User talk:Oeropium
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Category:Roundworms
The Heteroderinae you created was listed in Category:Roundworms which has since been moved to Category:Nematodes. Just an FYI, thanks Justin chat 08:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Royal Antelope
Hi, Oeropium: I reverted your insertion of an image on this page, as Royal Antelope is not Capra pygmae. Of course, if you find an image of the real thing, please put it up :-) —GRM 19:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Papua New Guinea orchids
Hi you may find this website interesting -perhaps theres some info there. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 18:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Invitation to join WikiProject Plants
 |
Hello, Oeropium and thank you for your contributions on plant- or botany-related articles. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Plants, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of plant-related articles on Wikipedia.
If you would like to help out and participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks! Circeus (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC) |
[edit] Pectinaria
Hello Oeropium, I wonder if you could expand on your comment that Angraecum (an orchid) is a synonym of Pectinaria (a tube worm). GrahamBould (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hello GrahamBould, there are two taxa named Pectinaria, and they are distinguished by authority. One of them is Pectinaria Cordem., which is a synonym of Angraecum (See this page [1]). The other one is the Pectinaria Savigny in Lamarck, and this is the tubeworm genus. It is normal, indeed often, to see different authors coming up with the same name for different taxa. Welcome to the messy world of taxonomy !Oeropium (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Taxonomy allows synonyms to exist between animals and plants. Circeus (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Taxoboxes
I appreciate the work you're doing with the orchids. However, I have a different opinion on the use of species lists in taxoboxes. It is all right when this list is short, but with long lists the taxobox becomes unwieldy long instead of being an asset to the article. That's why, when I wrote the original articles, I put the species list into the article, whenever that list became too long. For very long lists, I made a separate article. However, you can always put the prominent members of the genus into the taxobox and then refer to the long list. In the case of Stanhopea for instance, you've put the species list into the taxobox while removing the geographical data of their distribution. This is loss of data and should not be done. It took me a certain effort to compile these data and there is no reason to see them removed. That's why I've made a rollback to the previous version. I hope you can agree with this. JoJan (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, but why include each species' specific range of distribution in the genus article ? The distribution range of each species is species-specific and should only be included in the article about the species in question. The genus article should only discuss genus-wide distribution range. Distributions of specific species might be mentioned insofar as they help gain some sort of genus-wide insight. But doing this in a systematic way in articles that are conceived for genera, not species, is, to my opinion at least, abusive.
Yes I do agree that my edits with regards to this issue represent losses of information, but it is only for rigor's sake. This is what I suggest we will do: I will go ahead and create a page just to list all orchids species with their respective distribution ranges. In a first time, I will name the article Distribution of orchid species (which can be renamed at your discretion...). I will retrieve all distribution data lost from my edits and move them to this page. It will take me a little while to get this done, but should not take long. Hopefully with the advent of this page, species-specific distribution ranges should only be limited to 2 places: that page, and the article about the species. Why don't you check back within 1 or 2 days and see if you deem the result satisfactory... I guess the existence of such a page would also facilitate your keeping track of the compiled data. About very long species lists: well, first of all, the subdivision section of the taxobox does not exist to say "see text". And in no case should it serve this purpose. For very large genera, the odds are good that species are not all grouped into 1 genus only, but also in subgenera, sections, subsections, species complexes, and so on. When these intermediary ranks exist, it is best to list them, and not the species themselves, in the subdivision section of the taxobox. This way we can come up with a much more manageable list. Another way of dealing with this is to list a number of common, representative species in the subdivision section of the taxobox, all the while making a separate page for the complete list, as you said, and putting a link to that page in the taxobox either at the end of the representative species list, or in the diversity section. But in no case should a very long list of species be included in the article body: if it's very long, then it will make the article look awkward anyway.Oeropium (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
