User talk:Rkitko/Archive15

Happy B-day

I'm assuming, based on [1], but even belated, best wishes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Haven't been editing much, so I forgot to update it at the end of March. I'm sure there's a template of some kind that would do that for me. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 19:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

APG article

You might like to look at Angiosperm Phylogeny Group, which I have basically re-written. Views welcome. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Underground rails @ Greystone

Dear Rkitko ~

What do you know about these and all the exsists underneath Greystone if any?

Sincerely, bmsf272

Nepenthes palawanensis

Yep, I've heard about this species. A really magnificent plant! It's there in the template, too (lowermost species in the fourth column). :-) By the way, have you seen this addition to the Byblis article? Do you think any of that is worth keeping? Cheers, mgiganteus1 (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this the Redfern Natural History email list? I know several species descriptions are in the works, but I haven't heard of this particular name before. Is it this species by any chance? Cheers, mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Article naming question

Hi Rkitko, I just created the article Salvia canescens and I'm a little confused about the proper naming. It seems that modern treatment of the species is all about var. daghestanica. According to the reference I used, "The Russian botanist Yo Lo Menitsky (1992) revised the treatment of this salvia...." Here are the IPNI links for this variety (which seems to say that it used to be called Salvia daghestanica),[2] and for the species.[3][4] Should the article title include the variety name also? And how should the species and binomial name look in the taxobox? Thanks! First Light (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If I'm reading everything correctly, I'd say you're right in wanting to move that article to Salvia canescens var. daghestanica if you just want it to be about the single variety, but I wouldn't leave a redirect at Salvia canescens to it, then, as that is it's own taxon. Alternatively, you could just expand the article as titled at Salvia canescens to include a description of the autonym Salvia canescens var. canescens, or at the very least how var. canescens and var. daghestanica differ if that information can be found anywhere. This is often how I treat species articles with multiple subspecific taxa that wouldn't be large enough articles on their own, e.g. Drosera erythrorhiza.

My summary of the taxonomy and events are as follows. If you agree with my analysis of the available info, feel free to copy & paste into the article.

Salvia canescens was first described in 1831 by the Russian botanist Carl Anton von Meyer. The English botanist George Bentham applied the same name to a different species, which he corrected in his 1833 volume of Labiatarum Genera et Species by applying S. canescens Benth. as a synonym of Salvia pallida. In 1992, the Russian botanist Yo Lo Menitsky reduced the species Salvia daghestanica, originally described in 1951 by Dmitrii Ivanovich Sosnowsky, to a variety of S. canescens, thus also requiring the autonym S. canescens var. canescens.

(This, then, might be a good place to described the differences between the two varieties. I often describe here the reason or opinion given by the botanist for reducing the species to variety rank, but it looks like the Russian journal where that was published would be quite hard to get a hold of. I'm still a little confused as to why IPNI lists Benth. as the species authority for Menitsky's variety, since it's clear to me that Bentham corrected his mistake in 1833. Little mistakes like this happen, though.)

Hope that helps! Rkitko ^(talk) 23:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and to answer the second part of your question, if you want to have the article be about the species while also describing the two varieties, I'd model it after something very much like Drosera erythrorhiza, but if you want to make the article only about the variety, then I'd add a few taxobox parameters and make it something like Drosera stolonifera subsp. monticola, with "var." instead of "subsp.". Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 23:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - that's a tremendous help. You read my mind in some places, and also headed off some not-yet-developed questions. I would rather see one species article, if possible, but I'm not sure if I can find any references to significant differences between the two varieties. Am I right in assuming that an old description of S. canescens, like this one (1838),[5] would be a valid description of S. canescens var. canescens? But without someone comparing the two, would it be valid to put that description in the article? Finally, would S. daghestanica be a synonym?

I've added your write-up and suggestions to the article - thank you for that, and for the education! First Light (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Happy to help anytime. You're the Salvia expert, so I trust that any references after the 1992 rank reduction of S. daghestanica that would have mentioned it wouldn't have escaped your notice. Truly, the only place to find a decent description of the differences would be in Menitsky's paper, which would have had to argue the justification of species reduction. The 1838 description is ok, but of course that description depends on the specimens they were looking at. I'm sure you could use it, but it seems a more general description of the species. The older descriptions would pre-date the discovery of var. daghestanica, right? I wouldn't include it in the article as a description of var. canescens explicitly, as both varieties likely share (most of) the listed attributes. Often, there are very few defining marks between varieties. And finally, yes, S. daghestanica would be a synonym of S. canescens var. daghestanica, actually the basionym. --Rkitko ^(talk) 02:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I was leaning toward not using that old description. You presume on my expertise too much - doing a search just now, I found one reference to S. daghestanica in 2005[6] that seems to ignore the name change. What that means, I don't know, since the naming protocols rules are way outside my understanding. Thanks again, First Light (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That is odd that the 2005 paper, describing phylogeny no less, leaves out S. canescens from their study and regards S. daghestanica as a species. Often, researchers may miss a publication, especially if it's in an obscure place. Or perhaps the authors disagree with Menitsky's assessment. This happened with the genus Drosera, a well-supported genus with little reason to split it. Two authors from Europe redrew the genus lines to exclude several groups, giving them new genera names, e.g. Freatulina regia instead of Drosera regia. The experts in this taxon considered their arguments and rejected them. It is these opinions that are hard to come by. Was Menitsky's assessment largely panned? Was it accepted for a while, then overturned upon looking at genetic or morphological data? Or was it ignored because it was written in Russian (I assume) right after the end of the Cold War in an obscure journal? It's too bad we probably can't get the answers to these questions... The best thing to do is to present it as-is: The variety is sometimes accepted and used, but sometimes not.

The ICBN rules here aren't useful. The variety can be published validly (as indicated by its entry in the IPNI database), but the basionym (S. daghestanica) is still valid. It's a matter of opinion which one is more correct. Some species-to-variety moves are so well supported and accepted, you'll never see another mention of the former name. Others, like this one, linger in a frustrating limbo until further research can claim more definite results. So don't sweat the confusion, it's not likely to be resolved any time soon. You're doing a great job as it is with a difficult genus :-) Rkitko ^(talk) 03:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the very expert opinion. Salvia really is hopelessly difficult in this regard. In recent years experts have said that there are 'over 900' species, 'approaching a thousand', and the most recent comprehensive study (in French) by Gabriel Alziar has reduced it to 700, which of course would eliminate a lot of species. I've read that since 1940 alone, S. officinalis, common sage, cultivated for a thousand years, has been scientifically described under six different names. And this article[7] (maybe you suggested it, I can't remember) shows that Salvia is non-monophyletic, so there is the possibility of splitting the genus someday — or "the ‘‘sinking’’ of Dorystaechas, Perovskia, Rosmarinus, and possibly other genera into Salvia." Just in case it wasn't confusing enough.... Best regards, First Light (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Just dropping in ..

.. to say thanks for fixing my embarrassing error. Regards, Denis Barthel (talk) 06:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It's good to hear from you! It's my first new Drosera species article in months and I noticed the discrepancy when looking at the google-translated version of your article. No worries, though. I hope you are doing well. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 11:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ulmus, again

Dear Rkitko Elm cultivar 'Louis van Houtte' has quite rightly been moved to 'CVs of unconfirmed derivation', the specific epithet 'procera' removed and then replaced, for reasons best known to the author, and I cannot move it back. It should read Ulmus 'Louis van Houtte'. Your assistance once more appreciated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulmus_%27Louis_van_Houtte%27 Regards, Ptelea (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, once more, Ptelea (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'm happy to help anytime. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 11:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Leucoptera

Hello again. I would like you to help me with the following:

• 1. Establish a disambiguation page for "Leucoptera"

on it: Leucoptera may refer to

• A plant in the Asteraceae family
• An insect in the order Lepidoptera
• 2. Change the present Leucoptera page to "Leucoptera (plant)"

I think that I can do the rest by myself and would appreciate very much if you could point me toward instructions how to do such things in the future. Please leave a message. Sorry for the bother. Thanks and best wishes Tusbra (Dr Mark Nir)

Hi! I'm happy to help any time. It should all be done now: Leucoptera is now the disambiguation page, and the plant genus article is at Leucoptera (plant). No page yet exists for the moth genus, which should probably go at Leucoptera (moth) or maybe Leucoptera (insect) (I chose "moth" for the disambiguation word just as a matter of preference).

WP:DAB has some advice and instructions, but specifically here's what I did:

• First, I used the move tab on the former Leucoptera page to move it to Leucoptera (plant) - diff.
• Then I needed to clean up the page after the move: diff.
• Then I altered the Leucoptera page from the automatically created redirect from when I moved the page to a disambiguation page: diff.
• Can't forget about the talk page redirect, either (the talk page redirects to the target page of the move, too): diff.
• The last thing to do is go to Special:WhatLinksHere/Leucoptera and alter the incoming links to their new target pages, e.g. diff and diff.

I hope that helps! Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 01:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Thank you so much. It is just perfect. Tusbra

• Thanks for fixing the page. 07:28, 27 June 2010

Bryastrum distros

Hi Ryan! Good work on the Lasiocephala, you're almost there! Should you be planning to tackle the subgenus Bryastrum next, take a look at this. While I'm not suggesting translation from German, Florian has apparently created distro maps for all of the pygmy Drosera (based on Lowrie, afaik)! Unfortunately they don't seem to be uploaded to commons, but hopefully you can find a way around that. Best, --NoahElhardt (talk) 06:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Noah! Bryastrum was indeed my next target. I can always count on finding info on the Australian papers. The section Drosera species are going to be a pain. Thanks for the link; that will certainly help. If they're under an acceptable license, I'll just move them to commons. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 11:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Coffee diseases

So sorry, but the Leucoptera issue created a new one: Would it possibly be better to combine 'Category:Coffee diseases' and List of coffee diseases? Best wishes. Tusbra

Salvia

Thanks for the tips at Salvia potaninii. If there is any more information about the plant that you think really should be in there, do let me know, as I'll be using that article as a template of sorts. Here's an oddity for you, at least it was for me: Salvia whitehousei, a Texas native, has Salvia dolichantha listed as a synonym at USDA.[8] But S. dolichantha is a native of China, and still is a current name. This forum[9] explains (I think) that whitehousei was first named dolichantha, but then it was discovered that a Chinese Salvia already had that name. So now it's a synonym for one plant, while it's still a valid name for another. I don't quite know how to explain it in their respective articles, since that forum wouldn't qualify as a WP 'reliable source' - even though the poster who explains it, Rich Dufresne, is a well known Salvia breeder and expert. I'm not looking for a solution, as much as sharing a new type of naming strangeness. Thanks, First Light (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting. This actually happens quite a bit, especially in the older literature. I bet they wouldn't believe the taxonomic databases that we have at our fingertips today! Regardless, you're correct. Salvia dolichantha E.Peter was described in 1934 and is still a valid taxon. S.&dolichantha (Cory) Whitehouse was originally described by Victor Louis Cory in 1930 as Salviastrum dolichanthum Cory. Eula Whitehouse came along in 1949 and merged the genus Salviastrum into Salvia, thus requiring the new combination of the old Salviastrum species with their new genus. In this case, it meant moving Salviastrum dolichanthum Cory to Salvia dolichantha (note the gender change there to match the gender of the genus). Eula probably authored dozens of these changes and didn't notice the E.Peter's 1934 description of the valid taxon that you already have an article on. Long story short: Salvia dolichantha (Cory) Whitehouse is thus considered a nom. illeg., or illegitimate name, or invalid taxon. Gabriel Alziar noticed this problem in 1988 and fixed the discrepancy by properly naming the same taxon Salvia whitehousei in Eula's honor. So yes, Salvia whitehousei does have the synonym Salvia dolichantha (Cory) Whitehouse, but it's an illegitimate name, though it has very little to do with Salvia dolichantha E.Peter. What I've done in the past is include a hatnote like {{Dablink|Not to be confused with ''Salvia dolichantha'' (Cory) Whitehouse, an illegitimate name applied to ''[[Salvia whitehousei]]''}}. That should get people to the right place if they're looking for the other taxon. And then you can explain the above with references to the proper IPNI pages in the Salvia whitehousei article. Oh, and I wouldn't worry about using a reference from a forum. If the poster is an expert in the field, you are certainly welcome to use it! I try to use those sparingly, but I have done so and it passed in my featured article candidate Drosera regia. And if you think the above is confusing, try sorting out Stylidium androsaceum, a name applied to three different species, including two in the same month in 1839 by two different authors! Think of the serendipity of that one! Hope that clears it up. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 03:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Lol, thanks for the education, and for showing such patience with an overly excitable newbie. And also for making a very tangled history quite clear—you would make a good teacher. Do you divine all of that information just from the IPNI listings, or also from looking up the sources that are given there for naming/changing the names? I need to start depending on IPNI much more, and learning better how to use it. I'll start today on your clear suggestions for a hatnote and explanation. At Salvia whitehousei, would "Salvia dolichantha (Cory) Whitehouse" be more accurate in the infobox as a synonym, then the current "Salvia dolicantha Cory"? I also need to learn more about Salviastrum and its history, something I was completely unaware of. It looks like it was a small genus, thankfully. I imagine we'll see even more confusing changes in coming years, with DNA analysis. Thanks, First Light (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure; and thanks for the compliment. I'll be going back to grad school soon, so I may have teaching responsibilities in my future. Yes, most of the above came from the different IPNI pages. It's not as clear as a source discussing all of this in detail, but those are rare, so I think it's perfectly fine to run up to the WP:SYNTH line without crossing it by relying on the different IPNI pages. Yes, Salvia dolichantha (Cory) Whitehouse is the proper synonym; Salvia dolichantha Cory would be incorrect, since Cory is not the taxon authority. In botanical nomenclature, the parentheses indicate that Cory was the original author of the basionym (base name), which was then moved to a different genus by Whitehouse. If you know the name of the taxon by Cory and the name of the taxon by Whitehouse, you can write a pretty clear sentence or two on what we know just from the nomenclature of Salviastrum dolichanthum Cory --> Salvia dolichantha (Cory) Whitehouse. IPNI also usually links the author abbreviation to the database entry for them, so you can use their full name. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like any of the players here have Wikipedia articles (yet).

If you search for Salvia dolichantha in IPNI, the search will return 4 entries (sometimes there are multiple entries for each taxon based on different databases). One of those is the valid name Salvia dolichantha E.Peter. The other three are Whitehouse's illegitimate name (nom. illeg.); based on the info found at one of those entries, we learn that Salvia dolichantha (Cory) Whitehouse is an illegitimate name because there was an earlier species with that exact name (the "nom. illeg. later homonym non Stibel (1934)" bit tells us that, the "non Stibel" referring to the E.Peter 1934 taxon, though I'm not sure why it says Stibel...). We also see the basionym again: Salviastrum dolichanthum Cory in the journal Rhodora, volume 32, page 90, in 1930. And then we find the "replaced synonym", e.g. who fixed it and where this taxon is valid now: Salvia whitehousei Alziar in the journal Biocosme Mésogéen, volume 5, page 86 in 1988. The rest of my sleuth work above was based on a supposition that Whitehouse sunk Salviastrum into Salvia. That turns out to be true, but Salviastrum has a much deeper history. This would be excellent info to include on a subgenus or section article, whatever the most accepted name is: from here we learn that:

"The three species of subg. Salviastrum, all native to Texas and northern Mexico, were originally placed by Scheele (1849) in a separate genus. Although the three species of Salviastrum express the elongate connective diagnostic of Salvia, Scheele placed them in their own genus based on a dense annulus in the calyx. Torrey (1859) soon thereafter noted the close affinities of Salviastrum and Salvia sect. Heterosphace and included Salviastrum as a section within Salvia. Bentham (1876) , however, agreed with Scheele and maintained Salviastrum as its own genus. The most recent treatment of Salviastrum (Whitehouse, 1949 , p. 153) agrees with Torrey's treatment and suggests, "except for the dense ring of hairs in the calyx throat ... there are no common differences which will separate them from other species of Salvia. If the species included in Bentham's section Heterosphace are included in Salvia, then undoubtedly the Salviastrum section should be included, for they are closely linked by their similar calices which are alike in form and accrescence." The molecular data, identifying a monophyletic lineage consisting of New World Heterosphace + Salviastrum, support the suggestions of Whitehouse."

(I'm not going to bother to clean up that quote with italics...) Pretty clear to me that Whitehouse was right! And that's a 2004 phylogenetics paper. Probably a good resource for you, if you haven't already spotted it. I wonder if there are any more up-to-date articles. And please let me know if you ever need access to articles that are pay-walled. I can usually nab them for you and send them through e-mail. I'd be happy to help anywhere I can. Hope that clears up more questions than it generates, but let me know if anything above isn't clear. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 18:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - that's all very clear, and helps me understand much better how to use IPNI. I had also found this[10], maybe an excerpt of that article, by the same authors (Walker and Sytsma), along with a good resource list provided by them.[11] I was happy to see that the "two outstanding references with regard to horticultural aspects of Salvia" are the two I've most used as references here, as they also give good information on the native source and habitat. When I need to, I won't hesitate to ask you for article access. At some point, I would like to add to the Salvia article some information on subgenus/section/clade, but that's looking a bit far ahead. Thanks again, and best of luck with grad school and teaching. First Light (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. A minor detail, but the IPNI listing for Salvia dolichantha[12] has an added note "Remarks: Authorship cited as "Elfriede Stibal" (= Elfriede Peter-Stibal)." Why is "E. Peter" listed as the naming authority, then? First Light (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, it seems to be an alternate name, then. That make sense [13]. The full name is Elfriede Peter-Stibal, but the author citation is abbreviated as just E.Peter (no space). We're lucky in botany that there's an established authority on how to cite these names (note: not all publications use them correctly or consistently!). For example, our fellow WP:PLANTS member, User:Curtis Clark, has authored some plant taxa and therefore has the author abbreviation C.Clark, partly because there are lots of people with the last name Clark and just "Clark" had already been taken. If I were ever to author a taxon, my abbreviation would just be Kitko since no one else in my family has authored a plant taxon. I suppose it's partly your choice how you cite yourself when you publish a new taxon if you follow a few rules form the ICBN. E.Peter could have easily been Peter-Stibal or a few other permutations. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 01:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't catch the obvious, that E. Peter was just an abbreviation for Elfriede Peter-Stibal. thanks, First Light (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)