with a base list which is up to date. I have a way of extracting from the WCSP checklists in more-or-less the right format for Wikipedia. I put back all the common names, but they're not referenced, and I'm not sure about the value of the Spanish ones. There are some accepted hybrids not yet added. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

heyy let me edit this topic please,this is an assignment for us.After a week then you can edit.I wont edit anymore.thank you

Noshin tasnia (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

i hope you can understand my problem ,i am a new writer in wikipedia,i have never written any article but it is a assignment so i wrote this.After a week u can change.I wont bother you anymore.Thank you :)

Noshin tasnia (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem!

Hello! I received your apology on my page. Don't worry about it. I make very minor spelling, grammar, and stylistic edits that don't affect content, which I leave to those with more time and expertise. But my dear mother is an editor, so there are a few linguistic pet peeves I do seek to correct.

I'm glad I didn't offend the sensibilities of more seasoned editors. Thanks for the message and Happy Holidays! 209.6.31.68 (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Dhamrai Jagannath Roth

Since article is expanded 5x , clean up language, try to add a few more references and post the article in DYK for a chance to feature it on the main page of wikipedia.Happy holidays Sidsahu (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be more material that could be added, but not sufficiently reliable references, for example this blog and a much-repeated statement that Jagannath is locally known as Madhab Thakur. That would seem to require considerable library work. It would be good also to get a good citation that, unlike at Puri, all the deities were housed in the one chariot, which was taken out once a year, and where it used to go (across a muddy field). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Tortoiseshell cat

Hi! I'm the instigator of the problem of the citation regarding tortitude you were so kind to comment on earlier today. Talk:Tortoiseshell cat. If you wouldn't mind taking a look at what I've added to the discussion, it'd be awesome. I try to be a dutiful editor and couldn't rest until I tracked down why I had cited the way I did....now my cat is begging for her overdue dinner. Thanks and all the best Fylbecatulous talk 23:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by and commenting further. It's nice you found this; I would have been crushed to have received a scolding over my misguided attribution. Fylbecatulous talk 15:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Tracking these things down seems to be a never-ending task, with more loose ends emerging when the job seems to be done. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Botanist input

I could use some expert attention on WP:Manual of Style/Organisms, a draft proposal. I've been working on it off and on for about four years, but have run up against the limits of my own knowledge of the codes as they are applied in real life. PS: I'm also a cats editor, so we might have things in that area to talk about some time, too. :-) — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 19:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Changes for Social and environmental impact of palm oil

Hi Sminthopsis84, it has been a while since I last contacted you, having been busy elsewhere, and I wonder if you are still interested in the palm oil articles. If so, I have now returned to the Social and environmental impact of palm oil article and have put forward two changes there, adding information and supporting references, and suggesting the replacement of out of date information. Please let me know if you have any questions and thanks in advance for your consideration of these revisions. YellowOwl (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sminthopsis84, thank you for your help with the request on the Social and environmental impact of palm oil article. I have left a new request on the talk page there. If you have time I would appreciate your input again. Thanks. YellowOwl (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Blood donation in Bangladesh

Orlady (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Your Peony edit

Hello! I was just wondering if you had some sources before I had to revert your recent edit at Peony regarding flower size & winter die back. Itoh's have a larger flower size per all the sources really. It would be silly to point to an isolated herbaceous that could fit in that larger size range and so not explain to our readers what all the sources say about the group as a whole. Also your idea on winter die back, I would love to explain it in our article if there are some reliable sources. I know it is very common for sources to say that they die back in winter, so you would need a very-well-explained source to overcome what is commonly published. I just wanted to give you a chance to respond before I restored that sentence. Thanks! --Tom Hulse (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Any book that describes popular cultivars would have this information, such as Allan Rogers' book.

Huge flowers have been developed in both tree and herbaceous cultivars as attested for example here, or in any collection with the herbaceous cultivars of the classic type that were developed to use as cut flowers, such as 'Sarah Bernhardt', which has flowers up to 9 inches across.

Using the terms intersectional and Itoh interchangeably (some might beg to restrict the term Itoh to a subset), there are cultivars with more-or-less tree-peony habit like 'Souvenir du Professeur Maxime Cornu' (name simplified now to 'Maxime Cornu'), and those that die to the ground each year like 'Bartzella'. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually Alan Roger's book doesn't say anything like that at all. He barely mentions intersectionals. The other link you provided is just pictures without reference to size; they could be huge or puny, so it doesn't attest to anything. I grow 'Sarah Bernhardt', and 9 inches is not at all representative of that cultivar; also, that cultivar's size is not representative of the group of herbaceous peonies as a whole that the article discusses. 'Maxime Cornu' is actually not an intersectional, but a pure tree peony, with both parents (lutea x suffruticosa) in Paeonia sect. moutan. The references on both points you reverted are really are overwhelming, so it has to go back in, but I'll try to add a qualifier, something like "generally". --Tom Hulse (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, mea culpa. See here for a statement of up to 9 inches for 'Sarah Bernhardt', which would surely be variable in different growth conditions. I'm travelling so can't check the book. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm working a major revision to that article in my sandbox at User:Tom Hulse/draft Peony, trying to get it a little more in line with the wp:plants temlate. I'm in the middle of working on "Taxonomy" right now. Feel free to comment, criticize, or even edit it yourself if you wish. --Tom Hulse (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK

It was User:Northamerica1000 who nominated that article of yours for WP:Did you know?. When you work on other articles that appear to qualify (new enough, long enough, etc.), you may want to nominate them yourself! --Orlady (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know those articles had to be new (etc.). There's enough for me to do in other areas, so I hadn't considered getting involved in the DYK process. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Clinogyne

   Thanks for your creation of Clinogyne. It was eligible for the {{Disambig-cleanup}} tag that it got -- but would have been better served by just deleting the {{Dab}} tag!
   I may have gotten some bio-terminology wrong (and hope you will check my work); i was focused on WP:MoS issues, of which i'll point out these:

1. The body of a Dab is (per WP:MoSDab) structured as a list (of noun phrases); list entries that are less than sentences don't get periods at their ends.
2. The phrase following "is" in the lead of a WP article, or Dab, should almost always describe the topic of the article (the topic's name being also the title ... unless the title ends with a disambiguating term enclosed in parentheses); that phrase should only begin "the name of ... " or "a word ..." when the article is solely about the name or word per se (how used, its etymology, etc.), i.e. not about the thing (whether concrete or abstract) that the name or word refers to. (Fuck and nigger are the examples i can usually recall, where the word is the topic, and where "refers to" and "is a word" (or "... noun"), respectively, are therefore appropriate wordings.)
   

   I may not have expressed all that clearly, and i'd be glad to take another try if you would like.
--Jerzy•t 07:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand this at all, or the reason for including offensive words on my talk page. I regret that Marantochloa has been deleted; it is probably the most important genus that has received various species that were formerly placed in Clinogyne. Whatever, ... it seems as if WP:MoS is getting seriously in the way of conveying information through wikipedia, so I should probably just give up trying. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

   To Whom It May Concern: (For the record -- since others than we two may read this dialogue -- the article Marantochloa has never been deleted from en: WP. I did remove from the accompanying article an entry including a link to the Marantochloa article, in cleaning up the supposed Dab Clinogyne and converting it to an article with the same title, and i failed to create a corresponding entry; i have now added such an entry, with a similar link.)
--Jerzy•t 10:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

   Sminth..., thanks for speaking up about that genus; its omission on this page was a regrettable clerical error on my part, and i hope you'll find my subsequent correction of it suitable.
   Two probably indispensible aspects of WP are Linus's Law, and the mistakes that get created by some of those many eyeballs; i think there's general agreement that the light wins out over the darkness in the long run.
   It seems i offended you; i did not intend to, and you have my apology for doing so. What i had hoped was that a couple concrete examples of the exception would be simpler than evoking use–mention distinction; i might better have said

Dictionaries and encyclopedias identify each of their entries and articles with a word or phrase. A dictionary entry describes the meaning of that word or phrase; with few exceptions (which add little clarity) an encyclopedia article describes in substantial detail whatever thing that word or phrase identifies. So in an encyclopedia article, write about the thing, and trust the reader to understand the convention that the title of article is (obviously, and presumably uninterestingly) a word (or name) for the thing the article describes.

   As to the Manual of Style, i haven't researched how long we got along without one, but virtually all our decade's growth has taken place under its evolving guidance. Editors' contributions are welcomed even if they are unaware of it or choose to ignore it, and i think errors like my dropping a genus are only an occasional result of efforts to bring contribs into compliance with it.
   My attitude toward it is

1. It's probably valuable and Mostly Harmless;
2. If it is as harmful as you suspect, sooner or later someone will install the free Mediawiki software on another site, and populate it by copying the free articles but replacing WP:MoS with

We write in English, so if you can't make yourself understood in English, someone will probably rewrite or discard your contribution, depending on which feels more efficient to them.
You probably can't add anything to this page that will improve it.

And if you're right, WP will wither away and the new site will take over its role.

   If it's worth your effort to be more specific about "I don't understand this at all", that may make it practical for me to clarify more directly.
   And perhaps it's most important that i say that i hoped my comments would be helpful to you, but you should not feel obliged to make the effort to draw anything from them. You seem to be a good-faith contributor, and i'd like to encourage you to continue, whether or not you can make my responses useful to you.
--Jerzy•t 10:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that further explanation certainly helps. It is good to see the Marantochloa link restored; it had seemed to me that the reason for its removal probably had something to do with its target being a group rather than a single species as the targets of the other links are. Clinogyne is now fine, in my opinion. Best wishes Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

   Great, & thank you for taking it all the right way when i obviously didn't succeed in making that easy. There are many better communicators than i around here, but please feel welcome to discuss the many issues we all run into occasionally, if for whatever reason i occasionally strike you as worth consulting.
--Jerzy•t 06:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Edits to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organisms

Hi, I initially reverted your latest edits because the template was broken and I couldn't immediately see where.

However there are some issues.

• "Capitalize scientific names (botany: epithets) above the species level" Well, there aren't epithets above the species level (are there?). I think that "Capitalize scientific names above the rank of species" is correct and clear.

• Is there a term "supragenus"? Yes, do a Google search and you'll find zoological uses. However, I was (probably) wrong that it should be italicized, because the ICZN says at 35.1: "Definition. The family group encompasses all nominal taxa at the ranks of superfamily, family, subfamily, tribe, subtribe, and any other rank below superfamily and above genus that may be desired" (my emphasis).

So I'll try again to get this right! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, I typed a closing parenthesis instead of a closing brace.

• Subdivisions of genera have epithets (e.g., Article 21). Strictly speaking, you are correct, but I think it is possible for someone to think that a connecting term such as "section" has to be capitalized.

Sigh... Why do I try to write about the nomenclature codes? You're right, of course, subgenera, sections, etc. are named using capitalized epithets attached to genus names with a connecting term. But how to say this clearly in the opening? I give up! Peter coxhead (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• I did try to find zoological uses of the term supragenus with a google search with supragenus -formula. There are some that involve database coding that I don't trust because database programmers are often not skilled in nomenclature. There were just a few other uses that I'd be inclined to dismiss as possible misuses, for example "There were described in the results general characteristic for genera and supragenera taxa (subclass, order, suborder, superfamily, family, subfamily), ...". I also tried to find it in the zoological code, and couldn't. Perhaps zoologists use the term "supergenus", since they use "superfamily"; they do list "suprageneric" in the glossary with the same sense as in botany, so if they talk about a supragenus rank between genus and family, it could be quite confusing. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I found a few sources that do use "supragenus" as a taxon name (e.g. [1]). However, this usage, like "supergenus", seems to be rare and can safely be ignored. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is very difficult to describe this simple orthographic matter in simple language! A set of examples should work, but that can't be in the summary. Actually, I think that the current wording of the summary isn't bad; it's not a thorough exposition but could be adequate.

I agree that although some people are using "supragenus" in that way, that we should be able to ignore it just as we ought to be able to ignore some other neologisms. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

PHYLLOTAXY TOWERs

What's the difference between this and this? both of them are on the same website but the second one is deleting by you on Phyllotaxis page!!!--Saleh Masoumi (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. If you think the above statement is true, please point to the change in question. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

If it is possible, Please add the PHYLLOTAXY TOWERs to the case studies at phyllotaxis talk page. tanx.--Saleh Masoumi (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You could add to the talk page yourself. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Sminthopsis84, I cannot, because Mr. Salix remove it permanently. Check two last paragraph here please.--Saleh Masoumi (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think that you must be talking about the page that was deleted by user:Salix. I will ask them to place a copy of the deleted material into your user space. Because I am not an administrator, I can't see this material myself. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Tanx alot, I'm just trying to put one of this, this, this or this links as a case study on this page, but unfortunately he won't let me.--Saleh Masoumi (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Salix alba is saying that this material belongs on a page that should be called Biomimetic architecture, not at Phyllotaxis. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Sminthopsis84, I completely understand what you mean, but what is the difference between this and this? the first one is on talk page but the second one is deleting permanently by Salix. I'm completely confused.--Saleh Masoumi (talk) 09:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm completely confused too, I don't know what you mean by that page being permanently deleted. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I just try to put a link as a case study on this talk page, but Mr. Salix wont let me to do so.--Saleh Masoumi (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

New text for Sustainability in Social and environmental impact of palm oil

Hi Sminthopsis84, the request I mentioned in my earlier message was taken care of by another editor, however I just posted a new revision I would appreciate your help on if you have time to give. I have revised the Sustainability section of the article and that request is here. I'll also be leaving a note with Sepilok2007, I have appreciated your input on these revisions, though I don't want to take up too much of your time. Thanks in advance. YellowOwl (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you made some changes to the final paragraph in the Social and environmental impact of palm oil article. I appreciate your efforts to improve this section and I think that your work is a step in the right direction, but I still think that "Persuading users" and now "Persuading governments" could be clearer. Now that you've taken a closer look at this section, do you have any thoughts regarding my suggestion revision? Would you be able to make these changes? Thanks. YellowOwl (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I'm thinking about it when internet access is possible (which is rarely, just at present). I was looking for a citation that could replace the one that uses "nadir" to mean "foundation", but it seems in other ways to be quite a good article, and I haven't found a replacement. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Sminthopsis. I agree that the use of the word "nadir" in the article is unusual, however I believe the article is saying that at a minimum RSPO and ISPO have established a set of principles and criteria for defining sustainable palm oil production.

Please let me know if you have any questions about anything else in the draft. Since you say your online time is limited lately, I'll be posting a request on the WikiProject Cooperation/Paid Editor Help page to see if another editor has the time to help also. Thanks. YellowOwl (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Sminthopsis. Thank you for hard work on the Sustainability section. I have just posted my two final requests for this article. Both of these are much shorter and simpler than the previous requests. The first is a request to add a sentence to the Greenhouse gas emissions section and the second is a revision of the Biodiesel section. I've appreciated all of your help thus far and would like to hear your thoughts on these revisions, but I don't want to monopolize your time. Please take a look if you have time. Again, thanks for your help. YellowOwl (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Persuading governments correction

Hi Sminthopsis84. The final request I posted on the Social and environmental talk page has been taken care of by another editor, but I wanted to contact you about an inaccuracy in the Persuading governments section you worked on recently. The section mentions The Nature Conservancy as a proponent of protectionist legislation, however according to this article the organization has expressed criticism of such tactics. While the Time magazine reference used in the section mentions The Nature Conservancy and the report on deforestation in the same paragraph, the organization was not involved in producing the report and has criticized the type of arguments for protectionism that the report makes. Would you be able to correct this detail in the article? I will also ask on the WikiProject Cooperation/Paid Editor Help page, in case you still have limited Internet access. Thanks. YellowOwl (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

SysTax

Hello, Sminthopsis84! I think that the School section should be maintained in the template SysTax, maybe with other name (Methodologies?). In relation with the distinction of the study of biodiversity in three parts, 1. Naming and describing new species, 2. Performing evolutionary studies and 3. Doing classifications, I made it based in Brusca's Invertebrates, after Mayr sayings. Even if Mayr himself has said that it is a gross simplification, and that these three stages overlap and cycle back themselves, I think it is a good and explicative way to see systematics/taxonomy. So, I think it's better mantain Naming and describing new species section too (with other name? Documenting biological diversity?). Moreover, as the definitions of taxonomy an systematics vary (some consider it synonyms; other consider taxonomy being just parts 1 and/or 3, and systematics being part 2; Europeans tend to use "systematics", whereas North Americans tend to use "taxonomy"; etc...), this artificial distinction is perhaps a conciliatory view on this subject. You may have more knowledge on this, so, what's your opinion? Zorahia (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Zorahia (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to see more contributors discussing this matter, and that will probably happen in time as people notice the changes that you have made to the pages where you have inserted the navbox. My opinion is that this arrangement is simplistic and out of date. As just one example, it is no longer considered appropriate to name and describe new species before the evolutionary studies and the systematics that underlies classifications have been done. Naming and describing new species is part of making classifications ("doing classifications" is not good English). My opinion is that this is a subject that needs clear, deep, correct, philosophical discussion, which can only come from contributors who have studied the subject in considerable depth. There are many books on this subject, and they are difficult to read because it is inherently a difficult subject, for example:

• Ghiselin, Michael T. 1997. Metaphysics and the Origin of Species. State University of New York Press
• Zakharov, Boris. 2013. Nomosystematics – A closer look at the theoretical foundation of biological classification. SIRI Scientific Press. isbn:978-0-9574530-0-5

However, much of the discussion goes on in journals rather than books, and if you have access to a university library, I would recommend that you read very large amounts of material from such journals as:

• Systematic Biology
• Systematic Botany
• Taxon

Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sminthopsis84, I spect the same (I'm lazy to study this matter...). Well, I think that describing new species and making classifications (after evolutionary studies) are distinct things, althoug the description and the initial classification are usually published together. Moreover, the order of the steps are not too strict (Mayr: it is a gross simplification, and these three stages overlap and cycle back themselves). I'd like to propose this provisory template (while we wait more discussions):

Can I put our comments on the template talk page? Thanks Zorahia (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if you want to copy this discussion to the template talk page, please go ahead. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Chloroplast

Hi, would you be interested in helping me improve Chloroplast? It's a very important article in need of attention, and you're the only other person who's made a non-vandalism reverting edit to that article in months. I've outlined a large list of tasks on its talk page.—Kelvinsong (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kelvin, I've been impressed by your changes in the past, and because I'll have little internet access for about another week, I haven't been looking in detail at what you've been doing, intending to look further when I get back to home base. It is indeed an important page, and before you started these major additions is was in a sad state. See you in a week or two. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

on Terrestrial Plant

Thanks, Sminthopsis, but it is not so much forbearance as exasperation. We already have a perfectly good article on land plants (Embryophyte) and this one has been hijacked by aquatics. There is nothing worth saving in Terrestrial plant. I think it should be closed out and redirected to Embryophyte. Plantsurfer (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure, there are aquatic embryophytes ... Apparently, orchid growers do distinguish terrestrial from epiphytic, in line with some of the waffle on that page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there very definitely are aquatic embryophytes but they are the exception rather than the rule and the article gives them undue weight. Terrestrial plants are land plants == Embryophytes. Embryophytic epiphytes are land plants by definition, but Charophytes are not. They are neither terrestrial or embryophytes. Plantsurfer (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the page is dreadful, but I don't think that redirecting it to Embryophyte will be accepted here because there are so many amateur horticulturists in wikipedia with a different agenda. I've added some general indications of its deficiencies to the page, including a hatnote to distinguish it from land plants. (btw, there are some semi-terrestrial Charophytes.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atriplex, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sarcobatus (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) 11:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Greasewood revert

Hi, I saw your revert at Greasewood. Confusion over terminology for plant sexual morphology seems widespread! Unisexual need some editing as it says that in plants it is the same as dioecious. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, that was distasteful. See if you think the change I made is okay (the brain tends to feel a bit battered after wrestling with that sort of thing). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the article is at least correct now. I personally agree that the plant-related bits should be merged with Plant sexual morphology, which also needs attention – both correctness and comprehensibility to non-specialists. I see you had a go at it, but it still says "Monoecious (meaning "one house" in Greek) plants have separate male and female flowers on the same plant." (I'll correct this.) None of the glossaries or plant morphology books I have use "moneocious" in this way (i.e. only for unisexual flowers), but I'm wondering if there are some sources that do, because this error was in the Unisexual article as well. I've now discovered that sources vary in their use of the term "monoecious": some use it in a broad sense as per its literal meaning, i.e. both sexes in the same household, so use it for all bisexual flowers and unisexual flowers on the same plant; others use it as Plant sexual morphology originally did, i.e. only for unisexual flowers. I've tried to rewrite the article to accommodate both uses and never be ambiguous between them, but it's not easy! Do have a look if you have time. I also think that the use of sexual terms for sporophytes needs to be explained first, which I've tried. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Very good points. Getting this right may take quite some time, and working together seems to be an excellent way to check for correctness, if we both have sufficient stamina. Plant sexual morphology is rather a mess, not needing to be shorter, but needing to be less confusing while covering all the possibilities. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Another page that needs serious work is dioecy. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to merge it into a page on plant reproductive morphology. This is one of those cases of writing pages to fit titles and not vice versa. It produces articles like Monophyly, Paraphyly and Polyphyly, when each term doesn't make sense without the others, and inconsistent treatment and information accumulates on the separate pages. If there's a page on Dioecy there should be one on Monoecy, but why? These are just terms used in describing the reproductive morphology of sporophytes. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, those sorts pages don't sit well on their own, but dioecy is used in zoology quite a bit as well. I'll think about looking at wiktionary a bit more to see if that suggests a clean way to deal with any of this material (wiktionary seems to be quite deficient in terms related to non-angiosperm land plants, and even worse for fungi, algae, etc.). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

A radical proposal could be to try to move all the -gamy terms to plant reproduction and to briefly list them on the plant sexual morphology page as sometimes used to refer to the morphology. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Radical but sensible. The Plant sexual morphology article actually explains very little about morphology, it's really a kind of extended (and very confused) glossary, complete with duplicate entries. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Glad you agree, that provides a beacon. I think that dealing with it will have to be done in stages. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Re "monoecious". Not being a professional botanist, I've mainly used one or two books on plant morphology. It happens that they and Beentje's glossary use "monoecious" in the inclusive sense, basically defining it as "both 'sexes' being found on the same plant", which thus includes bisexual as well as unisexual flowers. I'm now convinced that this is actually the minority usage, so I need to backtrack a bit on some of my edits. I have to say that botanical terminology is very confused/confusing, with key terms used very differently. (I keep returning to a remark by Bateman and DiMichele in a 1994 paper: "the alternation of generations has become a terminological morass; often, one term represents several concepts or one concept is represented by several terms." This seems to be true of plant reproductive morphology in general!) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, terminological morasses arise all the time, and I think they are inevitable, and I'd be very worried about people who try to clean them up with drastic measures, unless they are people who've spent most of a lifetime on a smallish terminological question and who have documents to prove that they suffer from no mental illnesses (impossible to obtain, of course, after a lifetime of such activity). I've seen people claim that the only thing that can ever be called a "model" is a statistical model, and others who say that "the metapopulation models don't apply to plants" making other people angry who know very well that plants exist as metapopulations. There's an issue that I find rather interesting with the terms apomixis and parthenogenesis, which clearly arose because the original definition was read by people who had different mind sets; nowadays we can say that in plants parthenogenesis is a component of apomixis, but in animals apomixis is a type of parthenogenesis. I don't think that those sorts of problems can be prevented. On the other hand, wikipedia could have a very important role by publicizing good definitions rather than the "everything should be called greasewoodSchtroumpf" kind of definitions.

I agree that the broad use of monoecious seems to be a minority, but if it has got into major dictionaries as it has, then we need to consider it here. I rather like Hickey & King's distinction in the entry for "unisexual": "the male and female flowers may be on separate plants (dioicism) or on the same individual (monoicism)" (of course, they are dealing only with vascular plants). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

New request on Palm oil

Hi Sminthopsis, I was wondering if you might have time to review my most recent request on the Palm oil talk page, this time to address the Social and Environmental sections of the article. Both of these sections need cleanup to remove dead links and unsupported information and rewriting to make sure they serve as a good overview of the Social and environmental impact of palm oil article to which they redirect. If you are too busy, or no longer interested in reviewing palm oil requests, let me know and I will look for other editors. Also, if you know of anyone who might be interested in helping improve this page, please let me know. I would appreciate any help. Thanks in advance. YellowOwl (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Edits on polygamy page

Hello, I deleted the currently non-polygamous countries from the list of polygamous countries (although the official heading is polygamy by country) but my edit was reverted because I did not give reasons for the edit. I think it is misleading to include only Asian countries' history of polygamy... Just being honest. Why include them in the list if they are no longer polygamous? To be fair, all countries which had a history of polygamy should be included in the list (probably almost all countries) instead of just Asian countries, or all countries that are no longer polygamous should be deleted from the list. Did you know Charlemagne had multiple wives and concubines and Henry VIII executed 2 of his 6 wives? I would add that information under the section except I don't know how to cite on Wikipedia and I know Wikipedia deletes stuff if I don't cite. Could you add that information for me? 96.51.214.221 (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Honestly

Plant reproductive morphology

I've now moved the page.

The bulk of the material there now is really, as I've said before, a kind of extended glossary, but confused because of an attempt to separate individual plants from populations, when many terms apply to both even though some do not.

One idea I had was to replace this stuff by an explicit glossary – see the draft at User:Peter_coxhead/Work_page#Glossary_for_plant_reproductive_terminology, and then work on some sensible text.

What do you think? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Real progress. I like your idea of an explicit glossary clearly labelled as such. One thing I'm uneasy about from the original text, and I see that it has crept into your text is the term "reproductive unit", which to me could be used in several ways, for example to describe a propagule, or in the phrase "a group of flowers combined in a single reproductive unit" as applied to some inflorescences, so that it grates to say that a flower≡a reproductive unit. I've made three edits on the page today, so should stop to wait for responses. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't like the term either; I was just copying the old page. But this is where I have a problem with a broad page covering all plants. The definitions in most sources actually only apply to angiosperms. If EncyloPetey were still around, he'd quickly point out that "dioecious/monoecious" should only be applied to sporophytes with "dioicous/monoicous" used for gametophytes, so the definition should definitely not say "reproductive unit" which could also be the structures like those bearing antherida in this image File:Antheridia polytrichum.jpg of Polytrichum juniperinum. But if this glossary is rewritten for angiosperms (perhaps including conifers but not other gymnosperms) what happens to the rest of the article? What do you think? I'm not sure how to proceed at all. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

A couple of trip hazards are here: (1) I've often heard botanists refer to those moss structures as flowers, but more-or-less in jest; (2) there may be typos around, e.g., if you look at the definition in Hickey & King for "unisexual", it says "The male and female flowers may be on separate plants (dioicism) or on the same individual (monoecism)." where I think "dioicism" is a typo for "dioecism". (3) I think we shouldn't call on EncyclPetey, but allow him to rest. What do you think of trying to get it right for Angiosperms first, with other material left in a backwater for the moment? I've taken off the template about trying to recruit an expert, but we could (if energetic enough) consider putting an "under construction" template on the page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

1. Yes, I used P. juniperinum as an example deliberately. E.V. Watson (1981) British Mosses and Liverworts, p. 151: "Male plants ... with their olive green or reddish 'inflorescences' of flower-like aspect". This is, for me, a key problem. Experts can use words like "inflorescence", "flower", "male", "female", "sexual", etc., with or without scare quotes, knowing the true meaning. But I don't personally like writing this way in Wikipedia with its general audience. I really want to write "'unisexual' flowers have either 'female' or 'male' parts". Sigh...
2. I never did entirely agree with EncycloPetey, who wanted to teach the distinction between the "-oecious" and "-oicous" spellings. Lots of sources use one spelling (usually but not always "-oecious") for both gametophytes and sporophytes, although he was right that more recently bryologists, particularly in the US, have tended to make the distinction.
3. Yes, I agree that the best way forward is to get it right for angiosperms. Gymnosperms could be considered as "deviations" from this pattern. But "pteridophytes" and "bryophytes" need their own sections, I think.

Peter coxhead (talk) 09:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I've now been bold, and started reorganizing the article. I see the section on angiosperms as having three main subsections: basic flower morphology; variations, by timing and within populations; glossary of terminology. Feel free to edit! Describing angiosperm morphology is a minefield of both complexity and inconsistent terminology. As a nonprofessional I think it's easier for me to make it reasonably comprehensible, but it's also very easy for me to get it wrong. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I've started to distinguish the morphological, developmental, and genetic mechanisms that promote outcrossing, in the hope that the last two categories can be largely excluded from that page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I've done some more reorganizing; I think the structure is about right. More copy-editing, sorting of refs, section names, etc. is needed. I won't be able to work on this as much for the next few days. As ever, I'd be grateful if you could check that the botany is correct! Peter coxhead (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting edit re the angiosperm gametophyte not consisting of just nuclei; it shows the importance of having someone who really knows about this stuff checking on my edits, because old sources clearly didn't know about the membranes. It would be good to add this information, with a source, to some other plant article(s). Peter coxhead (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

What's at Double fertilization isn't bad, though it gives the impression that seeing the multiple membranes was easy once electron microscopes were available, though I've heard that this was an unsolved question that several groups were working on for some time. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Tepals

It was Neil Treseder, who stated that Johnstone coined the term "tepals" (Treseder, N. (1978). Magnolias: p. 18). When you denied that, I got curious and checked William T. Stearn's Botanical Latin. There I indeed found that the term was already used by A.P. de Candolle in 1827 in Organographie végétale 1: 503. I guess I did the same as Treseder: being too happy to find an answer to the question in stead of the answer. Cheers. Wikiklaas (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that's interesting, I had assumed that only wikipedia would create such strange statements. I hadn't thought to check Stearn's excellent reference, because I had a vague memory that someone had said that the term came from German, but it isn't indexed in Goebel's Organography of plants (1905), so if you had challenged me I would have had to go with a 1920 citation that I'd found with google scholar. Perhaps De Candolle's definition should be put on the tepal page; the original document is available in French, in BHL and the 1841 English translation, volume 2, has it in the middle of page 90. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind reply. Yes, I know my way in BHL. And there's no need to leave a "talkback message" on my talk page. If I leave a comment on someone else's talk page, I don't forget to add it to my watch list. I've no trouble reading French, so I don't need to see a translation of De Candolle's Organographie. According to Stearn, the word "tepal" was just an anagram of petal. I did not yet check De Candolle's work but it would be interesting if it is confirmed there. Kind regards, Wikiklaas (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I read De Candolle's text. Het writes "en suivant l'analogie des termes de pétales et sépales, je propose de donner aux pièces dont le périgone est formé, le nom de tépales." It's interesting to read that De Candolle reserved this term for the Monocotyledones at first, because in the case of the Dicotyledones, he thought flowers with only one type of perianth parts had either lost their corolla or their calyx. Anyway, it was Augustin Pyramus de Candolle who proposed the term "tepal" (tepalum), although he failed to notice these parts were in fact undifferentiated and therefore primitive; he rather thought of them as being a hybrid form of petals and sepals; the outer side often green and more resembling the sepals, with organs such as stomata, the inner side often colored and missing these organs (at least, that's what he writes). Wikiklaas (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added the citations to the Tepal page, without any mention of the anagram of petal. Perhaps he just looked for a blending of sepal and petal and didn't think it particularly notable that it happens to be an anagram of one of them. De Candolle was working so long ago that there was little information available about which characters are primitive that hasn't since been overturned by the results of total-evidence phylogenetics. Clearly, he thought about these matters, but I doubt that he could have had much confidence in being able to say much with certainty. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Great. Just the bare fact and a link to a source. I love that. Wikiklaas (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... for this: I hadn't run into WP:CULTIVAR.  davidiad { t } 23:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking it so well! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Chloroplast DNA

Thanks for cleaning up at chloroplast! About the chloroplast DNA gene map, "Segments narrower than the surrounding ones" refers to the notches in the wheel. See how the circle doesn't have a constant width, the parts which are "inset" are the introns. I don't quite know how to phrase it in the article though.—Kelvinsong (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh! I think of those segments as radial lines, so to me they are "shorter". Not at all sure that that change would help, though. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

strange!

That's crazy, when I removed that little bit from the Ahmad Shah Massoud article I did so because the citation for that bit just showed a blank page for me. I went back after I saw your undo and bam, the web page loads in full. Crazyness. Anywho, cheers! — -dainomite   02:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, did you notice that in a previous edit I substituted a new url? It seems that the Congressman's IT staff had moved the page, and I found the new one using a google search for the title. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion on Palm oil

Hi again, Sminthopsis84. I am wondering if you have a moment to look at my most recent request on the Palm oil talk page. So far Ronz has responded asking for a detailed explanation of my edits to the "Blood lipid and cholesterol" which I have just added. I think a second opinion here might help this process along. I am also looking for feedback on the revision I have proposed for the "Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil" section of the Palm oil article. You might have some background knowledge that would help with this review since you were involved with the edits on the Social and environmental impact of palm oil article. Thanks in advance. YellowOwl (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Your message

Hello. I have no idea who you are or what you do (or why you felt the need to attempt to chastise me) but the following observations on your post on my talk page:

• I was not "aggressively" adding tags. If you mean I added it after it was removed without justification, then guilty as charged.
• It was not a "savage mutilation" of a page, it was a legitimate way of tagging that not all editors could understand the chart.
• I have not been "bullying PaleCloudedWhite", I have been involved in a dialogue where I have asked the editor to initiate a "checkuser" into my account since the editor in question claimed he/she "suspect[ed] to be the case". The editor in question has now decided to withhold the evidence he/she was collating and not pursue the "checkuser" but is happy to leave the accusations in place.
• You claim "this sockpuppet allegation might persuade you to leave wikipedia forever" is somewhere on my user page. Wrong. Nor is it in any page anywhere in Wikipedia. Perhaps you haven't read my comments correctly.
• You will also note, I'm sure, that the accusing editor has been asked to stop making "baseless accusations" by another editor.
• If you had read my user page or talk page correctly, you'd know that I edit mainly as an editor, so I'm not really interested in your admin/'crat concerns. I demand fairness in everything I do here, regardless of what "hats" I may wear.
• There is no need to patronise me with links to so-called humorous essays like Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you. In the eight years I've been here, I'm fully aware of that. Wikipedia also doesn't need you, as I'm sure you're fully aware.

In conclusion, I'm sure you thought you were doing the right thing with your post, but I'm afraid that you haven't. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Well it is very odd that you don't seem to see the same things on your user page that I see there. Your user page is here. It contains the following text under the heading "Sockpuppetry", which I quote in its entirety, but have taken the liberty of adding emphasis to one particular statement that was referred to above: "According to this, I'm a sockpuppeteer; although no evidence has been provided, the smear remains. It could mean I leave Wikipedia forever, but no-one seems willing to get the bottle to do anything about it. Talk is cheap folks, talk is cheap...."

Please let's not communicate in any way again. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Re Rath yatra

the references are mostly from the article Jagannath hope that helps. i am in a place now where internet is difficult to access. so i hope to help you , but cannot be as active as before Sidsahu (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Animal taxonomy

Hello Sminthopsis84, what do you think about the creation of a List of systems of animal taxonomy, like the List of systems of plant taxonomy? I think this site would serve as a good initial reference. The main classifications (that don't deal just with insects) in this site are:

• Agassiz
• Batsch
• Beklemishev
• Blanchard
• Blainville
• Brunnich
• Budd
• Butschli
• Cavalier
• Chatton
• Claus
• Cuvier
• Dana
• Dumeril
• Gegenbaur
• Goldfuss

• Hadzi
• Haeckel
• Hatschek
• Huxley
• Kluge
• Lamarck
• Lameere
• Lankester
• Latreille
• Linnaeus
• Livanov
• Malakhov
• Nielsen
• Rafinesque
• Schimkewitsch
• Siebold

Zorahia (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, that sounds interesting, but I'd have to say that I know very, very little about animal taxonomy, though I do listen to a certain amount of discussion on the subject. It sounds like a lot of work to set up the list, and I think you need to be prepared to encounter some very strong and mutually unreconcilable opinions. You should definitely post your question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Animals, which seems to be a quite active group. I can really only undertake to offer cogent comments about plant taxonomy (algae and land plants). If you end up writing material about Rafinesque, I'll be very interested to read it (the poor misunderstood guy). Best wishes, Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Zorahia (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)