Peter coxhead

Please note that if you leave a message for me here, I'll reply to it here, so put this page on your watch list.
If I left a message on your talk page, you can reply there as I'll be watching your page.
This makes it easier to follow the conversation.
Thanks!

TUSC token 4e41785016df312d7f4772b046fd919f

I now have a TUSC account!

Plant article naming convention

Hi Peter coxhead. There is a plant article naming convention request at the Help Desk. I saw your name listed at Naming_conventions_(flora) contributions and am hoping you would post your thoughts at How long does speedy deletion usually take?.[1] I asked Pmanderson on the Pmanderson talk page, but not sure if she/he will see the request. Thanks. --

tetrahedronX7

Hey thank you for editing . My friend

Lists of Salticidae species

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Salticidae species (2nd nomination). Thanks!

Mail message sent

Hello, Peter coxhead. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Photo Removal

I'm new to all this but eager to make positive contributions. I just want to thank you for all the work you do here. You've removed several of my photos recently but I see that your reasoning is sound. Soryy to make more work for you. I'll try to be more pertinent and concise in the future. Thanks!

Anomala/Exomala

Hi, Peter. Exomala was a subgenus of Anomala raised to genus rank in 1991, and sunk back into Anomala in 2003. This "class assignment" editor appears to have no comprehension as to how taxonomy works, or how to properly source things. It also does not appear that they read their User Talk page. This group of editors for this particular class at Washington University (and a similar class at Georgia Southern) have done a considerable amount of "collateral damage" in the course of their editing, and not a lot of higher-profile editors have noticed what's been happening. The amount of effort by regular editors getting the various affected articles into readable condition has been significant. Much of what's happened is the inclusion of generalized material into articles about single species such as this set of edits, and others are good information, but extremely badly formatted, and full of grammar and spelling errors, in addition often to bordering on plagiarism of sources, like this edit, but I'm waiting until these class assignments are done and then going back to remove the irrelevant material, since many of these students simply revert or re-enter bad content. The Anomala orientalis article is the only one I know of where they have broken the taxonomy, thankfully. Dyanega (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Dyanega: thanks for the explanation. It does seems sensible to wait, although it offends me to leave articles in a poor state. When Exomala orientalis is moved back, Template:Taxonomy/Exomala can be deleted. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I think Exomala is still considered a valid subgenus of Anomala, though I should probably double-check that to be certain; the 2003 revision stated that it was probably not monophyletic, but that doesn't mean that they considered the name as a synonym of the subgenus Anomala s.s. - in which case, the taxonomy template can be changed to treat Exomala as a subgenus, rather than just deleting it. Dyanega (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Peter. It looks like the Wash U course is finished; there's a ton of plagiarized, poorly-sourced, and essay-like content in the article now, but the first step is restoring it to Anomala orientalis. I'm not in a position to make the swap, however, hopefully you can get that much done, at least. There are a lot of articles that are in similar state (e.g., see what happened to Japanese beetle), this is the only one I know where the student editors moved the article. Thanks. Dyanega (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Dyanega: I've moved the article back as per your request and made some minimal copy-edits to fit. It does need a good up-to-date reference adding to establish that Anomala orientalis is the accepted name. The links to taxonomic databases in the taxonbar were very muddled between the two names; I think I've sorted them in Wikidata, but a lot do use Exomala.

The links also need attention. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

re: Undid revision 1219049277 by Plantsurfer (talk) we agreed to use PPG system for ferns, not PoWO which lumps)

Who are we in this context, and where is the topic discussed and the rule agreed? Plantsurfer 23:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

We=WikiProject Plants. PPG first came up in this thread: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/Archive68#Pteridophyte_Phylogeny_Group. That was a month before POWO launched, so "not POWO" wasn't a consideration but "not Christenhusz & Chase" was mentioned. But, as far as I am aware, POWO follows Christenhusz & Chase. Following PPG instead of POWO pre-dates POWO itself. There are some other threads if you search WikiProject Plants talk page archives for PPG (with nobody dissenting from following PPG). Plantdrew (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. The problem with PoWO following Christenhusz & Chase is that it's very strongly "lumping". See e.g. Blechnaceae and Aspleniaceae. Using PPG, or more precisely World Ferns which follows PPG with more recent updates, means that we don't end up with highly collapsed articles. It's much easier in my experience to explain in a "split" article that another source lumps, as of course we must do to maintain NPOV, than it is to explain in a "lumped" article what the split parts are in other sources when they don't have articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no mention of this stance or of PPG at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants#"Synonyms"_of_scientific_names. I suggest that this should be clearly stated there, to avoid the need for archive diving. Also there should be a clear statement that the use of the defunct Plant List is deprecated. Plantsurfer 09:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

It's mentioned at WP:WikiProject_Plants/Resources#Pteridophyte_classification. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:PLANTS/PPG now links to this (I also updated it re World Ferns). Sorry, Plantsurfer, I should have linked to this resource in my edit comment. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

No problem - thanks for the clarification. Plantsurfer 16:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Plantsurfer, Plantdrew, and Jts1882: I revised Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants#"Synonyms" of scientific names – please check. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Not form your recent changes, but is this example right?

• "Photinia arbutifolia Lindl. could be listed in the taxobox as a synonym of Heteromeles salicifolia (a heterotypic synonym, considered by the sources that Wikipedia follows to be part of the species Photinia arbutifolia)."

The sources used recognise Heteromeles salicifolia so that last Photinia arbutifolia needs changing, or am I misreading the sentence? —  Jts1882 | talk  10:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jts1882: looking at PoWO just now, it accepts Photinia arbutifolia with Heteromeles salicifolia as a hetereotypic synonym. So the whole sentence doesn't work, and if we're following PoWO, Heteromeles needs moving to Photinia arbutifolia and then the example rewriting. I commented out the example for now. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Bit of a long shot

Hi, I've been working on the Cs California CCI and I've seen you around in a lot of the same articles! This is a bit of a long shot, but I was wondering, given your interest in plants, whether you have access (or know somebody who does) the following journal articles:

• Albesiano, Sofía (2012). "A New Taxonomic Treatment of the Genus Trichocereus (Cactaceae) in Chile". Haseltonia. 18: 116–139 doi:10.2985/026.018.0114
• Boris O. Schlumpberger: New combinations in the Echinopsis alliance. In: Cactaceae Systematics Initiatives.
• VERMEULEN, JAAP J.; SCHUITEMAN, ANDRÉ; DE VOGEL, EDUARD F. (2014-04-23). "Nomenclatural changes in Bulbophyllum (Orchidaceae; Epidendroideae)". Phytotaxa. 166 (2). Magnolia Press: 101. doi:10.11646/phytotaxa.166.2.1
• Quispe, Noemí R.; Fuentes, Alfredo F. (2010-09-13). "Weberbauerocereus madidiensis (Cactaceae), una Nueva Especie del Norte de Bolivia". Novon: A Journal for Botanical Nomenclature. 20 (3). Missouri Botanical Garden Press: 325–328. doi:10.3417/2009066
• "Holotype of Weberbauerocereus madidiensis Quispe & A. Fuentes [family CACTACEAE] on JSTOR". Global Plants on JSTOR

It's a bit of a long shot, I know- no pressure if you don't have them. I just really don't want to presumptively delete an article if I don't have to. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian:, you can download the Vermeulen article here, the Quispe article here, and the JSTOR page for the Weberbauerocereus madidiensis holotype is here (the only part of that not available to the general public is a higher resolution version of the image of the specimen (and that isn't even a particularly high resolution)). I have electronic access to the Albesiano article through work and could email you a copy or answer any questions you might have about what it says. The library at work has some printed issues of Cactaceae Systematics Initiatives, but not the one with the Schlumpberger article (if we don't have it, then there are very few other places that would). Plantdrew (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, @Plantdrew, I don't know how I missed your ping! (I feel like a bit of a daisy, lol) Thank you so much for the links, and for your kind offer! If the first two don't pan out, I might take you up on it. And that's really good to know about the Schlumpberger article. Thank you for letting me know. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: many thanks for your prompt reply to GreenLipstickLesbian – I've been busy off-wiki lately. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Redlinks

Thanks for explaining about the redlinks - I'd been removing the ones I thought looked intrusive, and your note was very helpful. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Template:Taxonomy/Latua (plant)

Is there a reason for Template:Taxonomy/Latua (plant) to have a disambiguator? I'm not finding any other genera (I checked GBIF, CoL and IRMNG). Plantdrew (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: it seems not; this was obviously a mistake on my part – I'm not sure why I thought there was another genus with this name. I'll fix it tomorrow if you haven't already. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I've taken care of it. Plantdrew (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)