User talk:DanielCD

Personal reference page

{{Book reference | Author = [[]] | Title = | Publisher= Macmillan | Year = | ID = }}

Contents

1 Taxobox for plants 2 Animalia 1 Archive 2 "Spiritweed" 3 Golden Leaf tree 4 Category:Plant anatomy 5 Molohiya 6 Plant cats 7 Kimjongilia 8 Mimosa pudica 9 Pachypodium 10 Stubs 11 User:DanielCD/Species page 12 Rosoideae 13 Sensitive fern 14 To the biologist acting like a tail... 15 Bernese Oberland vs. Bernese Alps 16 Goosegrass 17 Eunuch flute

Taxobox for plants

{{Taxobox_begin | color = lightgreen| name = }} <br>{{Status****}}
{{Taxobox_image | image = [[Image:FILENAME.JPG|240px]] | caption = }}
{{Taxobox_begin_placement | color = lightgreen}}
{{Taxobox_regnum_entry | taxon = [[Plant]]ae}}
{{Taxobox_divisio_entry | taxon = [[ophyta]]}}
{{Taxobox_classis_entry | taxon = [[opsida]]}}
{{Taxobox_ordo_entry | taxon = [[ales]]}}
{{Taxobox_familia_entry | taxon = [[aceae]]}}
{{Taxobox tribus entry | taxon = [[]]}}
{{Taxobox_genus_entry | taxon = ''[[G]]''}}
{{Taxobox_species_entry | taxon = ''G. s''}}
{{Taxobox_end_placement}}
{{Taxobox_section_binomial_botany | color = lightgreen| binomial_name = | author = }}
{{Taxobox_section_subdivision | color = lightgreen| plural_taxon = }}
taxon1 <br/>
{{Taxobox_end}}

{{Taxobox authority new | authority = [[]], [[]]}}

Animalia

{{Taxobox_begin | color = pink | name = }}<br>{{Status***}}
<!--{{Taxobox_image | image = [[ Image |240px]] | caption =  }}-->
{{Taxobox_begin_placement | color = pink}}
{{Taxobox_regnum_entry | taxon = [[Animal]]ia}}
{{Taxobox_phylum_entry | taxon = [[ XX]]}}
{{Taxobox_classis_entry | taxon = [[ XX]]}}
{{Taxobox_subclassis_entry | taxon = [[ XX]]}}
{{Taxobox_superordo_entry | taxon = [[ XX]]}}
{{Taxobox_ordo_entry | taxon = [[ XX]]}}
{{Taxobox_subordo_entry | taxon = [[ XX]]}}
{{Taxobox_superfamilia_entry | taxon = [[ XX]]}}
{{Taxobox_familia_entry | taxon = [[ XX]]}}
{{Taxobox_genus_entry | taxon = ''G''}}
{{Taxobox_species_entry | taxon = ''G. s''}}
{{Taxobox_end_placement}}
{{Taxobox_section_binomial_simple | color = pink | binomial_name = }}
{{Taxobox_section_binomial | color = pink | binomial_name =  | author = [[]] | date = [[]]}}
{{Taxobox_section_subdivision | color = pink| plural_taxon = XX}}
taxon1 <br/>
{{Taxobox_end}}

Archive

Archive #1 Archive #2

"Spiritweed"

Curious about that choice of a name for E. foetidum - so I was wondering about that usage. Having never come across it I was wondering if it really is the "most widely used name" in English...the Lesser Antillean name, fitweed, beats it hands down in Google searches. (I would prefer E. foetidum personally). Guettarda 18:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

How do you stand on the "English vs. Latin names" issue (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Plants_-_latin_vs_english_naming_convention and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Plants_-_latin_vs_english_naming_convention)? I'm not really sure what the best name is (as an English speaker I use some form of "chadon beni" (spell as you please) or (more usually) "bhandaniya" - Trinidad, Jamaica and Guyana have the vast majority of native English speakers who have a "common name"...fitweed and culantro top the list of google hits, but one is not English but is used a lot as a borrowed word in American English, giving it a lot of usage, but as a minor/marginal plant, the other is an English word, so it is often used as a "translation", but again, you are looking at an intended audience which does not really know the plant. I don't know if anyone uses "Mexican coriander" - it looks like one of these artifically constructed "common names". (Disclaimer: common names frustrate me - I think they are context specific and are useless outside of specific contexts. Of course, I come from an essentially monolingual country in which most commonly used plants have two or three names - Creole/French, Hindi, Spanish, English - but I don't feel the need to impose my POV). Guettarda 18:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't put it at chandon beni, I don't think it's a good choice - mostly it's spelled "chadon beni" or "shadow beni" in Trinidad. It's probably the most "correct" version of the Trinidadian Creole name (since it's the French spelling on Chandon), but it isn't one that's widely used even in Trinidad. Guettarda 18:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that there are places for common names. I don't like where a single common name (often a non-English name) is "imposed" out of the need for a common name. While I doubt a lot of people would know to look for this plant at E. foetidum, I think the diversity of common names (and lack of one that is overwhelmingly dominant) would argue for use of the linnaean binom. But I'm a plant geek with a love for systematic names. Guettarda 18:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Guettarda 18:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Golden Leaf tree

Hi Daniel - I reckon merge them at Goldenleaf Tree. This genus page had also been started off as just the species when I ran into it back in January; when I checked up I found that there was a whole genus of them, and the common name wasn't restricted to the one species. Chrysophyllum cainito is the commonest (most widely planted) of the genus; I remember there was a real dearth of available info on the other 79-ish species (I could only find one other species name!), so I suspect little prospect they'll ever get individual species pages, which makes it simplest to treat them all on one page. - MPF 20:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Plant anatomy

I am sorry, but the correct cat is Category:Plant physiology. Circeus 13:30, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Take that back. I'll put a link at physiology, though. Circeus 13:32, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Molohiya

Hi Daniel - sorry, it's a new one on me! It isn't in any of my books, and a google search didn't reveal anything with a scientific name. Guess I'll have to admit defeat on this one! - MPF 17:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Found it!! - a bit of digging around in my mother's cookbooks found it; it is usually transliterated in English as Melokhia (confirmed by 3x higher google count); I'll move it to that page. Latin name Corchorus spp., Malvaceae. - MPF 15:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Website - nice one!! :-) MPF 15:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Another name, already with a page . . . Grrrr!!! - Jute. Maybe they'd better be combined? MPF 16:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I'll redirect them all to Jute, which is by far the oldest page about the plants - MPF 16:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Just thinking your idea is better - have a separate plant page about the genus botanically (which would be best at Corchorus, I suspect), with jute as a separate page about the fibre uses (I'll hold fire a bit in case you want to come back on it) - MPF 16:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll go ahead with that then - MPF 16:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Taxodium - thanks!! I'll delve into them when I'm done on Corchorus. Going to see if I can find a pic next. - MPF 16:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Done them (and T. distichum and Glyptostrobus too for good measure). Doing separate page accounts for the Taxodium species had been on my 'to do' list for a while, it just needed that spur to get on with it! - MPF 00:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Plant cats

Sorry about the categories thing. The carnivorous plant pages had a disparate mixture of random taxonomic levels, so I was just trying to imposes some consistency of (family, order, CP, plants) on them. I take your point about avoiding higher taxa when there's a lower taxon category: seems eminently sensible. The new family categories I added were just for the Droseraceae, Sarraceniaceae, Lentibulariaceae and Bromeliaceae, all of which have large numbers of potential pages, some of which I will hopefully get around to writing soon! (Hope I've added this comment in the right way, apologies in advance if not...).

polypompholyx 12:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Kimjongilia

Hi Daniel - As far as I know, their popular names are their cultivar names, i.e., Begonia 'Kimjongilia' and Whatever 'Kimilsungia'. With complex hybrid-origin cultivars like these it is normal to give just the genus name and cultivar name (e.g. Rosa 'Peace'). The only problem is that under the rules of the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, names given to new cultivars after 1950 must be in a modern vernacular language, not Latin (so as to avoid confusion with botanical taxa); these two both appear to be in contravention of that with their Latin or pseudo-Latin endings. But that's nothing we can do anything about, it would need a ruling of the ICNCP to say what they should be called.

. . . . looking up on google . . . .

Aha! - found more details: 'Kimjongilia' is Begonia x tuberhybrida 'Kimjongilhwa' [1] (http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:BkMt6SJEDjQJ:www.kcckp.net/en/event/2005-02-16/article.php%3F3+Kimjongilia&hl=en&start=10), and 'Kimilsungia' is correctly Dendrobium 'Kim il Sung' [2] (http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:ss4qgrdSdOIJ:www.kcckp.net/en/event/2005-04-15/article.php%3F2+Kimilsungia&hl=en&start=4).

As they are cultivars, not botanical taxa, my inclination would be not to give them a taxobox at all (I think only taxa should have taxoboxes!), just stick with the Koreabox and have their botanical origin as a link in the normal text. But I don't know if this viewpoint is shared by others widely.

Gotta go now to puke up after reading all the sycophantic cr@p about the two Kims on various websites . . . :-)) - MPF 17:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Probably wise, but I might try and sort them out a little . . . yeah, Suharto and Kim Jong Il - they deserve each other - MPF 18:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Alluaudia

Hi Daniel - my books have got something on this one, it's a genus of 6 species endemic to Madagascar, apparently a major component of the spiny forest there. I'll flesh out the article - MPF 19:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Mimosa pudica

Hi Daniel - looks fine to me; it won't grow outdoors here so I've never seen it outside of a pot, but your pics fit descriptions well, e.g. "branches heavily armed with broad-based, white then black-tipped recurved thorns". There's 400 species in the genus, so other species of Mimosa are possible, but unlikely, as M. pudica is the one that's by far the most popular in cultivation and the most widely naturalised. I'm re-jigging the page a bit as it shows big white gaps in my browser (caused by right-aligned pics inserted higher than the level of the bottom of the taxobox; not all browsers do this) - MPF 09:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Pachypodium

Hi Daniel - already flagged that one up at WP:TOL Talk :-) (and I wasn't first either, someone else already tried taking him to task on one of the article talk pages, but the comment has mysteriously disappeared...). Did you see the dozen or so spin-off pages with ten-word titles, too? Aaargh! I'd took one look at it and thought, 'don't want to get mixed up in this' . . . methinks someone's trying to use wikipedia to write a 5-volume book! It's going to be a real tricky one to deal with. How do we wreck someone's life's work because it isn't really suitable for Wikipedia? My best guess would be to get a mod or admin to quietly ask him to take it off anf publish it elsewhere as a monograph, then revert back to the original article except for salvaging a brief summary of the tome - MPF 21:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could do; I think maybe we should put this onto WP:TOL Talk for others to think on too. 'Nother one, on Fatsia, the species you added is now classified in a separate genus as Tetrapanax papyrifer, hope you won't mind my moving it on :-) MPF 21:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Done; it's at Tetrapanax now (2nd move, after I discovered it is a monotypic genus!) - MPF 22:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stubs

Thanks for marking the Uganda Cowries article as a stub. As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting, I have replaced the generalized {{stub}} tag with {{philately-stub}}. When you edit other articles, it would be great if you could use these more specific tags whenever possible. Thanks, and continue contributing to Wikipedia! Russ Blau (talk) 18:20, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Hi - you wrote (about Botany-stub) "Nevermind, there's already one, it was just well-hidden. Now how do I get a cute lil' icon put in?"

You don't  :) We're currently trying to get rid of them, at least until the server problems are fixed (they put a lot of strain on the servers). Grutness...wha? 02:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:DanielCD/Species page

I moved UserDanielCD/Species page to User:DanielCD/Species page and flagged UserDanielCD/Species page for deletion Samw 21:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rosoideae

Hi Daniel - I can get what he's on about, but I don't have the data necessary to revise it well. I suspect some at least may not be published yet, from the references in the cited paper as to some genera not being resolved. Maybe it might be better to stick to the trad classification until the new classification (and more importantly its nomenclature) is settled, together with a brief summary of the so-far made changes. Some we can include, such as the segregate genera split off from Potentilla, but I think what we shouldn't have is those unranked and not-formally-named taxa "roperculina" and "sanpotina". I e-mailed Hinsley a while back about something else (a Malvaceae query, as he's the person who runs the Malvaceae Pages) and never got a reply, so I'm not hopeful that we could get any more details from him - MPF 20:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sensitive fern

Actually, it is better to use the common name for an article. Scientific names confuse people who aren't already familiar with the term (which is the vast majority of people with this one and most binomial versions; I don't know many other than homo sapiens :-) and greatly magnify the risk of spelling mistakes and duplicate articles (besides the fact that no one would type it in the search box), which is why we don't use them. For instance, see the right-hand side science box at Maple. All of the different species articles are in their common name. This policy is specifically stated at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), which is a branch of Wikipedia:Naming conventions, where it also listed in shorter detail (so that you know it isn't some random person's policy).

Hi Daniel - just posted this response on Naryathegreat's talk page - MPF 23:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"This depends a lot on the situation. In many plant pages the scientific name is better for the page title. In some cases, common names are confusing or misleading; in others, the scientific name is more widely used than the so-called 'common' name (99% of plants have no common name at all); in yet others there may be different common names used in different areas for the same species, and using one over another can be a POV unacceptable in wiki etiquette. Scientific names also make for much better indexing in Categories, as they index related species in the same genus together when common names might not. The matter has been discussed several times on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life (look through the archives as well!), usually with a majority in favour of using scientific names for all plant pages (though not for animals), with only the size of the task preventing much greater conversion to scientific name page titles".

Hey, I left a paragraph on MPF's talk page that applies here too. BTW, I honestly wasn't assaulting your choice of the name. It seemed to me to be common Wikipedia practice. As always, I assume good faith. At least we have an article on the "Sensitive fern" now, whatever we end up calling it.--naryathegreat | (talk) 03:59, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

To the biologist acting like a tail...

Thanks for following me around adding catagories, etc. I had no idea there were so many lists of lists. Grika 19:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bernese Oberland vs. Bernese Alps

Hi, I'm changing back several links to Bernese Alps which you had changed to Bernese Oberland. The two terms should not be confused: Bernese Alps refers to a range of the Alps, Bernese Oberland to a part of the canton of Bern. There is no article on the Bernese Oberland yet, but I'm planning to translate the German article as soon as the existing article on the Bernese Alps is moved to Bernese Alps (as soon as someone deletes the existing redirect page). -- j. 'mach' wust ^{ˈtʰɔ̝ːk͡x} 19:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Goosegrass

Hi Daniel - no idea where you've dredged the name 'Stickywilly' up from, I've never heard of it. Mind if I move the page to its standard botany textbook name Goosegrass? - MPF 20:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; thinking about it, I'll move it to the sci name instead, given it has so many competing common names (a quick google check ["Galium aparine" Xxxxx] revealed Cleavers as the winner, with Goosegrass 2nd) - MPF 20:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eunuch flute

Hello, I think that the right words in french are : flûte eunuque, flûte à l'oignon and mirliton (I am sure of the 2 last ones, not absolutely of the first one which I never saw - but fifite is most probably a mistake due to the ^ upon the u. Best regards Gérard 18:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)