User talk:Dysmorodrepanis~enwiki/Archive071122-090415

Previous: Talk page archive 07-JAN-01 - 07-NOV-19

Next: Talk page archive 09-APR-23 - 11-AUG-26

Whats wrong with this willow?

Hi, I was recently in North-West Greenland, in the town Upernavik. There I found this infected willow (probably Salix arctica, maybe Salix glauca) (see also here). I noticed you are a main contributor to an article about bugs feeding on willow. Have you got any idea what hit this willow? I plan to upload the photos to Commons once I understand what is going on and can give the photos a meaningful name. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

2 possibilities:

• Plant galls. In which case I'd go with gall mites as the ones responsible. See also here; the lowest 2 pictures. How the galls look like depends on both the willow and the parasite, but Eriophyidae generally make smallish galls that stick out of the upperside, are hollowed out from below, and are usually tough, horny, yellow or red and sometimes hairy.
• Fungal disease. In which case they're fruiting bodies, and would probably be outgrowths of the upperside of the leaf only and the underside would be normal, or bear a black dead spot or a dimple where the growth is but not a hollow.

I think the former is more likely. But see also Tenthredinidae (the red "sausage galls" to the left some 2/3 down in the page linked above). These gall midges make what looks like a coarser version of Eriophyidae (gall mite) galls, only they are hollow inside (I think) and almost always MUCH larger: the gall midges might be just 1-2 mm long, but the mites are microscopic See Image:Gehölz.mit.Gallwespe.4067.jpg for what seems to be Tenthredinidae galls on what might be another species of Salix. Eriophyes padi produces very similar (more hairy) galls on Rosaceae: see photo here. But I don't think that one can narrow it down to more than family if at all; see Image:Eriophyes tiliae 2005.08.19 16.44.07-p8190001.jpg for the very different galls caused by another member of Eriophyes on linden (Tilia).

Overall, I'd say if the things were hollowed out from below, I'm 95% in favor of Eriophyidae gen. et sp. indet (at present ;-) ). If it is a fungus, I can only promise to take note when I come across something similar; I know next to nothing about these guys. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was a fast and very thorough reply with very good references. Thank you very much. I agree with your intepretation. da:Bruger:Sten also indicates to me that it is Eriophyidae on my talk page on the Danish wiki (aways nice with a second opinion). -- Slaunger (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Always a pleasure! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Tall Dropseed

Hi there! I saw your recent page move regarding this page. It showed up in the WP:PLANTS assessment log. Anyway, I just wanted to mention a couple conventions you may not have been aware of for future moves. 1) Regarding common names and article titles, it's been something discussed without consensus, so much like non-national topics and their British English vs. American English spellings, WP:PLANTS has never come to a conclusion and therefore considers the style of the first major contributor to be the one to follow. The larger convention, however, appears to prefer lowercase when it's not a proper noun. 2) That's all rather moot, though, since this species also falls under WP:NC (flora) which prefers article titles at scientific names unless it meets one of the given exceptions, which it doesn't look like this page does. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know about those conventions so you can use them as you wish. Oh, and I've left a note at WP:RM for an admin with those capabilities to move the page to the species name title. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 02:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So I'll mv pages to the scientific name title in the future, OK? As regards genus pages, I tend to link to the common name that seems most common and/or makes most sense. That way, it is easy to check for redirects. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but it's no big deal. We're not actively going around moving pages, but when you find one and the spirit moves you, so be it. I do whenever I encounter a page that doesn't seem to fit either exception listed in the naming convention. And regarding linking to genus pages, whatever you do is fine. No convention on that, really. Mullein and Verbascum both get you to the same place. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 02:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Vague references

Hi Dysmorodrepanis! I'm sure you mean well, but what is the purpose of the vague references to "PacificScience61:36" that you recently added to Vipera ammodytes, Trimeresurus and Bothrops atrox? It looks like a reference to a scientific journal; have you found some interesting articles in it? (PS -- Please answer here, as I've temporarily added your talk page to my watchlist). --Jwinius (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha! I totally forgot: we had a similar conversation regarding Crotalus atrox back in August. I think you're going to have to be a little more helpful with this one, though. I did manage to find this overview page that shows the contents of previous issues of the Pacific Science journal, but it shows nothing yet for volume 61. Will we have to wait for that until next year?

On a side note, I find it very irritating that these scientific journals charge people for access. For even if I managed found your article, it looks like I would not be able to read more than the abstract unless I were to buy a subscription. Now that we have the Internet, it seems to me like these commercial publishing houses are little more than bloodsucking parasites that form a barrier to scientific progress. Why do academics continue to put up with this nonsense? --Jwinius (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a paper about introduced Small Indian Mongoose (Herpestes javanicus auropunctatus). These snakes are mentioned more briefly. It says:

In 1910, the small Indian mongoose was introduced to three Croatian islands to control the horned viper (Vipera ammodytes). In the same year, it was also introduced to Okinawa to control the habu pit viper (Trimeresurus flavoviridis). The effects of these two introductions on the local snake populations have not been studied.

The small Indian mongoose was introduced to Martinique and St. Lucia (dates of introduction unknown) to control the fer-de-lance (Bothrops atrox), a venomous species of pit viper (de Vos et al. 1956). Some authors blame (or credit) the mongoose with the extirpation of this snake on those islands (Barbour 1930, Nellis 1989), but it is uncertain whether mongooses actually attack these snakes in the wild. Hinton and Dunn (1967) stated that mongooses are commonly killed by the fer-delance in ‘‘fighting pit’’ shows, but Nellis and Everard (1983) believed that the mongoose usually wins.

References are:

• Barbour, T. 1930. Some faunistic changes in the Lesser Antilles. Proc. N. Engl. Zool. Club 9:73–85.
• de Vos, A., R. H. Manville, and R. G. van Gelder. 1956. Introduced animals and their influence on native biota. Zoologica 41:163–194.
• Hinton, H. E., and A. M. S. Dunn. 1967. Mongooses: Their natural history and behavior. Oliver and Boyd, Ltd., London.
• Nellis, D. W. 1989. Herpestes auropunctatus. Mamm. Species 342:1–6.
• Nellis, D. W., and C. O. R. Everard. 1983. The biology of the mongoose in the Caribbean. Stud. Fauna Curacao Other Caribb. Isl. 195:1–162

Pacific Science is available on BioOne 2. Some universities already have it and together with asking the authors there is a fair chance to get hold of one of these. They had a similar review on the Brown Tree Snake recently. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The article in the journal Pacific Science that Dysmorodrepanis refers to is:

Hays WST, Conant Sheila. 2007. Biology and Impacts of Pacific Island Invasive Species. 1. A Worldwide Review of Effects of the Small Indian Mongoose, Herpestes javanicus (Carnivora: Herpestidae) Pacific Science - Volume 61, Number 1, pp. 3-16

--Jwinius (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In birds, we had this one guy adding massive reflists to articles, none of which were actually used. These days, they are generally outcommented as annotations under the ref section, and used at leisure. Everybody wanting to do some significant editing can check these out and pick refs as needed. In other pages I have seen them dropped on the Talk page. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Barremian Changes

Hey, I noticed you redid the fauna section of the Barremian page, and I like it quite a bit. However, I have some proposed suggestions...

1. Separate headings for vertebrates and invertebrates would be cool.
2. Brief descriptions of the major animal groups would be helpful for readers not acquainted with paleontology, not to mention aesthetically putting some space between the many blue links.
3. The fourth column under the ammonite heading makes the section's contents go much farther to the right than all the other sections. I propose having the ammonite section have three columns and an image to the right (Annuloceras probably).
4. Adding daggers(†) to extinct taxa's names.

...And I think that's it. Also, any suggestions for the Flora and fauna of the Maastrichtian stage article would be cool. Although please warn me if you're going to make major changes, I put alot of effort and time into that page. Abyssal leviathin 03:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Annuloceras is indeed Barremian but maybe it is found in Aptian strata as well? Anyway, looking forward to see the fruit of your "playing around" with the formatting. :) Abyssal leviathin 13:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

see here. Actually, see Elopteryx nopcsai. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Chinook (language)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. PookeyMaster (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed that. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Revised APG II?

Can you be more specific about what you mean by "updated APG II" or "revised APG II" on Brassicales? The pages at Angiosperm Phylogeny Group and APG II system just mention the one APG II from 2003. Kingdon (talk) 05:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Haston, E.; Richardson, J. E.; Stevens, P. F.; Chase, M. W.; Harris, D. J. (2007). A linear sequence of Angiosperm Phylogeny Group II families. Taxon 56(1):7-12. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; your edit to Brassicales clears things up. Kingdon (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Special Herbs Vol. 3, Special Herbs Vol. 4

• Cheers for your herbal knowledge in the track listings of these. Best, tomasz. 10:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Elopteryx

Well thanks! And though I couldn't find a pic of the remains (might have seen them in Lambrecht tho), I dug up one of a failed reconstruction and tied it in (section 2 para 2). Better to have how it not looks like than to have no visuals at all ;-) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I had a good laugh about "how it not looks". I also had some questions about the synonymy in the taxobox; I left it on the talk page. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hirundinidae

Do you know the source for the split between Hirundo and Cecropis? There is some material here Patterns of Molecular Evolution in Avian Microsatellites by Craig R. Primmer and Hans Ellegren but is based on a limited set of species. Cheers Shyamal (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure - they maintained their split over a row of papers, starting with 1990s-era DNA-DNA hybridization and ending (for the time being) with:

Frederick H. Sheldon et al.: Phylogeny of swallows (Aves: Hirundinidae) estimated from nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequences

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 35 (2005) 254–270 doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2004.11.008

While that's not online, a review of the accumulated evidence is: Sangster et al. (2005): Taxonomic recommendations for British birds: third report

Or you can simply default to HBW vol. 9 which adopts these changes too. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hirudidae

Glossiphoniidae? Now I'm impressed. How it comes you know all that much for EVERY kind of animal? How can a man have so detailed knoweledge about classification of popular prehistoric reptiles AND the most unpopular taxa of oligochaete worms? WHO ARE YOU ANYWAY? or WHAT are you? If I was retarded enough (that's how I feel beholding your level of understanding) to be a creationist I would swear that you are the intelligent one who designed all!--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

TNC T-ranks now valid

Hiya. Thought you might like to know I've updated the taxobox to allow T-ranks now, so you don't have to use the G ones. e.g. for Mission blue butterfly. —Pengo 03:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Strophocincla

Hi ! Do you have a full list of species in this genus ? Shyamal (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Paper on Passerine supertrees

Is it possible to share that 2006 paper Zoologica Scripta 35(2) via email, let me know if you have lost my mail id ? You may be interested in this dissertation here Shyamal (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Received. Many thanks ! Shyamal (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Passerines query

Well done on the reworking of the passerines article - a heroic effort. I've posted a couple of queries on the talk page. Cheers. SP-KP (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Elopteryx

Hi, of course it was wrong there. It cannot be placed in the synonymy section of any page at present but if it could, it's likely to be in either Iberomesornithidae, Protopterygidae and Troodontidae. Fat chance though as it's entirely resistant to cladistic analysis. Not that Mickey Mortimer hasn't tried... Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, that was about -idae. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Yes, I was worried about a family being synonymized with a genus. Other than that, your work on this article has been truly wonderful. It sounds like this taxonomic triangle (Elopteryx, Heptasteornis, and Bradycneme) was a real mess! Thanks for clearing this all up... until the next paper comes out, at least... ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 01:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

splitting the Dicruridae

I'm planning on splitting the Dicruridae to follow the HBW unless you can give me a compelling reason not to. Any thoughts? Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"belong into"

Before I work on the wording of passerine (which won't be tomorrow), I'd like to ask you about this phrase. It's pretty rare (38,000 Google hits compared to over 6 million for "belong in" and 50 million for "belong to") and most of the hits on the first two pages are computer jargon. Why do you prefer it to "belong in"? It seems to me that, for example, "May belong in Tadorninae, currently placed elsewhere" says exactly the same thing is your version with "into". —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I asked simultaneously at alt.usage.english, and people pointed out that many users of this construction seem to be German or Eastern European. Also (I'm completely taking their word for this) that the German phrase gehört in takes the accusative, and in followed by the accusative is usually translated into English as "to" or "into", but this is one situation where "in" is a better translation. I looked at your user page and said, "Aha!" Until just now, I hadn't realized German was your native language. Of course, that doesn't mean you went through this thought process. But if, as you said, you saw it in a paper, it might well have been written by a speaker of German. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Eastern European, more likely. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Commenting out

You fooled me with your commented-out words in bird articles. They looked exactly like an odd form of invisible vandalism so I removed them and mistakenly called you vandal. Sorry!! Then I realised it was some kind of Reference. It's not a good idea to put an apparently meaningless <!-- Condor109:192 --> into an article so that editors on vandal patrol think it's vandalism and then waste their time removing it. Could you please explain inside your comment what it means then no-one will remove it. Thanks - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 09:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Python edits

Hi Dysmorodrepanis! I'm sure you meant well with your recent edits to Pythonidae and Python reticulatus, but the intro style is a known alternative that's been applied to some 400 snake articles. For more information see Alternative lead section. I've done my best to apply the same formatting across all of the snake articles that I've worked on (some 400+) and try to keep it all consistent. As for the synonymy for P. reticulatus, this is all from the same source (checklist) that the taxonomy is based on. Regarding Broghammerus, that's first of all not part of the current synonymy, and second it's from an extremely controversial source, so beyond mentioning RH's papers in the various Taxonomy sections, my position is that we should not mention his work any more than is absolutely necessary. (PS -- Please answer here, as I've temporarily added your talk page to my watchlist). --Jwinius (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As regards intro style - this is a quite non-SOP, but well, if you wanna go through with it... it's not that I can't see the advantage. Probably not very useful for many taxa - like birds which have by and large standardized "default" common names - but I'll remember it in future snake edits.

In pages I have edited, I have usually added a section or subsection on common names, if these were too numerous and/or significant. This lends itself readily to taka which have many clokal names, perhaps even with intersting folklore, etymology etc attached. But though this might apply for the Reticulated Python in particular, it is probably pointless for most reptiles, for which it's more a question of common English pet/trade names. (There is precisley one "herptile" genus where I have done really significant work to date IIRC)

Broghammerus... the genus name should be technically valid. I have checked the source, and if there's no ICZN caveat applying it should be acceptable. The genus is delimited properly due to monotypy. However the subspecies names are undiagnostic.

As regards the source, yeah, I noted... it's rare to see so many people quite obviously going OMG WTF!!!!1!11 over a taxonomic pub. Do we have a scholarly or otherwise expert review and condemnation of these taxa? Because if so, we could point out more strongly that ppl should not follow the proposed taxonomy. I had seen the taxon used on the Web, and became curious... my actual intent by putting the thing in was to point out that the darned thing exists but has no merit.

That it doesn't hit on Scholar is not surprising, as much of the relevant literature is not indexed (aquaria/terraria community has many non-indexed journals). I am not a herper, so I didn't really know where to dig for good refs slamming Broghammerus. But if such sourcing is available, I suggest it's better to leave the original paper in. I have done the same with some ornithological articles, and IMHO it's batter to resolve a taxonomic dispute in no uncertain terms than to be shy about it. "Folk taxonomy" can only benefit... in the long run, we'll hopefully see less Broghammerus then ;-) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Although it doesn't mention Broghammerus, this paper explains the situation: Wüster W, Bush B, Keogh JS, O'Shea M, Shine R. 2001. Taxonomic contributions in the "amateur" literature: comments on recent descriptions of new genera and species by Raymond Hoser. Litteratura Serpentium 21:67-91. PDF at Wolfgang Wüster. I found it an excellent read. --Jwinius (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah! I remember Wüster's name, came across it in passing. Thank You very much! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And there's more; check the taxonomic section and associated references in the Acanthophis article, which applies to the Python situation too. 212.10.89.177 (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Stifftia

About your edit to Asteraceae; the names of plants and algae are both ruled by the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, thus it is simply not possible for a plant and alga to share the same valid name. Could you please provide a source where an alga is (invalidly) named Stifftia? I really couldn't find any. Vielen Dank! Aelwyn (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed that. The alga is now Zanardinia. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Crescenti trout

Hey, there just saw your move of this article, and I'm curious, 'cause I wrote the original article, and in all my research I never saw it referred to as "Lake Crescent cutthroat trout", so I'm curious about your reason for moving it, since I'm not super familiar with MOS for species. Murderbike (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, Ok. The only thing that seems odd, is that we would have to have something that trumps citeability. But I'm not gonna worry about it. Out of curiosity, why is the Beardslee more interesting to you? Cheers! Murderbike (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

boldness

On List of brachiopod genera, if you are going to get rid of the bold, you might want to remove the text "Extant genera are bolded" at the top of the page. Oh, and shouldn't you have cited WP:UNBOLD instead of WP:BOLD ;-)? Kingdon (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Tropidolaemus

Hi Dysmorodrepanis! I know you meant well when you added the new species, T. laticinctus, to the Tropidolaemus species table, but I had put that one in the Taxonomy section there for a reason: it's not (yet) recognized by ITIS. The WP:AAR group made the decision to follow the ITIS taxonomy for snakes in 2006 and it's important that we stick to that one taxonomy in order to prevent a mess. Any taxonomic remarks or new species not included in the ITIS database belong in the Taxonomy section. I know that ITIS is rather more conservative than the bleeding edge New Reptile Database (NRDB), but that's actually a good thing, because it allows us to spend more time expanding our collection of articles as opposed to pushing through taxonomic updates. ITIS also contains fewer mistakes and is widely recognized among herpetologists as being the more authoritative.

Having said all this, I should also mention that the ITIS taxonomy for snakes is not yet complete, as Dr. McDiarmid's work, on which it is based, is still in progress. He's currently working on the colubrid family, which is huge, and still has many genera to go, as was pointed out to me last year. In these cases I suppose our best choice is to follow the NRDB, although I never bothered to mention this in AAR. No doubt it would be better if I did. --Jwinius (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Just curious

I was just wondering what the invisible text i.e. <!-- WilsonBull18:47 --> after the references section on the Passenger Pigeon article is supposed to mean? Sting au Buzz Me... 07:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Read intro text on this page

Corvus(genus)

Hi! There's been a lot of recent conversation on Crow and Raven about a possible merger. We both know that crows and ravens aren't the same thing, however, there does seem to be a lot of redundancy on both pages. Since both names refer to unique species, but are not inclusive of all animals in that genus, I've proposed that the current crow/raven pages be merged into the Corvus (genus) page, with smaller sub pages dedicated to information unique to crows and ravens( as well as the current pages Jackdaw and Rook. Mstuczynski suggested you as a possible interested party as a bird enthusiast and knowledgeable wikipedia-er. Any thoughts or suggestions? Plcoffey (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've created User:Plcoffey/SandboxCorvus (genus) which is currently a copied version of Crow, I'm hoping we can transition it into something resembling a representation of the entire genus, and would love to have any help you felt like offering! Plcoffey (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

tagging of bird

You've tagged bird with an updates needed tag in Modern bird orders, what in particular needs to happens here? Since the article is now featured I'd like to get any issues, such as fact tags or update tags, dealt with as quickly as possible. Leaving problem tags on the mainspace of the article invites people to want to come and revoke its featured status. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I can make those changes. BTW, do you know what the hell these edits are about? The user in question seems determined to add them, no matter how many times people remove them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Made the changes, but is the evidence strong enough to split out the turacos too? Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Argh, don't ask me, maybe check the source of the relevant articles, I might have dumped refs there.

You would want a study including the Hoatzin (of course), the cuckoos (of course), the turacos, a lot of other stuff from just below the near passerines proper (parrots and doves and sandgrouse... owls... falcons maybe, though then you would perhaps also include the Plains Wanderer just for kicks.)

I don't know if such a study exists, and if, if it has anything worthwhile to say.

I am getting the impression that there is a certain period quite early in neoavian evolution where a polytomy of lineages diverge. Several well-apparent clades (one would call them superorders probably) are apparent by the Paleo-Eocene, like the cypselomorphs and the near passerines and the ciconiiform-pelecaniform(-?) clade. And there numerous orders that seem to have drifted apart throughout a short and turbulent period of evolution, rapidly and randomly without clear indication of supraordinal structure. Where do pigeons come from? Nobody knows.

The fossil record would seem to fix this tangled period to 55-66 mya, with the mol data strongly arguing for a late date in that span (I think it would say 60-70 MA roughly).

I do not have anything on Foro panarium which may or may not the proverbial missing link. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

interesting article

• ALBRECHT MANEGOLD (2008) "Passerine diversity in the late Oligocene of Germany: earliest evidence for the sympatric coexistence of Suboscines and Oscines" Ibis doi:10.1111/j.1474-919X.2008.00802.x (early edition) Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Euodice and Lonchura

Hi. Do you know of any evidence of the first being a good genus ? Shyamal (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Haut de la Garenne

Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 11:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Correction of a perseverating lapsus clavis is not a major edit. (Namely, adding the info what the first chamber is, so that the "second chamber" the text mentions entirely without context makes sense).

And gormlessness and being a dick is poorer etiquette still. (An automated comment template is usually proof an editor is acting based not on knowledge and insight but on an automated alert. Before you cry wolf, DNA-type a scat ample and verify it's not a stray dog.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds March 2008 Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Dysmorodrepanis! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be. Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany | watch Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board | watch

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 06:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Corvus (genus)

A tag has been placed on Corvus (genus) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. From-cary (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Your merger proposal

Your proposal to merge effect of sun angle on climate into solar variation makes me wonder if you have any idea what either of those two articles is about. Solar variation is about variations in energy that the sun emits. It has nothing to do with seasons on EARTH, or anything about the earth at all. If the earth disappeared, the topic of solar variation would still exist. Effect of sun angle on climate is about the way in which variations of the EARTH's position affect its absorption of energy from the sun. If there were no variations at all in energy emitted by the sun, the topic of effect of sun angle on climate would still be there. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so Solar_variation#Solar_interactions_with_Earth and Solar_variation#Solar_irradiance_of_Earth_and_its_surface refer to "Earth", the hypothetical frozen-helium Oort cloud object then?

Is this a joke or what? Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You make no sense. Yes, solar variation affects the earth. I know that. I do not need to be convinced. But (1) solar variation would still exist if the earth did not, and (2) the topic of effect of sun angle on climate would still make just as much sense if there were not solar variation. There would still be seasons without solar variation, because of the earth's motions relative to the sun, and there would still be geographic variations in climate without solar variation. That is simply a separate topic from the topic of solar variation. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, so the solar variation article needs much work. Because it does discuss the effect of the sun's angle on Earth climate. It even has an illustration of Milankovitch cycles in mid-text, as if these were subject of the article. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Banana

Thanks for the work on answering the question at Talk:Banana, and for the intro to Europanto :) --Chriswaterguy talk 13:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

A pleasure! I really needed such a no-holds-barred research job yesterday! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

BrEng and AmEng printed Wikipedias?

I don't know the answer to this. That's probably something they'll discuss at WP:1 as we get closer to the time for that version. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

{{Missing taxobox}}

Hi, I see most of the tags for {{Missing taxobox}} were put by you. In the future could you put those on the talk page of articles and not in the article itself? (Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Cleanup). You may also be interested in a (partly outdated) rant about the issue: User:Shanes/Why_tags_are_evil. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 18:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yo. These are/were articles that had the new code not implemented yet. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Answered on my talk page. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 15:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds April 2008 Newsletter

The April 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Merging articles

Hi! I recently saw one of your page merges, Guanacaste (tree). You correctly moved it to the scientific name. In order to comply with the GFDL license all contributions are released under here at Wikipedia, we must maintain the edit history of each article. When merging, it's important to maintain the edit history. If you'd like, after you're done with a merge, alert me on my talk page and I can merge the histories for you. Thanks! Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 12:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you give me a brief summary how to merge Talk, so I can do it on my own in the future? (Or do you need Admin rights?) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, admin privileges are required. When it's a simple merge with only a few edits, I wouldn't bother. But if there are significant edits on both pages, just alert me and I'll do the history merge for you :-) Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 12:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

P. eques

The current listing on the genus page is:

1. Réunion Parakeet, Psittacula (eques) eques - extinct (mid-18th century)
2. Mauritius Parakeet, Psittacula (eques) echo

I am not sure if they should be separate species or subspecies. Do you have any suggestions? Snowman (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for help with the classification of the Echo Parakeet. I hope you like the photo of the Echo in the infobox. Snowman (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes I do! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"This may be the only material proof of these birds' existence, or be from Mauritius." On the echo page, does this refer to the reunion parakeet? Should it be from Reunion? Snowman (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Agapornis

I have heard about some alternative classification systems of Lovebirds. Are they of the Psittaculini? Is there such a parrot as Lillian's Lovebird? Snowman (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Euphorbia species

Hi Dysmorodrepanis. I removed the taxobox because there is one at the genus article, my understanding is there should only be one box per taxon. I can think this is sensible, the species article would link to this genus article, duplicated boxes are disorientating. Lists should not replicate articles, at over 2 000 species there is no room for extras; the purpose of the page is to merely list the species. I thought twice about even editing the page, it is enormous, trimming improved its accessibility. I regretted doing it, but intend to make a nice page at commons instead. Do you agree with my reasoning? Will you restore my trimmed version if I make the appropriate page at Commons? Regards, cygnis insignis 15:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Uggh, Commons taxonomy is currently going through serious pains; there are heaps of competing standards... I mean, go ahead if you can pick one that seems good (be caeful with ITIS; somebody has been adding it all over the place, and for birds specifically ITIS just stinks; for many plants it is not good either). But there is another problem - it seems Commons is generally getting rid of genus pages, so you'd have to make it a Category or risk that it'll be gone tomorrow. But then again, the Category would one way or another link the genus articles there...

The Commons Euphorbia stuff is in need of overhaul anyway, and bigtime. I pondered whether I should do it last year and didn't, because it would have been one very messy week of editing...

My reasoning is basically: user-friendliness beats SOP each and every time ;-) The taxobox certainly adds significant information here. Basically, the problem with "bare" lists is that they are arguably not Wikipedia-worthy at all. We have enough problems with the non-notability crew as it is, so a bit of eyecandy can help ;-)

Usually I am rather swift in deleting redindant information - especially taxonomic data, because it's so hard to maintain all those taxon authorities, synonyms etc when they are on several pages (taxon authors as placeholders for taxa where no page exists or - especially in Senneae its' important - when there is excessive homonymy are good). But I guess that the genus page and the species list only work together as a team, though one can reach them from either end. So I'm not firm on this issue, but I would rather keep the taxobox... it helps, especially on a page like this. Makes it more accessible to non-specialist users. (And I basically just like taxoboxes. Sleek piece of code, very pleasurable to use.)

Well if you really want to see it gone - why not just outcomment it for the time being and leave a note to that effect on the Talk page? That way, if it eventually gets restored the code is already in place (it's a bit different from the genus taxobox). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, commons is going through growing pains. There are also people deleting categories on the basis that there is an 'article' (gallery) on the taxon. The discussion on this was not adequate, it is worth noting that several user accounts are adding to their edit counts by systematically removing useful information from the images. The simple answer to any perceived problem with an internationally accepted system of taxonomy is to do both, have galleries and categories. The specious reasoning provided for the deletion of these could be applied to any form of categorisation, something otherwise encouraged by the Commons community. It is a case of editors simplfying their own self appointed tasks, something that often degrades our contributions. It is very much a case of a view formed and implemented without proper consideration or consultation, the justifications are retrofitted to suit their actions. Anyone who is willing to squabble over there own uploads, and the quite reasonable application of a second or third category (overcat, apparently), is eventually given leeway to improve commons. This supports my contention that the edit count is the prize, they need to find unmonitored images or those they can bluff. That is my rant, so much for assuming good faith.

They are sleek indeed, the taxobox at the genus has a diversity link to the list of Euphorbia. They should not be different otherwise, that would be a worse problem. Duplication is disorientating to users, especially browsers, thinking of them is my standard SOP. I can't see a reason for IAR in this case. Other taxonomic systems exist, articles and lists are useful for these as well. All taxa are theories, if they are notable we should include them all. I think there is enough to do with the widely accepted systems, but explaining alternatives is potentially a valuable contribution.

Lists are accepted by the community here, and I think they are useful, however they are not regarded as articles. We are not explaining anything with them, they are a convenient arrangement of data that often support the 'proper' articles. An addendum.

I often use comment out, I didn't think it necessary as the duplicate is linked by the article title of the genus.

If you attend to this genus, you might use IPNI for the reference. We are, of course, not deciding who is most correct, the Kew Index is a great start for finding citations and by far the most established index of plant names. Also check the redirects to Euphorbia and article Taxonomy of the Euphorbiaceae, and note that it is unreferenced and the editor has not responded to requests for a citation AFAIK. The template at the top of the list (This article is 100 KB or more in size.) is founded on a good rationale, the images should be chopped out. cygnis insignis 18:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge: Argusia argentea -> Tournefortia argentea

Can you merge the histories? Thanks in advance! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for letting me know! And I also wanted to mention, thanks for all of your valuable contributions in checking taxonomy like that. It's hard to keep up with! Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 17:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a bit more on this topic in a new thread on Rkitkos' talk page. Hesperian 12:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Polytelini

There are a few red links on the "Parrot" page. The one that seems to be the biggest gap is the redlink to the current tribe of "Polytelini". What is this? Snowman (talk) 11:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice!

Good job on this It's good to see the article getting some attention! :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Cormorant article

No problem with removing the picture, that wasn't that good a home for it anyways . That red footed shag thing , wow . That's one eye-catching bird :D Cheers --Mad Tinman _{T C} 13:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ecdysozoa

Could you take a look at this Talk:Ecdysozoa. I do not have access to the full text mentioned there. Shyamal (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjet Birds May 2008 Newsletter

The May 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Prosopis juliflora

Hi! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that in an edit that you did on Prosopis juliflora a long while ago that some references lost their online links. Just thought that I'd let you know, because it makes it a pain to go back and fix things.
WriterHound (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hangyalesők

"Lesni" means "to ambush". Probably "anthunter" (or antwatcher) would be an acceptable translation of the Hungarian term. Squash Racket (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

And one more thing: this is plural. "Hangyaleső" is the singular form. Cheers, Squash Racket (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Corvus (genus)

I wanted to ask for your continued input over at corvus (genus). Thanks! Plcoffey 16:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Shortened notes

Sorry, the thread got long quickly and I didn't notice your insert. Shortened notes definitely work in some situations, but not in my articles. My articles generally have a large number of references that are used perhaps 1.2 times per article. Using shortened notation would result in two complete sets of references, the first of which would be utterly unintelligible. YMMV, of course! Maury (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get this...

Hi, I noticed this, I have the dictionary, erm...anything I can help with? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Melampitta

This genus is handled really inconsistently in WP; particularly disputing whether or not it is congeneric. Was that you? I went on the latest HBW which probably has it in the wrong family (it doesn't claim that it is correct) but is usually quite good about assigning things to the the correct genus, and they said that on balance they were the same genus. Is there a recent paper that places them anywhere or definitely splits them? I couldn't find them on the paper you gave me for the monarch flycatchers which you mentioned had them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ecdysozoa

Shyamal, I had left a msg for you at the Ecdysozoa discussion; didn't send you the Nature paper yet because if you needed any of the others I referred to, I can send these in a bulk.

Sorry, did not notice as I was away in the Himalayas for almost a month and yet to catch up on a lot of backlog. Do send me the ecdysozoa papers or if you have already gone through them and better still do add or edit the article with your research. Too much to read! :( Anyways, here are some pictures from my Himalayas trip that have gone into WP. User:Shyamal/images4 Shyamal (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Squirrels

"Black squirrel" and "Eastern Grey Squirrel" have separate pages, but are they the same species. Snowman (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds June 2008 Newsletter

The June 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

And just wait... this year HBW 13 comes out, and we'll finally have articles on the painted berrypeckers and berrypeckers & longbills worth a damn. Combating systematic bias means tackling the more obscure genera and families, and few places have been more overlooked than New Guinea. Maybe one day we'll have some photos to go with our =expanding articles. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

July 2008 Birds Project Newsletter Link

The November 2024 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. --Addbot (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Square links around uncertain publishing dates

Actually, this is the proper scientific way to do it, so please rv. For examples of use, see e.g. Nomenclator Zoologicus, Haaramo (2008) or Savela (2008). For case examples where such treatment is necessary, see e.g. the citational notes at Zoonomen. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There isn't yet Wikipedia precedent that I'm aware of, and there seems to be clash with pre-existing advice re their use to indicate long ago original publication dates with author-date references. If you want to argue for their introduction I suggest raising it on relevant talk page, but in any case I don't think the best place for such inclusion is in advice about embedded links. Not having a publication date, not even having a remote idea about an approximate one, isn't really an argument for using embedded links. The wording I removed suggested making a full citation (by implication e.g. using <ref> tags) was something to do (by implication) only if author, place of publication, and date of publishing and/or last revision can be determined. That sends the wrong signal as you can use <ref> tags in preference to embedded links with whatever limited information you have. --SallyScot (talk) 22:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I thought we actually had it already in the ref formatting guidelines.

But "author-date references" is exactly the problem here, for these sources do not have exactly determinable dates.

There may be some precedent in the IUCN Redlist articles that Polbot created. Dysmorodrepanis (talk)

Belinae

On 4 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Belinae, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Triple DYK on 4 July

On 4 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Aglycyderini, Metrioxenini, and Oxycorynini, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Entognatha

Hi. I saw that you recently edited the Springtail article. Could you take a peek at its talk page and the debate about the Entognatha grouping? It seems we have a dire need for an expert in systematics. Thanks, --Yerpo (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: about the link to journal title abbreviations list at the top of this page... there is a more up-to-date list here, if you're interested.

Quick question.

Considering the genus Bowdleria is often merged into Megalurus, why the uncertainty about placing it in Megaluridae? Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"Presence" field

By presence I meant something along the lines of "How confident are scientists that this taxon actually lived in this formation?" If it's known for sure, you might put "Confirmed," if the remains can't be too confidently identified as that taxon you might put "Unconfirmed," if there's debate about whether it was really present you might put "Contested," if no one believes it any more maybe "Discredited." Or whatever the situation demands. Anyway, that's what I meant. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts were interesting. Maybe we should bring this up before WP:PALEO, since it would be an issue standardization, as the table format is being used on lots of different Formations' pages. Also because many heads are better than two. ;) Thanks for the input on the tables. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Naming convention

Are you aware of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)? According to the guideline, West African Pepper should be West African pepper. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!!

For the "Bio Star". My first award! And good luck with the work on the articles. I have a lot more to translate (someone has been quite busy on the Dutch wikipedia). If you have any pointers or tips on how to categorize the pages, please let me know. I'm not that experienced in making wiki articles. (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Brain

Hi D, You have commented on the above subject and I would like to know if anybody took up your suggestion/request. Do you still think that some statements in the article are erroneous?LouisBB (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's improving. Apparently, the editor communities are non-overlapping in this case (I have noticed this for other anatomical topics as well - they're mostly tended by medically-interested editors, while the whole zooology crew tends to ignore it). Thanks for notifying me; I am not a neuroscientist but I guess I know where I can find some :) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Tichodroma

Hi, I was looking at the cladogram in the Nuthatch article and as far as I could find the position of Tichodroma seemed to be questioned in most studies. Would be good if you could take a look. Shyamal (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Suttonia

I was working through the Serranidae, and came to this genus. I saw that you added a redirect to another plant genus, with Suttonia being the synonym. Since Suttonia is an active genus in the Serranid family, I borrowed the redirect. Didn't think it warranted a disambig......Let me know if you think some other action is warranted....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Neoaves

Hi Dysmo, I saw you added some more about late Cret. tubenoses and such and I'd like to know you opinion on something. If I read Hackett et al correctly (I am not a bio person) they seem to conclude that much of the radiation of the Neoaves must have happened pretty fast. They seem to doubt e.g. that you can establish the 'Metaves' as a separate group (possibly older than the 'Coronaves'?) because the lines within them have had a very long separate history. In other words the sudden explosive radiation (just after K-T?) interferes with the stats (?). The tubenoses and other waterbirds are coronaves. Are there really well-dated undoubted tubenoses from before K-T? It would make it hard to understand the timing. Are the 'waterbirds' pre-KT and older that the Metaves? Of are the pre-KT fossils from early look-alikes (still Neoaves?) that went extinct at K-T? Jcwf (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops sorry, I had not seen you had basically aswered my question before I asked it. Thanks!

..not a shred of evidence.. I think you mean fossil evidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcwf (talk • contribs) 20:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again my thanks, Dysmo. Jcwf (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to check out the first of the PDFs. It's the real shizznit. Pure gold, the best we have at present. Though in 2 ears, I'm sure we'll have something even better. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ground beetles DYK

Hi. I've reviewed your DYK submission for the article Ground beetles, and made a comment on it at the submissions page. Please feel free to reply or comment there. Cheers, Olaf Davis | Talk 23:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Yes, I am very much in favor of a rewording too; just couldn't think of any. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(copied from my talk) Heh, I can certainly understand that. I've suggested a rewording over at the DYK page - see what you think. (Oops, forgot to sign this Olaf Davis | Talk 17:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC))

Congratulations

On 30 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ground beetles, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Victuallers (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool! :D Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Good Work on Dolichopodidae and Hybotidae

You have done some fine work on the Dolichopodidae and Hybotidae, well done, keep up the good work. I am in the process (off-line, just now) of a major revision of the 'List of dolichopodid genera' page, based on the recent works of Grichanov, I.Y. - 2000, 2004a and 2004b. which I hope to post soon, I trust this doesn't get in the way of your plans? (added by Mark-mitchell-aldershot (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC))

Actually I just did this so I could do this ;-) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

ʻĀmaui

I'm spending some time with Hawaiian Thrushes, and noticed this bird is treated as it's own species. All my info suggests is is subsp. of the Omao. Do you have any sourcing suggesting species status?????????.....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure - IUCN treats it as distinct http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/40150/summ following BirdLife http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html?action=SpcHTMDetails.asp&sid=6348&m=0 which also gives some sources. But ultimately it boils down to this. To which may be added the observation from here that a clear biogeographic break can be seen between Passeriformes from Oʻahu vs those of Maui Nui. So the Maui Nui forms would probably best considered subspecies, whereas the others would qualify as species. The entire group of course is a very close-knit complex. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info.......Pvmoutside (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Whats in a name

http://markmail.org/message/fxl33z4s75d6xjqg#query:Taxacom%20archives+page:1+mid:2qkqha5exbxsb6pg+state:results "Just how important is knowing who "Dysmorodrepanis" actually is?" Have fun. Shyamal (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There are some papers to read... I knew that would get back to me one way or the other. For I put aside the issue without really referencing any of my changes, it was simply too gross to do it then. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange edit

Hi there, I was puzzled by this edit, what was it that you were trying to do? Tim Vickers (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As noted at the top of my talk page, this is a notification for a reference not in the article. Feel free to work it in there (I won't spoil the surprise, if you're interested in chloroplasts you'll possibly find the data quite intriguing indeed) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be clearer if you were to add these reference suggestions to the article talkpage with some kind of note; you could use this tool or this search engine to make this a bit faster if you wished. Otherwise people who don't edit the article will never see your suggestion, and most of these may be deleted by people (like me) who don't know what they are! All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Tried that. It doesn't work, the sources simply get dumped in the Talk archive or are never dealt with, and a proposal to add a "missing references" section to Talk pages as ToL standard never went off. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Colias

Is there a new work on the group ? Would love a copy. Shyamal (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, was there another on Eurema ? Shyamal (talk) 07:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hallo. I'm a journalist writing for Austrian Newspaper "Falter". I'm working on a story about war reporting on Wikipedia (focused on South Ossetia War). I would like to ask you a few questions via email about this subject (concerning neutrality and propaganda on Wikipedia). I would be really pleased, if you agreed to answer my questions. If you are interested just send me a message via my Wikipedia profile. Best regards, Wueddens (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Orange Tail Damselfish

A tag has been placed on Orange Tail Damselfish requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. frogger3140 (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

My lapsus, corrected to redirect. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Scientific classification for Nothos?

Hi. You've done some really nice and impressive work around here! I've done some work on articles regarding the systematics of American crayfish and African killifish, eventhough I've been rather lazy lately... I wonder if you have any references or sources regarding the changes you made to the taxoboxes in Nothobranchius and Nothobranchiidae. I consider updating the equivalent articles in the Swedish Wikipedia, but need to cite some sources in order to do so... :-) Tommy Kronkvist talk contribs 04:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere in particular actually. It's being used in the papers you'll find annotated in some of the family articles, and it's being used on the German wikipedia.

If you have access to Joseph S. Nelson: Fishes of the World. John Wiley & Sons, 2006, ISBN 0-471-25031-7, you will want to check it out. First, it might be the primary reference; second, if it differs let me know - it's a default ref for the Fish project.

The rough outline (except the separation of Nothobranchiidae, which is only 21st century stuff) is actually an old proposal known in 1998, see here. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Gammaridea superfamilies

Hello. I have not visited the Gammaridea page for a long time, and just came across it and noticed that you have added the superfamilies to the taxonomic list of families. What used to be nothing but a lengthy, unsorted taxon list is now very impressive and organised. I would like to thank you for your outstanding work on the page! --Crustaceanguy (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! It might not be perfect - I am anything but an expert on these guys. But I had found some cool papers which I at least wanted to annotate in source code, because working them into the 'pedia I'll be glad to leave to any expert that'll be around ;-) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Crescentchest

SACC elevated this genus to family level. Thoughts? Given that they are ever so slightly unique I have begun a modest expansion of their article to reflect this. And We're both fans of obscure genera. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Charles the Bald

You added an interpretation of Charles's epithet to his article recently. Instead of placing a "cite" tag on it, I'll just as you what your source is, and if you can added it in a footnote to the paragraph you put in the article. Thanks. Srnec (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's from de:, and though they don't have footnoted it, it's obviously "Reinhard Lebe: War Karl der Kahle wirklich kahl? Historische Beinamen – und was dahintersteckt. dtv 2003, ISBN 3-42330-876-1." (roughly "Was Charles the Bald really bald? Historical epithets and the story behind them"). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Gavia "lumme"

Hi Dysmorodrepanis: I'm hoping that, with your vast knowledge of most things taxonomical, you can help me source the synonym Gavia lumme for Red-throated Diver. I can find various old (i.e. 1800s - early 1900s) articles using that binomial, but nothing that tells me why/when the original stellatus got changed to lumme. The synonym appears to have fallen out of favor relatively quickly, again for reasons I can't find. Was it a New World thing? Any enlightenment you can provide would be much appreciated! MeegsC | Talk 19:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Tropicbird palcement

Now, I have been reading about this - are we happy for Tropicbird to be listed as own order Phaethontiformes (i.e. is it a pretty clear consensus), and if so, presumably, that order page should redirect to tropicbird? Or should is there any reason for it to be separate to Tropicbird/Phaethontidae? I wasn't sure how closely you followed WT:Bird. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

invalid synonymy

Why should these not be redirects, if they appear in the literature? Has there been a discussion of this? Anyway, use RfD for them -- they do not seem to fit into a speedy deletion category DGG (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Buteo melanoleucus

Dysmorodrepanis, you are wrong about the homonymy of Buteo melanoleucus (= the Eagle-buzzard) with the basonym of the current Spizaetus melanoleucus. Go to http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp and read article 59.2 (Chapter 12) of the Code. I strongly suggest you reverse some of the changes you made to the articles of both species. Best, HBr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazakbr (talk • contribs) 03:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I was fearing as much ;-) But wouldn't it be 59.3 ("replaced before 1961")? Have fixed it, check it out. This might even go on the mainpage as Did You Know - that two species have essentially switched senior synonyms is probably rare indeed... it's basically a coincidence of time; if Hellmayr & Conover had proposed to use fuscescens after 1960 instead of in 1949, it would be the name to use.

Altogether this is probably the weirdest case of synonymy/hjomonymy I have come across since long. Thanks for notifying me! 08:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Classical conditioning edit

Hi! Could you explain this edit to me? Thanks! /skagedal^... 09:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

See top of this page ;-) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 09:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

[re: this] – Ok, I see; sounds interesting. However, I think it would be much more useful if you would instead post something on the article's talk page about the source and how it might be useful to the article. A commented-out reference will just make people think "what's that doing there, looks like some left-over cruft". Btw, I like your verbification of Little Albert. :) /skagedal^... 14:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds November newsletter

The November 2024 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by TinucherianBot (talk) 07:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Im afraid you got your maths incorrect. 30C = 100^30 = 10^60.

So.

Two billion doses per second to six billion people for 4 billion years to deliver a single molecule of the original material.

2,000,000,000 doses per second 6,000,000,000 people.

4,000,000,000 years * 365 days/year * 24 hours/day * 60 minutes /hour * 60 seconds /minute.

Multiply these all together and we get 1.513728 × 10^36. Much less than the 10^60 we're looking for, so this is clearly not the time needed to get the same dose as the original substance.

Multiply that by the number of molecules in one mole (6.022 x 10^23) and we get 9.11567 x 10^59

Hence, this is a calculation of how long it takes to get one molecule. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The maths was not by me. Rather, pointing out that the assumption to start with a single molecule only is preposterous was (Homeopaths are not known to utilize scanning tunneling microscopes...). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the maths only works if you presume they started with 6.022 x 10^23 molecules. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Muscovy Duck Article Improvements

Glad to see someone is working on this article besides me. Some of the changes you made are great. Thanks. By the way, did you take out the citation on their domestication in the New World for any special reason? Seems like a significant fact if they were not originally domesticated by Europeans. VictorC (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops ;-) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Schizorhiza

		The Modest Barnstar
		Your recent contributions to Schizorhiza are apreciated. :) Abyssal (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Passiflora

When you edited Passiflora at the start of the month you removed the image gallery. Was this intentional? Lavateraguy (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Totally. See WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

re:List of chicken breeds

Thanks for catching the articles that I forgot! Steven Walling (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think redlinks should be added just because they are in de.wiki. There's a lot of confusion and cross-pollination between breeds and their names in other languages, and what might look like a different breed in German is simply a totally different name. If there are breeds that you know are covered in an English source that aren't up on the wiki yet, we should add those ones, in my opinion. Steven Walling (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That's why I made it an annotation rather than putting it up visibly ;-) The links are there, to be handled at leisure... the "Bergische" breeds and the Cemami certainly warrant inclusion, as they have unique color genetics. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Impatiens

On 11 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Impatiens, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Laughing Falcon, use of scientific names

Hi. It was good to see your improvements to Laughing Falcon. But in the sentence "It lays one or two eggs according to some sources or always just one according to other," "other" doesn't work. Did you mean it to be "others" or "another"?

Also, why do you put scientific names after the common names of taxa? I understand that's done in print to eliminate ambiguity and help people look up references. But here, a reader who wants to know the scientific name can just click the link. So the scientific name seems to me to be simply extra words and a particular obstacle to casual readers, except in a few cases where it's helpful to show that two species are in the same genus or some such. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That was fast! I'll make a few more changes that I don't have to ask you about. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Red Knot

Hi, just noticed that someone has deleted "| phylum = Chordata" from Red Knot.....looks like vandalism but I'm not sure, could you check please? Aviceda talk 02:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, probably was. Jim already reverted it. Thanks! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Syzygium malaccense ‎

Mountain apple refers primarily to Syzygium malaccense, so I don't see a reason to change the redirect. Adding "highly ambiguous terms" to this and other articles appears to be your opinion. The most common English names for S. malaccense are Malay and Mountain apple. Viriditas (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Depending on where you are, it is S. jambos or S. samarangense which are called thus. "Malacca apple" is both quite unequivocal as well as a literal translation of the scientific name. Thus, "Mountain apple" needs to redirect to genus as per WP:PRECISION. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I disagree. Please see my latest response here and help keep the thread in one place. Viriditas (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop reverting. Redirecting to a list of 70 unrelated species is not precision. Please follow WP:BRD and wait until this discussion has concluded with consensus. The redirects have been stable for a year without any problems. If you feel that this is not the correct redirect, please demonstrate that this is not the primary usage. Viriditas (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ehm, the species articles use the terms ambiguously? The genus article uses them ambiguously? Google uses the terms ambiguously? Dysmorodrepanis (talk)

I have once again replied in two places. If you can accept that the discussion should occur on one talk page, then I will be forced to centralize the discussion on the talk page of the article. Again, if you feel that the redirects are not correct, please show common alternate usage, at which point a disambiguation page will be created. This is very simple. If you are having difficulty communicating in English, then please invite other editors to this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

For example on the Hawaiian Islands "mountain apple" decidedly not refers to S. malaccense!

I do not understand this comment. If it does not primarily refer to S. malaccense, then what does it refer to in Hawaii? I have asked this question in several forms with no reply from you. Please answer. Are you trying to say that it refers to ʻOhiʻaʻai? That is still S. malaccense. Viriditas (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ask whoever put up "In the Pacific Islands, this fruit is known as Mountain Apple" at S. samarangense.

But enough already. I simply ask you this: give Syzygium and its species a copyedit. You'll see soon enough why I changed the redirects. The genus is sorely in need of a copyedit. I had started it, but I have no frickin intention to waste my time on this anymore. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

We are finally in agreement. Please leave the Mountain apple redirect alone for now and come back to it. We both want to improve the articles, but there seems to be some miscommunication going on here. It sounds like you found an error in Syzygium samarangense and that needs to be corrected. Good work. But, it shouldn't impact other articles. Viriditas (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah well, like I said: give the genus a copyedit... ; ) Common names of Syzygium are a mess. (I have added some spp and annotated a source where some basic info can be found) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right, there are a lot of problems with the genus. But please, just put Mountain apple (S. malaccense) aside for now and come back to it later. Viriditas (talk) 13:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Horses

Hi! Evolution of the horse and some other articles (Equidae, Equus (genus), etc.) are getting a dust-off. Care to join us? --Una Smith (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

BiodiversConserv17:2037

Aren't you being a bit silly with this "fairy" thing? You didn't have to add the same journal reference to 38 articles! Just one would have been enough. Actually, it would have been easier for you to simply add an entry for this publication -- Romeu da Nóbrega Alves et al.(2008) -- in the "Further reading" section of Snake, but I suppose that would not have been cryptic enough to tickle your fancy. I can't do anything more than add it to "Snake" for now, because I don't have access to more than the first page of the article. On the other hand, if you were to email me a copy... --Jwinius (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, drop me your email. Then you will see the reason why I did not add it openly. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I will? If you say so. It's jwinius at umrk dot to (for Tonga), but I have a nasty mail filter that might not let you through. If you happen to fall afoul of it, let me know what your email address is and I'll add it to my whitelist. You can also email me your address via the Wikipedia option on my user page. --Jwinius (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've added your address to my whitelist. The reason your message was rejected was "Sender hostname, eu1096f.lyceu.net, listed in abuse.rfc-ignorant.org." Apparently, lyceu.net has been on the DNS blacklist at rfc-ignorant.org since 10 April 2007. This will have occurred because somebody noticed that spam was being sent through the lyceu.net mail servers. The abuse was reported to rfc-ignorant.org, who in turn reported it to lyceu.net, who unfortunately took no action to remedy the situation within a reasonable timeframe, after which their entire domain was blacklisted. The good folks at lyceu.net could always fix things, but don't seem to think it's that important. --Jwinius (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Journal access

Hi, do you think you might be able to access - Outlaw DC,Voelker G (2008) Pliocene climatic change in insular Southeast Asia as an engine of diversification in Ficedula flycatchers. Journal of Biogeography 35(4): 739. Would be happy to get hold of it. Let me know if you have lost my mail id. Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 05:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably yes, I'll check next week at the university. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The starling pages need to be revisited - per http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120121987/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 Shyamal (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Your Dog contribution

Hi Dysmo,

Thanks for your recent contribution to Dog. I reverted it because it had a number of POV words and opinions, was completely unreferenced, had some qualifiers and adjectives that were unencyclopedic, and because it was tagged as a minor edit. I think there is some truth to the contribution, though I could not support much of it with quick google searches. I'd encourage you to add it again with references and toning down some of the rhetoric. Have a good one,

--Thesoxlost (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Try Lee, Rawdon. A History and Description of the Modern Dogs of Great Britain and Ireland (The Terriers)". 1894. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Drymocallis arguta

Hi! I was just curious about this recent taxonomic shift. I can't find many journal articles that use the new name and posted asking for help at WT:PLANTS. I was wondering if you could tell me where you got your information from? USDA PLANTS database still uses Potentilla arguta (though they're always behind). Also, a reminder that plant taxa literature requires the use of the infraspecific taxon label abbreviation, such as var. or subsp. instead of just a plain trinomial that you would use for animal taxa. I fixed the usage at Drymocallis arguta. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 23:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Simply start here and work through Google Scholar starting with systematics papers citing the article. I am presently putting up any species I can find referred on Wikipedia into Potentilla' save those that I know to be outside; the page would probably need some exepert attention afterwards as Drymocallis and Argentina have apparently recived a good number of additional spp from Potentilla. As regards the missing subsp. - thx; I know, I just rm'ed the redlink and overlooked that. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Just stopping by to say thanks for the prompt response. I'll take the time soon to develop that article and include the necessary references. That one 2003 article did convince me that there are certain molecular phylogenetic differences that require the species to be split off to another genus, but I wasn't able to find any other articles in the google scholar "what cites this article" feature that confirm that or use the same approach. Usually when species are transferred it's pretty clearly laid out, which gives me the indication that the scope of that 2003 article wasn't to advocate for these splits, but merely note the mess, expose the raw data, and suggest alternatives, leaving the heavy lifting of advocating the transfer to another article or author. It just seemed kind of weakly worded, to me. Anyway, I'm ok with the current placement of the article and applaud you on your efforts at the genus article. Bravo! Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 22:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! BTW IONO how much it has been noted that Drymocallis might be apomorphically protocarnivourous. They missed it in 2003, which is a pity. I find this a lot these days: one updates taxonomy, and in some other respect a phylogenetic pattern pops up. Like the grizzled skipper thing... we might get some Lepidoptera specialist to look at that. I wonder how the other Hesperiidae figure in that respect. Most of these are partial to grasses as far as I know. And not all grizzled skippers eat Potentilla.

Question

I see you are editing P. recta and I saw " BiolConserv137:248 " I was just wondering if you could fill me in on what this means for future reference thank you. --IvanTortuga (talk) 05:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

See here: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S000632070700064X

In this particular case, it is a brief note on P. inclinata hybridizing with P. recta. The article needs much more content until this can be added, but this way it will not be overlooked. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

dab

Hi again. I undid an edit at Basket flower, perhaps you could did disambiguate the various versions at that page as you are doing Centaurea. I found some as 'region' Basket-flower, etc., when I created it. cygnis insignis 18:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Tit-hylia

Been working on the Penduline tits and I was wondering about the placement of that particular little African anomaly. It gets thrown into Cettiidae based (or at least cited by) Sefc 2003, but the paper, while mentioned in the 2008 HBW treatment, doesn't seem to have convinced the author (who called for more DNA studies and refers to teh Green Hylia as "unrelated"). You've often commented on the reliability of papers in the past, any thoughts on this one? Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ant nest beetle

Hi. I'm just curious, why did you moved page Ant nest beetles under Ant nest beetle? Now there are two entries about the same thing. Best wishes, Filip em (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks, I didn't know that because I contribute to English wikipedia rarely. In Polish wikipedia article titles are usually in plural form. I have written only short article in English because I was focused on Polish version of this entry. Well, I guess the singular form should redirect to the plural, I will fix this. BTW, I have contacted an entomologist who promised me to provide more free-licensed photographs of paussines in a few months. I will let you know when I get them. Best wishes. Filip em (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds February newsletter

The February 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. MeegsC | Talk 21:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Saxifrage

On February 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Saxifrage, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Mammals' brain and bird brain

Hello D, sorry, respectfully, your name is a bit too long, but you can call me L, no offence. I just came across your comments about the above, copied over onto the hu Wiki. I have not checked if it affected the article or not but I certainly have not seen any comments about it on the comments page there. So I thought, that perhaps it ought to be translated. Yet first I have to ask you if you think that this would be purposeful? Do you still feel as strongly about the errors you listed in 2007 when these comments were made? You strongly criticised some people's perception about the evolutionary ladder or family tree of the species, but I am not certain if you are right. Surely, evolution means progress in intelligence, that is the ability of the individuals of the species to carry out its life functions, and the complexity of these functions that the individuals can carry out individually or collectively. Surely, evolution means generally increased ability. I don't think that the developement of the species has anything to do with racism. LouisBB (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The most important thing, probably, is that the references here here are incorporated. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Cyclemys

Hi, I just assessed this article and it seems that the creator of the article isn't happy with your tag. Perhaps you should discuss with him.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, s/he obviously had not read doi:10.1111/j.1463-6409.2008.00332.x and doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2008.00966.x. As I hold it, ITIS should only be a taxonomic source of last resort. Of all the taxon databases, it is the worst regarding accuracy and completeness by far (Unfortunately, the people who started Encyclopedia of Life chose to ignore that. I would rather trust Wikipedia these days than EoL). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

oideae

Was this a momentary brain fade, or have I missed the point? Hesperian 00:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thx for fixing it - I was mentally in the ICZN. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Hesperian 00:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds March newsletter

The March 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

modern taxonomy

Hi,

can you review your rationale behind edits like this one, please? What you did there was change from a modern, universally accepted taxonomy (i.e. APG II system) to an archaic taxonomy that no-one uses any more (i.e. Cronquist, or perhaps Takhtajan).

Hesperian 00:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"Unranked" taxobox code is not fully APG compatible. I've been asking for a change many months ago on ToL, but none has been forthcoming. (AFAIK, the German Wikipedia has it working but does not use it. Also, I wonder if this succession of unranked clade names is easily accessible to the average reader without in-text explanation, but that's another matter). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

So we go with a rejected taxonomy because it is accessible and easy to fit in our taxobox?! If that's your view, we can find no common ground on this point. Hesperian 00:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

My view on this matter is that the taxobox code needs to be updated as to fully implement APG II. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, we do have some common ground after all. Unfortunately, it is problematic; see the discussion at User talk:Hesperian/Archive 38#APG in taxoboxes. Hesperian 00:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Rather than making you read it all, here's the key issue:

"The big problem with adding clades is that you can't just associate a clade with a rank, because you don't know how many clades are needed between each ranking. For APG, we need about 5 clades between divisio and ordo. But for some other system we might need 3 clades between divisio and phylum, or 5 clades between phylum and class. The only way to give people the control to specify both the number of clades they want and where they appear amongst the ranks, is to insert a set of clades between each ranking; e.g. clade1_ordo, clade2_ordo, clade3_ordo, etc. If you want N clades between each of M orders, you add N*M parameters. Hesperian 00:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)"

Hesperian 00:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi. What was this actually? Just asking to learn. Thanks. prashanthns (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

See top of this page. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigmurethra

I think it is an informal group. [1] I didn't undo it though because I am new.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

:) All unranked clades in zoology (and AFAIK elsewhere too) are informal groups at present... the debate about the PhyloCode continues, and there is no other "codex" of dealing with synonyms and other taxonomic issues for clades that are outside the classical taxonomic ranks (which are formally regulated by the ICZN Code and so on).

If two scientists use different names for the same family, there are clear rules to decide which name is valid and which name is invalid.

But if clades are just named and not assignet a formal rank, there is no such mandatory rule.

So if someone came along and said "I don't like the name Sigmurethra, let's call it Sigmogastropoda", or if someone said "I don't like how they define Sigmurethra, let's define them in this-and-this way", it is a matter of scientific clout and charisma which name or which definition will stick. See for example Neotetanurae (which some call Avetheropoda), or Maniraptora (which are defined by different scientists in one of two mutually exclusive ways and potentially conflict with the Maniraptoriformes). :Thus, if you like Kevin Padian better than Paul Sereno, you will probably call the first clade "Avetheropoda", and if it's the other way around, you will probably use the name "Neotetanurae". But it will be an informal decision, as there is no rule or "codex" that makes one or the other name mandatory.

So one could indeed mention for all unranked clades discussed on Wikipedia that their names are informal. But as we tend to have articles for widely-accepted clades only (phylogenetics software will often "find" clades that do not really exist, see e.g. here for discussion of one such case) it is usually omitted. It is perhaps also better to omit it, because form taxa such as Vermes or Pisces are used in an informal sense but they are not clades, and the casual reader might think that an unranked but apparently "good" clade is suspect.

In cases of truly informal groups, I usually use some term that describes the situation. I did this for the Eumaeini for example, where the informal "genus groups" are sometimes called "sections" (which is a misleading term). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I think I get it. I didn't understand just how informal these informal groups really are. You sure to know a lot about this. I am very grateful that you have taken the time to explain things. I am busily following the links you gave me. This is a really big field.

I replied to your other post here: [2]

cockatoo

We're working this one up for FAC - I found this note by you at Talk:Cockatoo#White_cockatoo_and_black_cockatoo fascinating. It would be great to have a reference for the proposed colours of ancestral cockatoos in the evolution section of the article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply on my talk page - I try to be careful as I have been whacked by the synthesis stick in the past. I wil look around for some tidbits myself. WRT intrafamilial relationships, I had a feeling the Cockatiel was on firmer ground (definitly black lineage) than the Gang Gang (white or black)...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Orthalicidae & Bulimulinae

Hello, I think you accidentaly removed detailed information in both articles and in the Orthalicidae you even added incorrect taxonomy. What did you want to change?

• Note: Fixed width of images is not preferred in Taxobox. See Wikipedia:Taxobox usage#Images. (Fixed width is not prefrerred anywhere.)
• You joined some references in Bulimulinae. I think, we should not do such joined references. Or provide me a link to guideline, please.
• You made caption "Selected genera" while there is already written "Genera in the subfamily Bulimulinae include:". Then only caption "Genera" is simpler and also better.
• You even moved a reference from one fact to another fact in the article.
• Well.. you made many changes that surprized me. Just let me to know what you wanted to do and I will make it because I will check it anyway. Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for comments. I must say that I am not sure if I understand some of your sentences. I hope I will be able to answer to your questions even if my English is not good and I can not use diplomatic way if I try to focus on the subject.

• I have read only Bouchet & Rocroi reference. I hope it will help that all information I added were from that source.
• According to clades. Lets start easier edit: Is my few days old edit in Sigmurethra article OK? (I think that I understand these things you wrote. But if my edit is still bad then I would suggest that you should write a guideline directly to the Wikiproject gastropod webpage.)
• "Either assign all genera to subgroup, or do not assign to subgroup..." No, it is not good strategy. Wikipedia goes through continuous improvement and there can be incomplete information. For example you removed information, that Peltella Gray, 1855 belongs to Amphibuliminae. Maybe you consider this my note pitiful, but I need that infomation are not removed while I am continuously working on the article.

No, this is misleading. If a list of genera in a subgroup is given but other genera are listed as "unassigned" tbut might belong to the subgroup, this means that we are giving false information to readers.

• (I did not meant list before.)
• You removed synonyms for subfamilies in the Orthalicidae article.

True, they should be there.

• Thanks for the links.
• If my answers are not answers to your questions, then I am sorry and you should use simple English. Even if you exaplained me probably everything, I think that you only improved typography for references and other your edits were bad. You can be sure that this discussion will be useful for the future because this "my way" is in nearly all gastropod articles.
• I would like to also know if there is an official guideline for naming that genus articles as you written at User talk:Anna Frodesiak#Some tips'n'tricks or if it is your opinion only. Have a nice day. --Snek01 (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a matter of my experience. Makes for "clean" code. We need to keep code clean because one of the rules for Wikipedia is that any person should be able to contribute without knowing any Wikipedia markup. Thus, spaghetti code is in violation of the idea Wikipedia is based upon. Many hardcore editors use browser plug-ins and other tools to make article code more structured, but this ignores that it is "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and not "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that you need a bachelor's degree in computer science and a lot of time to edit". (I do not use tools and have not changed my user settings for precisely that reason: to be able to see each edit window as a person entirely new to Wikipedia would see it)

• I have also read Barker's reference of course.
• I do not remember if I have read other references for these articles, but if I have added some reference, then you can expect that I have read them or that I have added them according to article history.
• Question to Bulimulinae article: Shoudln't there be Bouchet & Rocroi reference behind he word "Orthalicidae" instead of the word "26 to 30"?

If you want to use the "long in-text footnotes" format, yes. For shortened notes, it can be done but it need not be so. There is much debate whether references go before punctuation ("Eurasian style") or after punctuation ("U.S. style"); referencing entire paragraphs after the last fullstop is a workaround that will help you stay clear of this debate (which has been running without consensus for like 2 years or so).

• You have also removed information that number of chromosomes is based on information from the table. So 26-30 is an interval chosen by Barker for puproposes in his table. There are theoretically possible any other intervals for Bulimulidae, for example 26, 26-27, 26-28, 26-29, 26-30, 27, 27-28, 27-29, 27-30, 28, 28-29, 28-30, 29, 29-30, 30.

This should be discussed in detail. If the entire range of variation is to be given (as is the case now), 26-30 is correct; they never have less and they never have more (as far as can be told). I tweaked the wording though, so it becomes more clear. That the information is from the table is in the footnote, which gives the page numbers.

--Snek01 (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Do not use abbreviations. I do not undestand them.
• Your opinion about image width may be true but while it is against various wikipedia policies and guidelines, then you should follow them. Please discus about width of images at appropriate wikipedia policy discussion page. Then you can try to change the guideline. Otherwise do not use fixed width! --Snek01 (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Categorically NO, it is against one guideline in one particular MoS. But this is contradicted by the global MOS:IMAGES which explicitly allows sized lead images ("Examples where size-forcing may be appropriate include [...] Lead images, which should usually be no larger than 300 pixels") and it is contradicted by the global policy as implemented in practice (no other Project enforces unsized lead photos and drawings).

(You might want to check out the history of this. Years ago, some people wanted to ban image size altogether. They failed, but before they failed the proposed policy got put into the taxobox MoS. Thus, the taxobox MoS has come to contradict the global MoS, where this policy was discussed and rejected. Nobody has ever cared to clean this up; I tried back then but the "no size" fraction simply did not listen to any arguments. Wikipedia is so large by now that some vintage stuff persists in articles and policies, mistakes that have never been straightened out. With time, one tends to have the odd "skeleton in the closet"... I know of one very embarrassing mistake I once made and which I never got to straighten out - it is probably insignificant and rather harmless, but you should not trust everything that is said in Moa-nalo ;-) )

As there is a global policy on Wikipedia that is better than and contradicts the special case of the taxobox policy, arguing that the taxobox MoS must be followed is and always was special pleading - "a form of spurious argumentation [...] to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption." Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I agree with this your caption above. YOU think that there is something bad somewhere. I always follow all policies and every single policy altogether too. I think that these policies are fully compatible with each other. --Snek01 (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• You unreasonably removed Contents. Contents is a normal part of article. --Snek01 (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I removed it because it messed up the layout. This is normal editing policy for short articles (less than 2 screens long or so).

Basically, I just did a quick edit to tidy up the code and make the article more accessible. Whereas if I had overhauled the Bulimulinae article significantly, I would for example have:

• put the B&R ref behind where you say.
• put all information from Barker in a separate "Description" section
• (probably) re-enabled "Contents" because with a long "Description" section the article becomes so long that the content box is actually useful rather than just breaking up the flow of reading. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am glad you wrote me more information I can think about. Thank you for your cooperation.

• I agree with you that we have to try make a clean code. I always try to focus on this task so I hope we can learn from each other.
• I can see that there is according to your point of view an inconsistence MOS:IMAGES versus Wikipedia:Taxobox usage#Images. I do not think that it is a problem but if it thinks many people then will can not solve it solely.
• Although we have the same mission, I can easily oppose many of your opinions. Can we discuss via any instant messenger, please? Jabber: snek01@jabber.cz You have good overview about all animals articles and I have quite good overview about gastropods articles. I would like to be sure that our edits will be compatible as much as possible. --Snek01 (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Or I can use any other instant messenger of protocol that you prefer. Would you like to talk to me via instant messenger? We both wrote much texts but it seems there is no better understanding to each other. I think that there is necessary step-by-step: question, answer, question, answer, ... --Snek01 (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, can you please answer to my last question, please? I am sorry if I am annoying but at least I will know that you do not want to or can not talk to me. I am sorry that my messages were not much diplomatic. Thank you. I am looking for fruitful cooperation with you. --Snek01 (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry, this isn't going anywhere. My only intention was to see the genera discussed in the Zoologische Mededelingen paper listed on a Wikipedia page that was internally consistent and not misleading. I have other work to do, which I hope will be judged by its content and not by its conformity. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding of comment sources to pages

I know you have a note at the top of the page and that many users have questioned your rationale for this, but I'm also going to question your intentions. It's great to have the sources but often these little notes get deleted and lost, it would be far more useful to have them on the talk page with at least a link to the abstract and the paper's title. Most species talk pages never get big enough to archive so they would always be in view for someone wanting to improve the page. Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate you get some great sources; however, I think they should be a bit more accessible to everyone not just the few in with the jargon. Cheers, Jack (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Again: I have tried this, 15-20 months ago, when there was less editing on Wikipedia talk pages. I have seen references getting lost more often when I put them on Talk pages. Don't you think I never add references on Talk pages? I do, when it is crucial. Most of the time, it gets ignored or someone foulmouths me for suggesting their pet article needs an overhaul (I do not do horse stuff anymore. Period.). When I set refs as annotations, it is (usually) minor and insignificant stuff. Things that simply cannot be put into the article at that date, and most likely will not in months to come. Make them more accessible, maybe - but there are more important refs to add (usually) than the stuff I add, i.e. some new liver fluke species found in a moorhen or the color vision of a particular butterfly or whatnot. I do not care about most stuff that makes headlines in New Scientist.

"often these little notes get deleted and lost" - I do not remember seeing any annotation deleted by people who didn't know what they were doing more than a very few times. And how should they get "lost"? We have backup servers, we have edit histories.

Altogether, my question is: what harm does it do? We do not have the annotation tag to fill up whitespace in the markup applet box, but so that people use it. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Muttonbird range svg

Hey. I noticed your note on File:Sooty Shearwater-map-localisation-fr.svg asking that the nesting spots in the Caribbean be removed. I can do this, but do you have a source? It makes perfect sense to me, why would a bird that nests in New Zealand and the south tip of South America nest in the Caribbean? I'd just like some confirmation. Cheers,

The Talking Sock talk contribs 14:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Handbook of Birds of the World (though I did not cite it when I overhauled the article). However the IUCN Red List is cited and confirms. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds April newsletter

The April 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. MeegsC | Talk 15:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Tiaris Genus is a tanager or not ?

Tiaris Genus is a tanager or not ?

in the tanager page they include as a Family, but in the Cuban Grassquit they are not exist, the family is Emberizidae (and all other tiaris species). but in this page, tiaris the tanager is family again that includes the tiaris. so what is correct ? thankk you 79.181.109.196 (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, fixed it! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

nice change. now its clear. thanks.79.181.109.196 (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

and another thing, If you don't mind, how can Sylvioidea considered as a family here, but here they are called superfamily? 79.180.102.113 (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, it is good when people pick up errors, so that they can be corrected. Here, the article is OK, but the redirect needs to be fixed; Sylvioidea should be a distinct article. I think I will do this shortly. We did this back when the Acrocephalidae and other families were re-established, because almost everything we had about Sylvioidea was in this article. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)