User talk:NoahElhardt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Darlingtonia & Pinguicula

Dear Noah,

thank you, thank you, thank you for the marvellous pictures of Darlingtonias and their habitats you uploaded to the commons. While I wrote the article for the de-Wikipedia I always regretted, that all available pictures were of a medium quality (in the best case) and almost none showed a natural stand. The recent addition of a few pictures from the Darlingtonia Botanical Wayside helped a bit, but your pictures made my day, really.

Furthermore I saw that you intend to translate the Pinguicula-article of the de to the en. I feel honored. Whenever you need some help in the translation, just ask, I'd be glad to help.

Best regards, Denisoliver

Dear Denisoliver - You are very welcome! I'm glad you were able to use some of the photos. I will try to implement some of them into the english version soon as well. Let me know if there are any other carnivorous plant photos you could use for other Wikipedia pages, and I will see what I can find.
Thank you for your offer to help with the translation effort for the Pinguicula page! I started translating today, and will continue as time permits. I left one translation question in the text already (italicized in parentheses, under Roots) and will leave more as they come up. If you do see any mistranslations please feel free to correct them or let me know (note that there is some new material within the translated sections that is not in the German version). Thank you for the source material and your help in translating it! NoahElhardt 07:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work you've done on the Pinguicula page. It's much appreciated. polypompholyx 18:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Noah, sorry for responding so late, but I have been rather busy in and out of WP currently. At first let me tell you, that I am rather impressed by your translation, it is not only perfectly translated (I haven't found any errors), but furthermore you have added some very valuable material, which I have already integrated in the German article. Just two points I'd like to discuss:

  • You wrote: "Although these groupings are not cladistically supported by genetic studies, these groupings are nonetheless convenient for horticultural purposes."
Nobody ever meant this grouping to be used for evolutionary or taxonomic purposes. It only reflects the spectre of adaptability means this genus offers (I hope this is understandable?) and its types of growthhabit. If I would say "The colors of lily-flowers are either whitish or reddish.", this does not mean, that all whitish lilies are related. It is just a descriptive fact, which is not only interesting for horticulture.
  • In Uses you wrote: "Butterworts also produce a strong bactericide which prevents insects from rotting while they are being digested. This property has long been known by northern Europeans, who applied butterwort leaves to the sores of cattle to promote healing[8]. Additionally, butterwort leaves were used to curdle goat's milk and form a yogurt-like cheese."
Though this is often cited, all this reports base on Linné only. I have always been sceptical concerning this, as it never has been proven or checked. Due to this I decided, not to integrate this in the de-version. Your view on this may differ, I just wanted to point this out.

Furthermore, there has recently somebody been quite active in the en-WP concerning Carnivorous Plants, named Veledan. He made some very useful additions and an excellent start in the Bladderworts. Though the German article concerning them is not perfect, it might be useful to integrate them (I have already planned to do this in the de-WP soon) and maybe you consider to contact him, he stopped, as he felt disappointed by parts of the CP-community in his plans to do good articles about this here. If you would like to translate some other CP-articles from de too, you can check there state here de:Benutzer:Denisoliver/FF, almost all genera and a few species are featured articles now. I'd be glad to continue the productive work, all the best, Denisoliver 10:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi Denisoliver, thank you for responding! I have added a note to the Uses section regarding the source of the information you mentioned. This information seems to have gained wide enough acceptance to have appeared on the Filmjölk page as well, so I'll leave it up for now. I understand your point about the classification, but I'm not sure how best to word it. I'll try to come up with something.
I would really like to see the section on carnivorous plants here at Wikipedia turn into something useful. I saw the work that Veledan has done on Utricularia, and a user by the name of Mgiganteus has done a fabulous job on the Nepenthes rajah article. For the most part, however, the English articles are still short or nonexistent. I will do what I can whenever I get the chance, but school usually keeps me busy. I think my next project will be revamping the Drosera page, and adding some more species. I will definetally integrate material from the German pages - there are few of us so we need to work together! (I upload all of my pictures into the commons, so feel free to use any you see). It is too bad that the CP community has had such a negative view of Wikipedia. I will encourage Veledan to recontinue working on this project. Cheers! NoahElhardt 20:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Carnivorous plants?

Wow! That's a nice header pic to the German article  :-)

It was largely a burned out feeling that stopped me completing the Bladderwort article. I had it halfway through a peer review when I stopped editing it, and I still have a pile of notes next to my computer which would make for a few new paragraphs with some rather more quirky or lively insights. Some interesting quotes from Darwin too.

Yes, it's true the attitude of the community didn't help a lot. I asked for photos to help the article on what was my favourite cp forum, but all I got was wiki-hostility. I asked people to come and have a look at the article before making up their minds but no one did. I haven't been back to the forum either.

If you would like to create or be part of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Carnivorous plants]] (and why not?) I'll certainly work on it (or create it if you don't want to). Sharing the work, discussing notes and findings, and having an audience for one another's work is much more motivating and I'm sure we and the other people who watch the existing articles are capable of making a CP section worthy of envy.

I suggest asking User:Polypompholyx too. He's the one who asked me to tackle Bladderwort in the first place — I knew nothing about them until then!

Thanks for asking ~ Veledan • Talk 19:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Veledan. I'm glad you're still interested! I've started a Carnivorous plant WikiProject like you suggested. Please feel free to edit the basic format or anything else as you see fit! I'm looking forward to working with you! :) --NoahElhardt 01:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drosera pedicellaris

Hi Noah,

I have finished the translation of Drosera pedicellaris and would like to ask you, if you might check it as you did before, doing some grammar/style fixes. Thanks a lot and best regards, Denisoliver 21:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Noah, thanks for fixing D. pedicellaris. Concerning the commons-pictures: you placed the pictures itself in the Category:Droseraceae, thus they stayed there. I took the cat out of the pictures-page already, now it only shows up on the species page (and need to tell you, that I am full of envy of you having a derbyensis ;) ). Again I am impressed by your fabulous translation work, which adds again some valuable points, which I will have to integrate in the de-article. There are some points to discuss too, but I will check therefore later in one, after you finished the translation. Regards, Denisoliver 11:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diels-Zitate

Hallo Noah, die Zitate sind in altmodischem Deutsch geschrieben, es heißt soviel wie: [...] Ludwig Diels [...] called this an "arrant misjudging of this genus' very special distributional circumstances", though the sundew species' "occupy a significant part of the Earth's surface". Ich hoffe, das hilft, Denisoliver 09:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drosera anglica refs

You might to have a look at the article. There were refs without associated footnotes. Circeus 00:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, fixed it myself. Circeus 00:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it. I thought that all the refs work. is {{ref|refname}} a bad format? --NoahElhardt 00:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Recently, a MediaWiki extension that specifically implements footnotes without templates has been activated. You might want to have a lookt at WP:FOOTNOTE bout it. 01:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drosera anglica

Mostly I stay away from anything with a green taxobox, no matter how bad the mistakes I see. Sometimes the state of things is so truely terrible that I cannot help myself and correct anyway. It is bad enough that some misguided soul thinks that Drosera anglica and Drosera ×anglica could be different plants, and goes into print saying so. No need to repeat that! Brya 16:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Brya! Thanks for taking a look at the D. anglica article. I have reverted most of your edits, as they took away important factual information. You comment about D. anglica v. D. x anglica on my talk page, while well meant, only displays your lack of knowledge in this field. D. x anglica is the sterile natural hybrid between D. linearis and D. rotundifolia, whereas D. anglica is a fertile SPECIES which originated from D. x anglica. I hope that makes sense. Comments and questions are of course welcome. --NoahElhardt 17:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I would like to point out that on the whole it is a good thing to check facts before reacting. If someone points out that you have written down something completely silly it is natural to go into the defensive and 'retaliate'. However, although this is natural this is not a good reaction. First check the facts then act.
In this case, it does not matter what you may assume, because Drosera anglica and Drosera ×anglica are the same. This is by definition. They cannot be separate plants. Under the ICBN they are one and the same name (e.g. Art 50.1). There is merely a limited difference in status.
I should also point out that D. x anglica is a way of writing that is to be deplored: the professional way to write this is D. ×anglica.
Your response makes sense, psychologically. Factually it is nonsense. :-) 19:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps more clear is the Art. H.3.3 Brya 20:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Brya. I was in a rush when I sent the first message, and so did not take the appropriate care to word my ideas in a careful manner - I apologize for the overly defensive nature of my comments.
Thanks for pointing out the ICBN info. Let's take a look at it:
H.3.1. Hybrids between representatives of two or more taxa may receive a name. For nomenclatural purposes, the hybrid nature of a taxon is indicated by placing the multiplication sign × before the name of an intergeneric hybrid or before the epithet in the name of an interspecific hybrid, or by prefixing the term "notho-" (optionally abbreviated "n-") to the term denoting the rank of the taxon (see Art. 3.2 and 4.4). All such taxa are designated nothotaxa.
With Drosera ×anglica, I was referring to the natural, diploid, sterile hybrid between two established species: Drosera linearis and Drosera rotundifolia. I am not making this hybrid name up, it is recognized by other authorities on the subject. see article
Note 1. Taxa which are believed to be of hybrid origin need not be designated as nothotaxa.
Note that only taxa which are believed to be of hybrid origin need not be designated as nothotaxa - not taxa which are first generation hybrids themselves. Therefore, plants which are natural sterile diploid hybrids of D. rotundifolia and D. linearis cannot be called merely Drosera anglica. They must be called Drosera ×anglica.
&&&
Well, you are missing two points:
  • The Note is there to explain the Rule, it does not override the Rule. Art. H.3 says that hybrids "... may receive a name". The word "may" is clear enough: there is no obligation.
  • Secondly you are not taking into account that plant taxonomy is a science. There is a fine line between knowing and believing. Plant nomenclature is full of people who "knew" that the information they based their names on was true: Nevertheless, history has proved them wrong. This is just a careful way of phrasing this.
In addition you are applying your line of reasoning to the wrong topic: What you are trying to argue is whether the proper way to write the name is Drosera anglica or Drosera ×anglica.
&&&
Ex. 3. The true-breeding tetraploid raised from the artificial cross Digitalis grandiflora L. × D. purpurea L. may, if desired, be referred to as D. mertonensis B. H. Buxton & C. D. Darl. (1931); Triticum aestivum L. (1753) is treated as a species although it is not found in nature and its genome has been shown to be composed of those of T. dicoccoides (Körn.) Körn., T. speltoides (Tausch) Gren. ex K. Richt., and T. tauschii (Coss.) Schmalh.; the taxon known as Phlox divaricata subsp. laphamii (A. W. Wood) Wherry (in Morris Arbor. Monogr. 3: 41. 1955) is believed by Levin (in Evolution 21: 92-108. 1967) to be a stabilized product of hybridization between P. divaricata L. subsp. divaricata and P. pilosa subsp. ozarkana Wherry; Rosa canina L. (1753), a polyploid believed to be of ancient hybrid origin, is treated as a species.
At some point in the past, a Drosera ×anglica reproduced to form a tetraploid offspring, which stabilized and formed a population of plants. Although this is still continually happening today (as I mentioned in the article), the original occurrence must have been ancient, since this population now exists in places as isolated as Hawaii and far away as Japan (remember, one of the parents, D. linearis, exists only in the Great Lakes area.) Since this tetraploid population is "a polyploid believed to be of ancient hybrid origin", it is therefore treated as a species. It can no longer be called Drosera ×anglica.
&&&
Again, what you are trying to argue is whether the proper way to write the name is Drosera anglica or Drosera ×anglica.
&&&
The distinction between Drosera anglica and Drosera ×anglica is vital for understanding the history of Drosera anglica.
&&&
Again, the distinction is in the way the name is written. It remains the same name. Either including or excluding the × does not alter the name, it merely changes the STATUS of the name. Indeed to some, this status of the name may be a vital distinction. It remains one name, applying to one (notho)taxon.
&&&
If you are not convinced, also take a look at the definition of a species: "A species is a group of organisms that can interbreed in nature to produce a fertile offspring." Drosera anglica and Drosera ×anglica can not interbreed to form fertile offspring, and so therefore can not be lumped together in any taxa below the subgenus level.
&&&
Definitions of "species" are notoriously slippery. Nobody agrees exactly on. Anyway, only more of the above.
&&&
I have put the mention of Drosera ×anglica in bold on the article page, as it is described enough to probably constitute being included in the page. However, the taxa, as far as I can see, must remain separate. I welcome your comments on the subject. --NoahElhardt 22:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
&&&
What is the key Rule here is
Art. H.3.3. For purposes of homonymy and synonymy the multiplication sign and the prefix "notho-" are disregarded.
Which means that there is only ONE correct name Drosera anglica aka Drosera ×anglica. They are not two separate things, but merely, if you like, two different phases of the same thing. One taxonomist believes it is a natural species and thus prefers to write the name as Drosera anglica. Another taxonomist believes it is important to emphasize that it is a hybrid and prefers to write the name as Drosera ×anglica. Both are allowed. A natural species may be of hybrid origin. A hybrid may (or may not) be regarded as a natural species. A taxonomist will select either viewpoint. What is not allowed is to treat Drosera anglica and Drosera ×anglica side by side as separate things. You have to choose: you can write EITHER Drosera anglica OR Drosera ×anglica. This will depend on the position you take, but you cannot take both positions at the same time.
What Brya is saying is that Drosera anglica and Drosera × anglica are the same name by the rules of nomenclature. It has nothing at all to do with whether there are two species. If there are, the rules of nomenclature specify that they can't share the name, with or without the "×".--Curtis Clark 04:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
From what I read in the rules of nomenclature, I couldn't see any specific hindrances to giving two taxa the same name, one with the "×" and one without it. (If there are, please point them out to me). Regardless, I am not making these names up, as they are accepted and published names. (See 1) What should I do? Ignore these publications, assuming that the taxonomists that wrote them made a mistake (which is possible)? For the sake of correctness (if indeed it would be incorrect to have them share the name), should I replace D. ×anglica with D. linearis × D. rotundifolia? Thanks for the help. --NoahElhardt 14:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, there is an Rule saying so, Art H.3.3. I will admit this is not the most readable rule, but it does say that the multiplication sign is to be disregarded, when it comes to judging whether two names are the same.
Clearly I never said, or even suggested that the error originated with you: the error is in the publication you cite. I cannot tell what would be the exact correct way to deal with this. What is clear is that the name Drosera anglica Huds. is very well accepted for the species. If they are indeed two different plants then your suggestion to "replace D. ×anglica with D. linearis × D. rotundifolia?" looks as if it may be a good solution. However, taxonomy is notoriously tricky, and in the absence of real information it is dangerous to reverse engineer an erroneous publication. I hope this helps. Brya 14:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, after reading http://www.carnivorousplants.org/cpn/samples/Science284Dxanglica.htm, I see what has happened. There are natural F1 hybrids between Drosera linearis and D. rotundifolia, and there is an amphidiploid derived from them. The type specimen of the name Drosera anglica Huds. may be an F1, or it may be an amphidiploid. LePage and Baldwin evidently saw F1s and decided that Drosera anglica was a nothospecies, hence Drosera ×anglica (I've done this sort of naming myself).
If the type is indeed an F1, it is correctly Drosera ×anglica and the amphidiploid can be given another name. If the type is the amphidiploid, it is correctly Drosera anglica, and the F1s are best called Drosera linearis × D. rotundifolia.--Curtis Clark 19:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but there is at least one more option. It is not a requirement that the two plants each be recognised. It is allowed to lump both together and just use the same name for both. It will depend on the taxonomist who deals with the matter. Brya 06:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, the publication by Hudson dealt with British plants, but the original plant material was probably lost. Brya 06:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have been absent from Wikipedia but a debate on the vagaries of botanical nomenclature will always draw me back in! Hybrid species are always problematic (especially when the names were not originally published as nothospecies, as is apparently the case here) but in a nutshell, Brya is correct. Drosera anglica and Drosera ×anglica are presumably one and the same name. If are not, they will have separate type specimens (because taxa described as nothospecies, natural or artificial, must be typified), and one would then be a later homonym of the other and thus an illegitimate name.

The problem arises in assuming that the naturally-occurring species is indeed derived from a hybrid between two parental species. If there is any doubt, and it is acting like any other naturally reproducing taxon, then it is probably best to refer to it as Drosera anglica, which I assume is how the name was originally published. And in this case, I suspect that it is incorrect (or at least premature) to refer to known artificial or natural hybrids between the two presumed parental species as Drosera ×anglica, precisely to avoid the kind of confusion that is arising here.

Unfortunately all hybrids between the same two parental species must receive the same nothospecific name and and there is no nomenclatural way (that I know of) to distinguish a sterile diploid nothospecies from a fertile tetraploid nothospecies involving the same parents. (If they were cultivars, under the cultivated plant code they could be given different names.) Thus if the parents of D. anglica can be definitively established and it is considered a nothospecies (i.e., as D. ×anglica) then all such hybrids, diploid or otherwise, naturally occurring or artificial, between those same two species would receive the name D. ×anglica.

It may be a convention among growers of carnivorous plants to refer to the sterile diploid hybrids (natural or artificial) as D. ×anglica and the naturally occurring species as D. anglica, but there is no support for this under the ICBN. (However, it is entirely permissible to refer to the naturally occurring species as D. anglica even if it is known to have originated as a hybrid between two species. Does that make sense?)

MrDarwin 13:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

One final thought: if there is any question or ambiguity regarding the parentage and origin of the naturally occurring species, then artificial or demonstrable natural sterile diploid hybrids between the two putative parental species could (and probably should) be given a unique nothospecific name (or even cultivar name, if they are cultivated), although a monographer of the group would probably consider that name to be a synonym of D. anglica (or D. ×anglica, depending upon which form of the name he or she chose to use). As Brya says, the error lies in using D. anglica and D. ×anglica as two separate name for two separate groups of plants. MrDarwin 14:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi MrDarwin, thanks for joining the discussion! You said:
Thus if the parents of D. anglica can be definitively established and it is considered a nothospecies (i.e., as D. ×anglica) then all such hybrids, diploid or otherwise, naturally occurring or artificial, between those same two species would receive the name D. ×anglica.
As far as I can tell, the parents are as much as definitively established. See Wood C. E.: Evidence for the hybrid origin of Drosera anglica. Rhodora 57: 105-130, 1955, the abovementioned article by Schnell and phylogenetic research by Rivadavia et al. (The latter rbcL nucleotide sequencing shows that D. rotundifolia is almost certainly the maternal parent of D. anglica). However, according to Ex. 3 above, "a polyploid believed to be of ancient hybrid origin, is treated as a species." The "×" can, therefore, be dropped. In regards to Curtis' question of the nature of the type specimen, the type specimen is almost certainly amphidiploid, since it was collected in England and D. linearis occurs only in the North America. The amphidiploid population should, therefore, be correctly referred to as D. anglica
If what you are saying about about rule H 3.3 is true, then the naturally occuring sterile diploid hybrids can of course not be referred to as D. ×anglica, as this would under current ISBN laws create confusion. The two taxa are different enough that they merit distinction. For now, the hybrid name D. linearis × D. rotundifolia probably makes the most sense, though ultimetaly someone could choose to register a new name, say D. linifolia or whatever. I will change the Drosera anglica page to reflect this. Brya, I apologize for completely misunderstanding your meaning at first, thanks all for setting me straight. --NoahElhardt 15:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
No, if they are established as hybrids between the same two parental species, then not only can they be given the same nothospecific name, they must be given the same nothospecific name. Any other name at the same rank would be superfluous. The artificial or natural F1 hybrids are, essentially, re-creating the species.
Species, nothospecific or otherwise, are not perfectly uniform. I suppose if somebody was really determined to distinguish them in a nomenclatural sense, they could give the sterile diploids a new name at the rank of variety, e.g. D. anglica var. hybrida (which would, of course, have to be published in a journal with a Latin diagnosis and type specimen), but as far as I am aware nobody has ever done so. As you suggest, referring to these first-generation hybrids as D. linearis × D. rotundifolia is unambiguous and probably the best course of action. MrDarwin 15:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure what you are referring to by "they" in the first sentence. D. anglica is established as having been derived from an F1 hybrid, but is not itself a hybrid. The only F1 hybrids are sterile, and I'm thus referring to them as D. rotundifolia × D. linearis, since calling them D. anglica would be incorrect (wouldn't it?) and calling them D ×anglica apparently causes confusion. NoahElhardt 15:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this would be the practical course of action:
  • the name Drosera anglica for the widely occurring species. This appears to be quite well accepted
  • the hybrid formula D. rotundifolia × D. linearis for the sterile F1 hybrid.
This is very likely to turn out to be correct, and unless you can find a good refeence this is the best you can do. The "no orginal research" policy of Wikipedia would prevent you from clearing it up fully and publishing it here, anyway.
The only thing I am wondering about is what would happen if somebody would indeed publish a hybrid name (say Drosera ×linifolia) for the sterile hybrid. It is possible to read Art H.4.1. as saying that this would make Drosera anglica a synonym, but this feels wrong: it is against the spirit of the ICBN. I am just unsure about the letter of the law.
BTW: it is not guaranteed that the type belong to the true species, as apparently the original collections were lost, and presumably somebody designated a new type. It is not even guaranteed that there is a type. Brya 17:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Brya, I'm not sure how you're reading H.4.1; nothospecies is equivalent in rank to species. This means that the earliest legitimate epithet (in this case, anglica regardless of whether or not it has a multiplication sign in front) would have priority over any later names at the same rank, such as the hypothetical Drosera ×linifolia. This much is unambiguous. MrDarwin 17:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
MrDarwin, I am not sure how I am reading Art H.4.1 either. My feeling is that it should be possible to have two taxa at the rank of species, in this case the F1 hybrid and the stable amphidiploid species. Certainly the stable amphidiploid species has always been accepted as Drosera anglica, likely excluding the F1 plants. It feels wrong that this should cease to exist as a species the moment someone should publish a name for a nothotaxon (say Drosera ×linifolia). This problem certainly would not exist if the F1 hybrid is given a name for a 'regular' species (say Drosera linifolia): this would not affect the standing of Drosera anglica. There is something of a paradox here. I am unsure. Brya 18:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Brya, either I'm misunderstanding you or we are talking past each other. My point is that D. anglica would not "cease to exist as a species". If somebody published the name Drosera ×linifolia, and if both names are considered to apply to hybrids between the same two species, then D. ×linifolia is a synonym and D. anglica or D. ×anglica--it doesn't really matter which--is the correct name for the taxon. The creation of the later name D. ×linifolia has no bearing on the status of D. [×]anglica, although the existence of the latter (i.e., earlier) name most certainly has a bearing on the status of the former (i.e., later) name. This is because (as I know you know) names have priority within their own rank only, and species and nothospecies are considered the same rank (the latter is really just a subset of the former).
Taxonomists mostly seem to consider naturally-occurring and sexually reproducing populations that are of putative hybrid origin to be species like any other, i.e. D. anglica rather than D. ×anglica. It is really just a semantic issue which way to represent the name; as you have already pointed out, the two names are one and the same. I think the "×" designation tends to be used more often if the hybrid is sterile and/or of multiple but limited origins (or is produced artificially), but there's no hard and fast rule.
One final note: if those sterile diploids were converted spontaneously or artificially to tetraploids, they would in all probability be fertile, and be able to interbreed freely with the naturally occurring amphidiploid species (such "sterile" diploids will often produce unreduced gametes, which allows them to breed with the tetraploid version directly). In fact some naturally occurring amphidiploid species (ferns are one notorious group) have almost certainly had multiple, independent origins from the same two parental species (which of course makes those species non-monophyletic, a rather unsettling situation for the strict cladist!). MrDarwin 20:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The bottom line is that two different names (species or nothospecies, it doesn't matter) based on different types are "taxonomic synonyms" only, and it is up to the judgment of individual botanists whether or not to recognize them. The fact that Drosera anglica predates the hypothetic Drosera × linifolia matters not one bit to anyone regarding the latter nothospecies to be different from the former amphiploid. And that is a taxonomic decision, not a nomenclatural one.--Curtis Clark 19:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
MrDarwin, it looks to me as if we are talking past each other. The problem as I see it is that taxonomically we may regard the plants in question as constituting:
  1. a single taxon: everything that meets the description
  2. a single nothotaxon: all the progeny of the parents
  3. two taxa: a sterile F1 hybrid (diploid) and a natural species (tetraploid)
  4. one nothotaxon and a taxon: a sterile F1 hybrid (diploid) and a natural species (tetraploid)
Nomenclaturally this would result in
  1. a single taxon: Drosera anglica
  2. a single nothotaxon: Drosera ×anglica by priority
  3. two taxa: Drosera liniifolia and Drosera anglica respectively
  4. one nothotaxon and one taxon:
In the fourth case the act of naming the nothotaxon would (by Art H.4.1) eliminate the taxon. Indeed, as you say it would appear that publishing Drosera ×liniifolia would not only eliminate the species but also the name Drosera ×liniifolia which would be replaced by Drosera ×anglica.
So my problem is that if I regard the two plants as two taxa they can each have a name, while if I regard the two plants as one taxon and one nothotaxon they cannot each have a name, but are collapsed into the nothotaxon. This looks wrong, but I don't know anything in the ICBN that would counter it. It would be worse for the ferns you describe.
No, not if they have separate types. No names are ever automatically collapsed if they are based on separate types. If the nothotaxon and the taxon are based on the same type, they have the same name (remember that the "×" is optional) regardless of whether the resulting taxon is a nothotaxon. So it's not a case of nothospecies trumping species, but rather that a type can only have a single name at a given rank.--Curtis Clark 14:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I used the word "collapsed" in connection to "taxon". The equivalent for thee name would be "reduced to synonymy". Art H.4.1. states "There can thus be only one correct name ... other names to which the same hybrid formula applies are synonyms of it." If Drosera anglica arose from a cross between two known species then the plants of this species appear to belong to "all individuals ... derived from the crossing". As soon as somebody describes a nothotaxon for the progeny of the parents this appears to be the end of Drosera anglica as a species. This looks wrong but it appears to be prescribed? Brya 14:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
But remember that names apply to types, not taxa (types can refer to taxa, but only by circumscription, which is a taxonomic judgment, not a nomenclatural procedure), so all that is true only if it refers to a single type. From what I've read of the situation (and based on your note that the type was from an area where the parents don't occur, hence likely the tetraploid), I think the best solution is to call the tetraploid Drosera anglica (it is not a nothospecies) and call putative naturally-occurring F1s D. rotundifolia × D. linearis.--Curtis Clark 16:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree on the practical course, and indeed I stated above:
Yes, this would be the practical course of action:
  • the name Drosera anglica for the widely occurring species. This appears to be quite well accepted
  • the hybrid formula D. rotundifolia × D. linearis for the sterile F1 hybrid.
The odds of this being correct are better than 90% (a source of uncertainty is the type: with the original material lost, an unsuitable lecto or neotype might be selected).
However names do apply to taxa, as in Principle II: " The application of names of taxonomic groups is determined by means of nomenclatural types." and Principle IV: "Each taxonomic group ... can bear only one correct name ..." A type does not have a name, only a collection number and perhaps a herbarium number. I like to think of a type as an anchor, fixing an otherwise freely drifting name in place. Brya 17:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
That's really just semantics, since the connection between a taxon and its type is the result of circumscription, which is taxonomy, not nomenclature. If, for example, I believe that the California poppy and the Mexican goldpoppy are the same species, the one correct name is Eschscholzia californica. If someone else believes they are two separate species, the former is still E. californica, but the latter is E. mexicana. This is of course obvious, but the situation of the "Drosera anglica" amphiploid and F1 is not in any way different. A common workflow among monographers is (1) circumscribe the taxa, (2) assign the types to the circumscribed taxa, (3) choose the names based on the ICBN, and (4) write the synonymies.--Curtis Clark 19:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I am also confused about an "amphidiploid" and tetraploid, I assumed an "amphidiploid" is a special form of a tetraploid, not something entirely else. Brya 05:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Oops, sorry; "amphidiploid" is an alternate term for allotetraploid: a species that behaves as a diploid, but derives as a tetraploid from two different parent species.--Curtis Clark 14:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that was is how I understood it, until MrDarwin used both terms together as if they were something else entirely. Thank you. Brya 14:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Yep, I think your image layout is fine. However, removing the distribution map because you would prefer one that has a wider scope seems like taking a step backwards rather than forwards. Let's leave the US map and either replace it when one of us has the time and ambition or let it act as incentive for someone else to improve the article by adding a map with a wider scope. -Harmil 02:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VFT page

The nonsense about hallucinating with VFTs was a mistake: I was reverting the nth bit of vandalism to the page this month (seems a popular target), but obviously messed up and reverted a reversion by mistake! Apologies. Should be correct now. polypompholyx 09:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drosera

Noah, please check the sourcetext of the chapter "Roots" in Drosera. I left a note for you there as a comment. Regards, Denisoliver 00:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coop-Offer from de

Noah, did you maybe miss my reply? Here it is, quoted in full length: Well, teaming with you would indeed be easy, as you can read and write German. We could work together on a special subpage. I would propose to share the sections to write then, i.e. you would write the description, I would write the part on distribution and habitat, you would write the part on botanical history, I'd make the one on systematics and so on .. As we both understand each others language, we can write it bilangual, in the end we have just to translate half an article and then place it -almost finished- in our "Home-WP", where we'd customize the text relating to the specialities of our local WPs. Of course, "sharing" the sections shouldn't be to exclusive, the other one can (and should!) of course review it and might add additional information from his sources to the text, maybe as a comment (). On the subpages talkpage we could note the sources we've available, the other one can ask for infos then or might get access to the concerning literature too.
The basic principle would be the same in case of a team consisting of users, which do not speak all the same languages as we both luckily do. The team would either have to agree on the language to use as a lingua franca then (usually this would be English and additional translating would be necessary by the other poor guy :) ) or reduce the teamwork on all but writing (review, source-access and exchange) or teaming in writing a telegram-style version of the article, which could be a good fundament then for a full-text version of the article in any language. There are many possible ways and the exact way to teamwork should be defined by every team itself. My 2 cent, Denisoliver 07:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Would be glad for a reply, Denisoliver 22:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I added a reply :) --NoahElhardt 23:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarracenia

Hello Noah,

it's very impressive, to see how fast the Sarracenia-article is growing. I am sorry that I couldn't help up to now as much as I planned, but I am incredible busy currently as me and my family will move soon. So please excuse me. I'll try to add some more, if I find the time. Best regards, Denisoliver 21:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  • OK count me in! I'll make a start on the propagation and cultivation sections for now ~ Veledan • Talk 17:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Noah, I have added a paragraph concerning the taxonomy in Sarracenia purpurea. Would you mind to have a look on it to fix my grammar please? Thanks, Denisoliver 21:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Looks good! I changed just one thing. Thanks! :) --NoahElhardt 21:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. About the image: that's strange. I haven't the slightest idea about it, maybe you should ask in the chat for some more information. The same problem is with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sarracenia_leucophylla_flower.jpg, by the way. Denisoliver 21:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Noah, I have added a large section about the zones of the pitchers as an outcommented German text below the first paragraph of Morphology and carnivorous mechanism. It would be kind of you, if you'd translate it (and I am sure, you would improve it too ;) ). Denisoliver 02:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome aboard!

Thank you for signing on with the Horticulture and Gardening Wikiproject! Many web users search for information about gardens, and hopefully we can make this part of wikipedia as useful as it should be. SB Johnny 12:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drosera rotundifolia

I think that the collective changes have made this a kickass page! As for the photo, insectivorous plants are not my specialty (i'm a saprophytic fungus person), just a fascination. My trusty I.D. book for NE Ontario plants only has D. rotundifolia and D. linearis, and it's definately not D. linearis. I'll see if I can dig up some flora checklists from the park. --chris 23:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so according to the Ontario Parks' "Pancake Bay Provincial Park Life Sciences Study," the park is home to both Drosera rotundifolia and Drosera intermedia, so I think you may be right about the plant I.D. Thanks for the help! --chris 05:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] brya's recategorization

It simply involve moving the articles down in the category tree: Category:Nepenthes and Category:Drosera are children of Category:Carnivorous plants. WP:CG does state that Articles should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory. Circeus 02:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Picture
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Englishtitles2-1.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.

Congratulations! --Fir0002 01:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New collaboration

 . The current WikiProject Carnivorous Plants Current collaboration is Heliamphora.
Please contribute

Wanna step aboard and make the CP-project move again :) ? Denisoliver 21:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! :) I just got back from 6-week Pinguicula hunting trip (lots of photos to be uploaded soon!), and ready to dig back in here. --NoahElhardt 21:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yessir! I have already written a section on botanical history in de and will start to translate it immediately (& basics on distribution too). Maybe I will add some more, I'll have to compare both entries. Great to have you along, Denisoliver 21:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Done. Would you mind to see over my contribution and to fix errors? I commented out a part of a sentence in BotHist too, as I wasn't able to translate it, maybe you could fix this too? Thank you. Denisoliver 22:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! That was fast, pheew! Denisoliver 22:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Noah, in de werden inline citations nur dann benutzt, wenn man ein wörtliches Zitat hat oder eine umstrittene Aussage macht, daher habe ich nichts angegeben, entschuldige. Which statements do you need to be referred, I will add these soon. Regards, Denisoliver 08:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FP Artikel

Halo Denis,

Ich weis nicht wie es hier auf dem Deutschen WP so geht, aber bei den Englishen WP nehmen wir "Inline Citations" her. Without these, individual facts are difficult to factcheck, since there is a long list of references at the end of the article to choose from. In order to attain featured article status on any of the English articles, it is almost mandatory that we have many inline citations. If you could start adding these to articles as you write them (for example the Heliamphora article), that would make my life easier. Would this be possible? Danke, --NoahElhardt 06:22, 4. Aug 2006 (CEST)

Halo Denis. Here is a list of facts for which I would like reference information, so that I can add inline citations to the Drosera article. The Drosera article is currently in the Featured Article Candidate process, and this problem (too few inline citations) has already come up. Hopefully we can address it. As many as possible of the following would be helpful. Gruß, --NoahElhardt 17:51, 5. Aug 2006 (CEST)
  • kletternde Sonnentau-Arten können jedoch eine wesentlich größere Länge erreichen, über 3 Meter sind berichtet worden (Drosera erythrogyna).
CPN Volume 30, No 3, 79 / http://www.cephalotus.net/article.aspx?cid=12&y=2001&m=10&d=22
  • Sie können nachweislich ein Alter von über 50 Jahren erreichen.
Barthlott et al., Karnivoren, p. 102
  • Es dient hauptsächlich der Verankerung der Pflanze im Untergrund und zur Wasseraufnahme; für die Nährstoffversorgung sind die Wurzeln nahezu bedeutungslos.
n/a, that's obvious ...
  • Die Pflanze sondert derweil Enzyme wie Esterase, Peroxidase, Phosphatase und Protease ab,
Barthlott et al., Karnivoren, p. 41
  • Entscheidend für die Öffnung der Blüte ist vor allem die Intensität der Sonne; die Blütenstände sind außerdem „heliotrop“, wenden sich also zur Sonne hin.
original research / common knowledge
  • Fast alle Arten sind Windstreuer, bei einigen wenigen Arten (Drosera felix, Drosera kaieteurensis) gibt es eine spezielle Verbreitungsform, bei denen die Samen durch den "Aufschlag" eines Regentropfens aus der Samenkapsel herausgeschleudert werden (Regentropfen- oder Splash-Cup-verbreitung).
n/a, that's obvious ... check botanical descriptions as reference
  • Möglicherweise ist die evolutionäre Trennung der Gattung auf das Auseinanderdriften der ehemals als Superkontinent Gondwana zusammengehörenden Kontinente zurückzuführen, aber auch eine nachfolgende Zerstreuung über weite Entfernung hin wird diskutiert. Dabei wird als Ursprung der Gattung Australien oder Afrika angenommen.
Rivadavia, Fernando; Kondo, Katsuhiko; Kato, Masahiro und Hasebe, Mitsuyasu: Phylogeny of the sundews, Drosera (Droseraceae), based on chloroplast rbcL and nuclear 18S ribosomal DNA Sequences, American Journal of Botany. 2003;90: p. 129. (Online: http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/full/90/1/123)
  • Alle heimischen Drosera-Arten stehen in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz unter Naturschutz. Auch in anderen europäischen Ländern wie Finnland, Ungarn, Frankreich oder Bulgarien sind Drosera-Arten gesetzlich geschützt.
I've travelled through many online-sites for this, i can't give you exact references, sorry.
  • Auch durch die Dürren, die sich in Teilen Australiens bereits mehr als zehn Jahre hinziehen und vermutlich eine Folge der globalen Erwärmung sind, fallen zunehmend Standorte trocken, auch dies stellt mittelbar eine Bedrohung der Arten dar.
n/a, sorry.
  • Bei den australischen Aborigines stellen die Knollen der dort heimischen Knollendrosera ein beliebtes Nahrungsmittel dar.
Barthlott et al., Karnivoren, p. 100
Sorry, that I couldn't give you references for all the facts you requested, I wrote the article more than a year ago now and thus I am unable to get all the sources together again, especially in cases, where I got the informations from the internet. But if you need some more references, just ask. Regards, Denisoliver 16:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I will integrate them today. --NoahElhardt 15:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note in passing

I came across your candidacy for a featured article. I cannot claim to know much about that, and am unlikely to vote on the matter, but maybe the following suggestions could help:

  • firstly: a wikipedia article (any half-finished article) should not contain redlinks. A redlink is a sign that an article is "under construction" and needs fixing (see among others Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery. The Drosera article is full of redlinks.
    • To me, redlinks are only a problem if they link to articles that are likely never to exist. In this case, all of the redlinks are either to species pages that have yet to be built, or to botanists who need bio pages. They serve to remind me of the need for these pages, and every once in a while I take the time to build a page for one of these species. I think I read someone on an instruction page that redlinks were useful to inform others of the need for a particular page.
  • by any standard, names below the rank of genus should be italicized. So it is "section Bryastrum": the botanical name is "Drosera section Bryastrum", but the abbreviated form is OK (provided you are aware it is an abbreviation).
    • Thanks for pointing this out... it had completely missed my attention. I corrected this. --NoahElhardt 18:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

To my taste the page shows signs of trying-too-hard and does not read easy, but (again) I would not vote on the matter. Brya 21:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There are a few bits that are still rather choppy. This trait is inherited from the German page, from which this article was translated. Trying-too-hard would be going too far - indeed, I have been finding several sections that could use some expansion.
Thank you for taking the time to give your feedback. It is much appreciated. :) --NoahElhardt 18:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pinguicula

Danke für den Tip, Noah. Ich kenne Mathias und Mathias und treffe ihn wahrscheinlich in zwei Wochen, ich werde ihn darauf ansprechen und um korrekte Lizenzen bitten. Vielleicht kann ich ihn dann ja auch zur Mitarbeit oder zum Bilderspenden bewegen. Im Grunde ist das ein Kompliment, aber was mich sehr ärgert, ist das es in CP-Kreisen immer heißt: "Wikipedia taugt nichts", dann aber die Artikel einfach ohne Hinweis geklaut werden. Ich bespreche das mit ihm und denke, er wird das verstehen, die beiden sind nämlich eigentlich sehr nett. Denisoliver 15:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flower

"There is some good material in this article that can be re-used, but a lot of stuff needs clearing out and a lot of material is badly missing. This is probably one of the most imporant articles in biology, and should be quality. Is anyone with me on this? --NoahElhardt 22:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)"

I'm interested.
Yes, there is a lot of missing material, a lot of material that does not stand without other information, and some incorrect or possibly just misleading information--the article appears to say that pollination is fertilization, for example, and the evolution section implies a serious loss of ancestry.
I agree that it is one of the most important articles in biology, science even. What are your plans, in particular? Have you an outline of to-do's or anything?
I love your picture of a Sarracenia flower as a diagram, well laid out, clear, large enough to actually see parts, and I love the umbrella stigmas of pitcher plant flower, in general, however, is it necessarily the best picture for such a diagram in a general article on the Flower? Wouldn't a less derived flower, for instance, be more appropriate in such a general botany article? I have down-loaded and used the diagram a couple of times, though, because of its clarity and visual appeal. Still.... KP Botany 04:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I finally got around to commenting on your outline. I am writing up an article on the basal angiosperms, as there is not one on Wikipedia. Would you check it and make comments when I get it written up, in about a week? KP Botany 21:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure thing. Sorry, I've been lazy of late and hadn't taken the trouble to work any farther on the Flower article. I'll try to make the adjustments you listed and start butchering the current article to conform it to the desired end format. I can't wait to remove that poem... --NoahElhardt 22:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I assume you're just busy like the rest of the world. Sorry about the "Noel," awful careless of me, since my only clue to your name is, well, your name. The poem certainly is not the hottest thing in English. If people want flower poetry there should be a great link somewhere to poems about flowers, not a poem in an already lengthy article on a major topic. KP Botany 22:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Yeah, this is all so new to me, i've been using wikipidea for some time now, it's my first attempt at making an article. Which, i totally botched the first time... oh well. I'm actually putting this in my report to the board saying NJHA needs to update it's style. --BJareske 15:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The Revisions are super, btw the new website should be up any day now (crossing fingers). Also i'm assembling probably will be the most risqué presidential report to the board. It basically brings a lot of disconnects and i give my opinion on how to fix them. I know that NJHA is great and all, but it needs reformatting and updating to go with the 2000's. A lot has changed since 1934 and i dont think the organization has really kept up with the times. One of my biggest ideas i guess i'm going to present is to have a part time Promotional Rep. To be paid similarly to our executive secretary. I think it's sorely needed and needs to be aseparate entity totally, not someone taking on another job. We should all still do our part, but this would be more effective.. i think.. --BJareske 15:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i'm trying my best to get NJHA into the modern age, but i'm only one person, and i have limited time as much as the next person. Too bad you wont be able to make it to Omaha this year, it's in indania next year i do believe, which might be my last for a while... i wouldnt mind taking on the responsibility of being the PR, but i strongly believe it should be someone who is paid, so they must give a report on their progress and someone who does not have any other responsibility in the organization. If those two aren't met i dont believe it will work. --BJareske 16:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC) i love the fact it uses zulu time!

Noah, when searching for the article about NJHA, is there anyway to have it come up when you type the serach in wikipedia to come up with our article? --BJareske 18:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wolfberry photo background

I think the green looks better than the pink at Wolfberry, providing greater contrast. Badagnani 00:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Is that right? I don't think most people know that. It makes sense, though. Badagnani 01:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KP duty

Looks purty and much more professional, thanks. KP Botany 23:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Juglans californica or California Black Walnut

Noah, I added this page, but I don't know how to change the page title so it says Juglans Californica, instead of California Walnut. I tried searching for Juglans californica to get to the page that offers the opportunity to add the page but could not make it work. When you get around to it, if you could explain how to do this I would appreciate it, as I want to add a few dozen or more quick pages on species that I know well, but under their scientific names, and a few others were locked into searching for a common name, sometimes like this one, an irregular common name. Thanks. KP Botany 01:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Yes!

Yes, Noah, a redirect is exactly what i'm talking about, i'd like help on how to do that. --BJareske 23:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool, yeah that does help. No i'm not at Convention yet. I'm going there tomrrow after a test that i couldnt miss. Are you going to england this year for the scholarship? are you going to run for office again. Let me know.--BJareske 02:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the plans for Ca, never got farther than the Ca officers wanting one there. I'm sure people would like for NJHA to go go Ca, it's just not going to be able to happen. Until either, the West becomes more devloped in NJHA it's just not a possibility. --BJareske 09:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gymnosperm

I'm editing Gymnosperm, or rather correcting misinformation. It could use an edit from another Plant person when I'm done. KP Botany 20:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to go over it. I toook a quick glance, and can already see some changes I'd like to make to make it more lay-friendly. Let me know when you're "done", and I'll see what I can do. --NoahElhardt 22:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angiosperm

I edited the section on angiosperm apomorphies that I added to correct the disasterous introduction to flowering plants, when you get the time would you look it over? I couldn't leave it for the gymnosperms which will have to wait. Thanks. Oh, I forgot, I need to add a link to the section to the Simpson reference at the bottom, a numbered footnote? I can't find out how to do that. KP Botany 20:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flower

Hi Noah--I see you're in the middle of editing the Flower article. I just moved the Actinomorphous/Actinomorphic Flower to a new article titled Floral symmetry which still needs work but several pages now redirect to it. I wonder if you might be able to work a link to it into the Flower article somewhere (and also feel free to edit the Floral symmetry article itself, as it's still little more than a stub).

[edit] Pinguicula laxifolia

Danke, Noah! It is funny, that you contribute a Ping to de today, as I (heavily discussing a new article about de:Pinguicula potosiensis and Pinguicula sytematics in general) have visited www.pinguicula.org this afternoon and -Surprise!- saw you there with good old Fernando Rivadavia, jumping barefoot through Mexican mountains. You seem to be a CP-celebrity now .. ;) And then, a few hours later, you make me that present. If you would like to do a translation the other way round, you might have a look here: de:Utricularia humboldtii. I made it recently, though I have been quite lazy for months now concerning CPs in the WP.

Will try to pay back.

Regards, Denisoliver 00:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, au revanche, here you are: Pinguicula potosiensis ;) . Please check grammar and so on ... All the best, Denisoliver 02:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The same goes for a basic rework with some additions of Pinguicula moranensis, a real ugly article. I hope it is what better now. Please check ... See you, Denisoliver 02:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixing, Noah. BTW: you couldn't know about the German U. warburgii article, as I wrote it this night, basing on the en-article, but extending it by the given sources. I too hope, that we can do some more CP-articles this year. Especially as this is the best season for making photos of my tuberous and pygmie-drosera, this could be promising (see [1]). Regards, Denisoliver 10:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a note to inform you, that I wrote articles on de:Byblis aquatica, de:Byblis rorida, de:Byblis gigantea. Might be worth to be translated as articles of a currently underdeveloped genus in en-WP. Regards, Denisoliver 00:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I translated the de-article on Allen Lowrie. Would you be so kind to fix its grammar and style? It's a stub only (hard to find out facts on him), so a correction should be fast. Thanks, Denisoliver 16:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore I made de:Byblis lamellata and brushed up de:Utricularia blanchetii. Finally we have a category for CP's now in de, check de:Kategorie:Fleischfressende Pflanze. Denisoliver 18:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA reevaluation

I have made significant changes to Asian arowana, which failed its first GA review. I tried to address the concerns you mentioned on the talk page. Some topics, such as wild breeding behavior, seem to have very sparse information, and I think that is simply because little is known. If you could re-evaluate this article, I would appreciate it. I'm also planning to ask for a peer review. Thanks! --Ginkgo100 talk 21:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flower article

Please see my post in the flower talk pages, under the title "cleanup". I've done quite a bit of updating on this article. Let me know what you think. Veracious Rey 02:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It wan't my intention to clutter up the article. If anything I based my picture placement on pictues in other featured articles. Take a look at earlier versions and compare them to mine. I think you'll see the article is now more uniform.
The bee picture you are taking about is featured in another article, of which is linked properly from the main Flower article. I'm trying to limit redundancy, as well as taking out too many pics. If anything, I "unclutterd" the article. As for the size of the pictures, I'll compromise and reduce them. Also, I'll add back the interlanguage wikilinks. That was my mistake. Thanks for the input. Veracious Rey 07:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The article was nominated for featured status. Well, to put it lightly, those offering their opinions didn't agree. Thought you might want to read their comments if you plan on cleaning up the article. Let me know if you need help with anything. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 02:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC) By the way, the pic of the young boy smelling the flower has gotten some praise from a few people. So that would be a good pic to leave in the article. Thanks. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 02:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Floral variety

Thanks, KP Botany 01:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] P. moranensis

Wow, respect! That's indeed a brillant article, very impressing and the pictures are simply stunning. I will translate it as soon as possible. Thanks a lot, Denisoliver 07:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pinguicula vector

Thanks a lot for your offer, Noah, here are the matching terms: Mucilage=Sekret, Secretory cell=Drüsenzelle, Stalk cell=Stielzelle, Reservoir cell=Reservoirzelle, Sessile gland=Sitzende Drüse. Two further points: is placing a fly above the leaf not a slightly misleading illustration? It is a rather large prey and (as far as I know) very rarely gets captured. Another point: there is a typo in the illustration, it says Resevoir instead of Reservoir.

Something completely different: a few days ago I have renewed the List of Utricularia species in en and added a section about phylogenetics in Bladderworts. It would be kind of you, if you would stylefix it.

Finally let me recommend you the November 2006 issue of Plant Biology, a special issue on CPs. It contains a bunch of papers with partially stunning results (Stylidium produces digesting enzymes, so does Brocchinia reducta and Roridula gorgonias; a new phylogeny of Pinguicula; a first phylogeny of Nepenthes; some Lentibulariaceae having the smallest known genomes of all angiosperms, etc. pp.). It is definitely worth reading. Regards, Denisoliver 07:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You can get the essays here: [2]. I have two of them as PDF's here ("Evidence of Protocarnivory in Triggerplants (Stylidium spp.; Stylidiaceae)" and "Fluorescence Labelling of Phosphatase Activity in Digestive Glands of Carnivorous Plants"), if you like to, I can send it to you. P. moranensis there is sister to P. agnata, their clade is placed next to alpina, like this:
              ┌──── P. moranensis
              │   
          ┌───┤ 
          │   │
──────────┤   └──── P.agnata
          │           
          └──────── P. alpina

But one should bear in mind, that they only took 24 species and many of them were european.

Thanks for the picture, it is almost perfect, but regrettably it contains a typo (Drüsenzell instead of Drüsenzelle). I would fix it myself and in fact already did, but The GIMP is unable to save the picture as svg again, so would you be so kind to correct it? I am looking forward to integrate it in the "Fettkräuter"-article. Regards, Denisoliver 08:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have sent it already, but I cannot attach these through the WP-mail function. So please send me an e-mail and I will respond with the articles attached. Concerning the Pinguicula-phylogeny: it is not as disapponting, but I oversaw the obvious: this phylogeny almost exclusively contains the european species and moranensis / agnata are kind of an outgroup only. Regards, Denisoliver 07:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protocarnivorous plant article

How are things coming with the protocarnivorous plant article? It would be nice to get that one up and running soon. Someone put the carnivorous plant article up for peer review, so I'll be working on that some in the coming weeks. It would be nice to get some articles up to FA level, and we have a handful of candidates that can get there with just a little concerted effort.

I'm impressed that Stylidium are only one small step away from being considered carnivorous! That article will be getting more attention from the CP and botany community in the near future as news of these findings spread, so you're effort on that article will pay off! :) --NoahElhardt 05:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It's coming along. I've been working on it slowly, and can imagine even turning in a related article in for potential publication, perhaps in the CPN. We'll see. Anyway, I basically have to finish up the section on flypaper traps, add the pitfall traps, include a bit about the oddballs, input some photos, copyedit one more time, and we can go live. Do you think it needs any additional sections? There's not much printed about the evolution of protocarnivorous plants. And I think I do want to say a bit more in the intro about the word preference (Schnell, I believe, prefers paracarnivorous, while other publications prefer protocarnivorous, though at least one source notes that this may be misleading since a protocarnivorous or subcarnivorous plant may not be on the evolutionary path to carnivory. I just have to find and cite those thoughts, now!).
I saw the CP article up for review. I'll take care of the citations in the borderline section. And once the protocarnivorous plant article is up, we could put {{main}} and link to it in that section with the summary that exists there already. Let me know if there are any specific tasks I can help out with on the CP article. I did want to ask which variety of English should be used, since I noticed a couple British English spellings. What was the style of the first major contribution? --Rkitko 06:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to add my praise: well done on the article! It seems well balanced, cited, and illustrated. Are there any sections you still plan to add or expand in the future? --NoahElhardt 21:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I was actually looking for suggestions on other sections. I tried to parallel the carnivorous plant article as best I could and add other things as necessary. The evolution section could stand to be expanded, but there's so little direct information on it. I find bits and pieces in sources, maybe a sentence or two cast into the ether of the paper's main topic, like that priceless bit from Pierre Jolivet about how all protocarnivorous plants are monocots! If you have any suggestions for that section, other sections, or even external links (I can't think of any that would be relevant, except maybe the CP FAQ, which has some pages on the species written about in the article), I'm all ears, errr, eyes? --Rkitko 22:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archaeamphora longicervia

Thanks. I'm thinking of suggesting it for WP:DYK in the next few days. Mgiganteus1 19:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks ...

that's nice from you. BTW: Have you seen this? Just check his pics, you'll melt away ... Denisoliver 16:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] News...

de:Drosera indica, de:Drosera hartmeyerorum, de:Emergenzen bei Drosera. Regards, Denisoliver 11:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

+ de:Drosera binata, de:Utricularia delphinioides. Denisoliver 23:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint, Noah. I took the 6 cm directly from Lowries CP of A Vol.3., but I will rework the article another time with Diels, who wrote "5 to 15 cm". Regards, Denisoliver 07:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afrocarpus falcatus

Can you format the pictures just added on this page? Probably the big tree should go in the taxobox and the bark close-up in the text. I still can't do images. I'm reading Pinguicula moranensis and will post comments tomorrow--sorry to let it languish so long, as I'm rather busy these days. KP Botany 07:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAC

Sorry, no, I had a work emergency to deal with and a report due by noon deadline today, will look at it this afternoon, though, got relevant related materials and downloaded article. Sorry. KP Botany 16:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I started and will start posting. There are a couple of minor substantive details, but nothing major. There are a lot of small details that need work, imo, to make the article more accessible to a general audience. I only comment on trashy FACs that need to be withdrawn until they get a serious work over, or articles that have enough to be made excellent. Unfortunately in the second case I tend to post quite a few comments, for the Sei Whale article, one of Wikipedia's best even before its serious editing, I probably made about 50k in comments, so don't be offended at my pickiness. I would like plant articles to be really outstanding, where possible. I can't do the commentary and the editing myself, though, because I have a brutal schedule right now (I'm trying to sleep only 4 hours a night to get everything done and it's not working). If I do get time to edit, I will. Carnivorous plants are not my area, and I don't know this family well. KP Botany 03:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Also you can just use strike outs when you deal with my points, only necessary to comment if you have a question--in other words, disagree with me wherever you feel it is in the best interests of the article--as the article generally flows, whereas many FAC suffer from lack of flow due to multiple editors. It's better overall, imo, to have a readable article, than to hit every point (stylistically). Discuss it, please, if it might be botanically interesting to me, otherwise it would take less time to just use strike throughs. KP Botany 03:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I still have many more comments, but am utterly swamped with work. However, Raul promotes with my support outstanding as you're working on the details. I like this choice of plant and the article very much--in particular the correct level of article and text for the plant being discussed. Again, there is lots of information on carnivorous plants all over the web, but it's nice that folks can get the general background, description, and ecology of the plant from good articles and FAs on Wikipedia. Good work, Noah. KP Botany 03:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BotanyBot errors

Your bot has been doing a fine job, but recently marked some pages not belonging to WP Plants (ex. Usnea rubicunda and Usnea). Was this intentional? --NoahElhardt 08:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I knew I'd miss some! I generate the lists using AWB that the bot then runs on, tagging everything that doesn't already have a tag. I must have included Category:Lichens and its subcategories. Thanks for catching this. I'll go back and remove those and I'll try to be more careful upon the next edit. Thanks again! --Rkitko 08:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
There we go. I removed the tag from everything in that category. Let me know if you find any others. I'm trying to tiptoe around all of these (sometimes misplaced) subcategories that don't belong to our project and I'm bound to miss a few. I'm keeping a log of all the ones I skip, even if they are quasi-questionable. I'll post them when completed for individual review to see if any of the articles within those categories pertain to WP:PLANTS. Thanks! --Rkitko 08:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

I meant to thank you for the link to the Botany Conference in Chicago (I just have to go, now!) and also the birthday wishes :-) Another year already! Time has been a-flyin'. Well, thanks again. Hope all has been going well for you. Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genlisea aurea

Nice work on the Genlisea aurea article (I plan to copyedit etc. later today when I get a chance). I was going to nominate it for DYK, but I see you've already done so. :) Another picture or two would be nice... maybe a diagram of the traps? I'll see what I can do if I get a chance here in the next few days. --NoahElhardt 16:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! As per usual, I was editing pretty late last night and was determined to get it done. That's typically when good gramar and article flow fly out the window. I'd appreciate the copyedit. I'll do another read-through to see if I can catch anything. Another photo would be excellent, but I think there's only one on commons. Have any ideas on where to obtain PD or fair use photos? I'll look around, too, and I'll keep searching for more info to go in the botanical history section. There's also not too much info on cultivation out there so I left that out. Think we should add a mention in there? Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Wanna have Elza Fromm-Trintas Revisao Das Especies Do Genero Genlisea St.-Hil. (Lentibulariaceae) Das Regioes Sudeste E Sul Do Brasil, 1978, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro? It is an essential and extensive monography of brazilian species and rather useful, though in Portuguese. Just drop me a note and I will send the PDF to one or both of you (8,4 MB !). Denisoliver 07:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drosera banksii

Hi Noah,

thanks for the distribution maps and pictures. Regrettably the distribution map for Drosera banksii is incomplete, as it does not mark Papua New-Guinea, where the species is present too. See Conn, Barry J. (Hrsg.): Handbooks of the Flora of Papua New Guinea, Vol. 3, pp. 50-51, 1995, [3]. Regards, Denisoliver 07:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for peer review

Hi, I put an article up for peer review, Date cultivation in Dar al-Manasir, and found your name in the horticulture wikiproject list of people. If you have some time, I think it would make a great FA and wanted to get some expert advice. cc: quercus robur, user:NoahElhardt, Cas Liber, User:Doc Tropics, Lynnathon, Benjamin, HelloMojo, Strobilus. Thanks, Rhetth 01:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GAC backlog elimination drive

This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 00:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photographs

Found your photos in commons today, after visiting the Darlingtonia page. I was by Smith River this week, getting some images. Had added an external link to my album, but someone deleted it. Anyhow, I enjoyed your photos displayed. Do you use an online image host? I recently upgraded at Image Event to "unlimited" storage. Nothing too spectacular, but my direct album URL is Image Host for M.D.Vaden: Image Event. The mushroom album is one of my favorites. The Darlingtonia are in the Smith River album. I put a video of the bog in there too. Someone with photo skills like yourself, could make even better use of an online host like Image Event. Thanks.... Mdvaden 00:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive

A new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 23:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You legend

I'd just like to say that I think the work you have been doing on Carnivorous plant articles, particularly Drosera ones, is fantastic. You've also taken some really good photos; for instance the Drosera anglica article looks great. Keep up the good work! Cheers, Kotare 11:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh and dude, I'm guessing you're based in the US given the photos you've taken, which leads me to ask.. do you have any photos of D. filiformis? ( spectacular plant that it is) I've just created a stub for it and there's nothing on wikicommons..Kotare 05:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Haha yeah I know what you mean! I'm addicted to it as well.. it kind of sucks you in over time - meh, I just find it so satisfying helping to fill all these vacumns of knowledge on the site. Thanks for the D. filiformis photo, I'm going to put it in to illustrate their habitat on the page soonish. I haven't had that much spare time lately either and I'm active on wikipedia only when I'm not busy with more important things. It's really good that there's this core wikiproject CP group (you, me, Rkitko and Mgiganteus1) working on Carnivorous Plant articles at the moment; I have been thinking that we could collaborate to get another one of the genus level pages (ie:Utricularia) up to GA and I think it would definitely be cool to do a collaboration to get the main "CP" article up to FA status - collaborating would allow us to split the (probably quite large) workload required to achieve this. I'll be back on here in a big way about 3 weeks but yeah.. let me know if you're keen on these ideas and thanks again! Cheers, Kotare 05:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks for the barnstar!

Just wanted to say thanks for noticing. Seems like an easy objective to get those stubs filled in. Then we can go back through and fill in from the source I have and seek out others. Oh, also meant to say I've been filling these in with almost no clue on importance, so I've been assessing them all as low-importance. If you think any of the ones I've created so far should be mid- or high-importance, go ahead and change 'em. Hope your summer is going well =) Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common Names

I think the idea is they want it to mention it. Although ours does not mention caps, it links to discussions about caps, in which we concluded that we would essentially let MPF capitalize or not as desired. It doesn't do any harm to plants, imo, as these are common names, not scientific names, and there are standardized vernacular names for native plants of that North Atlantic wetlands where MPF resides. But I don't really see any need to revisit this in plants, and I think that if we wind up agreeing to something there that doesn't include this exception for plants, anti-projects folks will revisit the issue later with ammunition. I'm basically irritated at the whole mess, though, so I really can't add anything useful. Hope all is well with you. KP Botany 20:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Technically Dave's right that we should have a straight-forward accessible set of style guidelines that all editors can find and see, so, yes, we should codify the allowance of common names. I would like to see a low key discussion about it, though, which pretty much precludes my starting it.... KP Botany 01:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Good job barnstarring Rkitko, he's earned more than one. KP Botany 01:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pinguicula 'Hardware store'

Pinguicula 'Hardware store'
Pinguicula 'Hardware store'

Hi there! I was wondering if you could help me identify the Pinguicula species that I had gotten from a Lowe's hardware store. It's my first effort into growing Pinguicula and I was happy to see a flower on this one. Any idea? Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Pinguicula primuliflora. Great pic! Its a hardy species native to the US, one of the most common to be sold in nurseries. Watch for the plantlets that tend to form along the leaf margins in this species. --NoahElhardt 22:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I looked over some other photos on the 'net of this species and they all seem to match up. I can't believe there wasn't a photo of this species on commons before. I'll go ahead and label it and then place it on the species page. I'll try to get a better shot of it tomorrow with my partner's digital SLR rather than my crappy digital point-and-shoot. I'll be able to get a better DOF with it that way. Thanks again! --Rkitko (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ProjectPlants/Collaboration

A silly question: what does Standing List of large articles which may be within striking distance of GA or FA mean? I mean, what should I do with those articles? Collaborate to do what? I'm sorry, I don't understand ;-) Aelwyn 15:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't start the section, but to my understanding this list represents articles that have enough quality "meat" in them that, if a few of us collaborated on them for a week, we might be able to improve them to FA or at least GA status. We (WP:Plants) haven't really done any collaborations outside of the subprojects (Banksia and CP's) yet, but there's no reason we couldn't if someone organizes one! --NoahElhardt 16:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I was just thinking about this. This is why I asked to move the discussion about "Top-importance stubs" to that page. It would be great if we could cooperate more. Aelwyn 15:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] D. filiformis pic

good stuff for putting it up - it's a nice one, really captures the beauty of this drosera species. Cheers, Kotare 07:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voynich

Hi Noah, depiction or reference, I think it a bit too contentious a document to include i the article. I will be tedious, do you have a reference that says that it is representing a sundew, no other actual representations are confirmed. The views on the book are many. including its date. From what I know of the manuscript, one could see a lot of things with a bit of imagination. Cygnis insignis 06:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The only claim made by the caption is that this is "Possibly the oldest illustration of a sundew from the mysterious Voynich manuscript". I don't think that language is too strong for an illustration that depicts what is almost certainly a sundew. The shape of the leaves, the unique tentacles on the leaves, the arrangement of the leaves, and the arrangement and shape of the flowers and buds on the inflorescence all match (compare 1 with 2). It is very unlikely that another European plant exists with all these same characteristics - I certainly haven't come across one. The known use of the plant in early European herbalism is likewise known. I think the case is strong enough for the above caption. --NoahElhardt 16:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Some researchers have taken it a step further, suggesting that it depicted a non-european species. I will propose this; I will keep an eye out for an illustration from earlier an herbal, if successful we could place it in the article. You might be interested in this test shot, I'm going back for more of them. Regards–Cygnis insignis 00:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horticulture and Gardening Collaboration of the Month

The current Horticulture and Gardening Collaboration of the Month is
Template:Horticulture and Gardening Project COTM article
The next collaboration will be selected on October 31, 2007. (Vote here)

Wassupwestcoast 05:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for November 2007

The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for December 2007

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice Work!

Just wanted to say Nice Work on the Utricularia inflata article! :) Its our first decent article of the genus and I'm well familiar with the kind of work that goes into producing it. Thanks and Merry Christmas! --NoahElhardt (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! This one was actually really easy to write. I had been planning to do my thesis on the populations of U. inflata in Washington, so I had all the necessary information at my fingertips. I finally dug it out and got to it! Hope you had a nice holiday! Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 07:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good Articles January Newsletter

Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More unidentified Pinguicula

Wondered if I could get your help identifying these pictures from a year ago that I just decided to upload. Any help is appreciated! Hope all is well with you. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Identified as P. selbyi but I've never heard of that... Older synonym?

All of the next are from the same plant, identified as Pinguicula sp. Sorry for the photo quality. Wasn't taking the time to get good photos!

Rosette

Habit
Hmm... interesting. I've never heard of P. selbyi, and a quick google search produces only a single mention - an illustration from 2002. Perhaps a yet-unpublished species? Have any botanists from UOW made any trips to Mexico recently? My guess is that its in the Pinguicula moranensis complex... as likely as not just another synonym. Had I seen that plant while in Mexico, I would have called it a P. moranensis in an instant.
The other pictures are probably also P. moranensis, though it could be some pseudo-species like P. potosiensis (rejected as a synonym of P. moranensis by Zambudio). Keep uploading pictures! :) I'm doing good, btw... just busy with school, so I do little more than glance over my watchlist occasionally. Nice work on the Utric stubs! --NoahElhardt (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I thought they all looked similar to P. moranensis, but they had one of those sitting right next to these two. I just didn't upload the photo since you have so many wonderful ones. I'm not aware of any botanists from "UDub" visiting Mexico, but it's a possibility. I also checked that google search and was curious about the single mention in that illustration. It's not likely a misspelling so perhaps this artist was contracted to illustrate the species by the person who named it? An interesting mystery. I'll contact the artist to hopefully cure my curiosity.
Glad to hear everything's going well! I just interviewed for a position at Ohio State University's Arabidopsis resource center. Cross your fingers! And thanks—I want to finish off subg. Utricularia and move on to the next. I probably only have 70 or so more to do. And then it's on to the next genus ;-) Speaking of which, I was thinking of attacking Pinguicula next for stub creation; is there a recent monograph that I might be able to snag or will I have to cobble it together from a large array of sources? Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
AFAIK, nothing resembling a monograph has been published since Casper's in 1966. Looks like you'll have to scrounge some. The World of Pinguicula website is a great resource. I have in-situ photos of a dozen or so Mexican species... I'll make an effort to upload those for you to use sometime soon. --NoahElhardt (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Much appreciated. I have some time before I'll be getting around to the Pings, so no hurry on the photos. Oh, I also noticed your edit over at Drosera sessilifolia. I went ahead and deleted it as a bad redirect. Eubot (talk · contribs) is designed to take synonyms from the taxobox and create redirects. I'm not entirely convinced that's a good idea and I see so many problems with it that I was thinking of registering my opinion on the operator's talk page. I had to clean up quite a few bad Utric redirects. Who knows how many of these it has created. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
On "P. selbyi": the artist who drew that 2002 illustration e-mailed me back and indicated that they had seen the same plant at UW that I had photographed. The plot thickens! I've e-mailed the UW staff to see if the accession number indicates why it was named in such a manner. --Rkitko (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, did you see this? --Rkitko (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April GA Newsletter

The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The image of yours

Hi, Noah,
I added this image to the sundew article. IMO it is a great image and I believe you should nominate it on Wikipedia FP. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Utricularia

One more section! Good work, and congrats! :) -NoahElhardt (talk) 06:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I recall that I also need to check our list against Barry Rice's. If I recall correctly, we may be missing a few species. Hope you're enjoying your summer so far! What are you up to during this school break? --Rkitko (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Wish I could say I was on break already! Finals end on the 14th, after which I head up to the mountains to work as a cook at a field station for a few weeks. Hopefully I'll find more time for improving wikipedia pages between meals then than I do between homework now. :) --NoahElhardt (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, right! Quarter-system. I now work at a school that operates on the semester system. The students have been gone for 2 weeks already. Well, good luck with finals! Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good articles newsletter

Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 02:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)