Reversion of Selaginella edit
Dear Plantsurfer, in the article Selaginella, you reverted my edit --- which consisted of changing "and its" to "whose" --- on the grounds "Not a person."
Although the pronoun "whose" is in many, perhaps even in most cases used in respect to a person, nevertheless, personhood is not a requirement for its use. See, for example, the second sense in the definition of "whose" at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/whose. Use of "whose" in this non-person context is allowed, perhaps, because there is no equivalent specifically non-personal word in English that can be used in this situation. Admittedly in this case the grammar detail might be easy to misunderstand, since, for example, "who" and "whom" in fact must always be used in respect to a person. Nevertheless, "whose" has no such restriction.
In this particular context, some alternative two-word equivalents would be "for which" or "of which."
I see that a short time after reverting my edit you replaced "and its" with a sentence break. That solution seems quite adequate to me, but under such circumstances I would have preferred that, rather than reverting my (not only good faith but also useful) edit, you had simply gone on to re-edit the phrase with whatever change you believed represented a further improvement.
A barnstar for you!
|The Barnstar of Diligence|
|... for your heroic efforts to make sense out of the article Alcohol (drug). MelanieN (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)|
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of botany journals, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.