User talk:Curtis Clark

Template:Botanist

Hi Curtis, This is an exploratory contact to find out how involved you are or were in the development of this template. I have written a number of articles on botanists and taxonomists and would like to propose some changes to the structure of the template. If I'm knocking at the wrong door, please let me know. ciao Rotational (talk) 08:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't develop the template, but I've made some major contributions to it. I'd be interested to know what you propose.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi again - the main problem I have with the present form of the template, is its being bounded by the two lines. This means that it can't form part of the body of the text. Was there a reason for this structure? Rotational (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that many editors expect and even want it to be in a separate div, and certainly if it were converted to have inline properties, all the non-substed instances (which would be almost every use, since the instructions don't say to subst it) would break article layout.

But I do see your point. It would be trivial to make a separate inline template, but then there would likely be content forking as they were independently edited. A way around that would be to transclude the inline into the shell of the current one, but there are evidently limits on how deeply transcludes can be nested.

I'm copying this to Template talk:Botanist so others can weigh in.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Crossosomataceae

Say, why did you make Crossosomataceae monogeneric? I can't find any authorities that do that, plus it kind of leaves Glossopetalon and Apacheria out in the cold... :-) Stan (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No idea. Perhaps that was the way it was treated in the old Munz manuals. Feel free to fix it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The more I think about it, I remember that the legend in Southern California Botanists (their journal is Crossosoma) was that the Crossosomataceae is the only monotypic family native to California. I never bothered to check that out.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Trichomes of Cannabis

Hi Curtis. I don't know if you saw my reply on the trichomes page, but I nominated Trichomes of Cannabis for deletion for the reasons explained on the deletion proposal. --Graminophile (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Inasmuch as it is a copyvio, I certainly support deletion.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Spore

Not is heterosoporous algae, or heterosporous liverworts, or heterosporous lycophytes, and no not in heterosporous ferns (please cite if you have contrary information), nor in a number of fossil heterosporous plants. It may be true that three megaspores degenerate in all seed plants, but there are some fossil taxa among seed plants I'm unsure of. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not entirely apparent from these photos of Marsilea that the microspores are shed in tetrads, but it's pretty clear that the megaspores stand alone. These photos show pretty much the same. The Wikipedia article on Azolla mentions one megaspore, and these two articles seem to have supporting photos.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is one mature megaspore per sporangium in these ferns, but they are not formed by the process shown in the diagram. These heterosporous ferns begin with eight or sixteen spore mother cells, all of which undergoe meiosis. Then, 31 to 63 of the resulting cells dissolve before a spore wall is formed around the remaining spore. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a reference.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Campbell, Douglas Houghton (1918). The Structure and Development of Mosses and Ferns, 3rd, New York: The Macmillan Company, 417-439. These pages cover the Marsileaceae, and those immediately before these cover Azolla and Salvinia. I double-checked with the source directly, immediately before posting to you. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So is it correct to say that each megasporocyte forms four products, that in one case three of them are discarded, and that in all other cases in a sporangium, all four are discarded?--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. According to Bold, Alexopoulos, and Delevoryas Morphology of Plants and Fungi, the dissolving spores then mingle with the tapetal cells to form a nutritive plasmodium. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So then the diagram does represent what happens in heterosporous ferns; it's just not the complete story. Also, it is inaccurate for some flowering plants. I'm going to change the caption to reflect that.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Inflorescence

Upon reflection, I do realize the page seems to be scientifically accurate and prepared properly. As such, I have removed the {{expert}} tag that was on the page. However, I do think the page needs a bit of cleanup, with information presented in a form that is more similar to paragraphs rather than bullets. --Sharkface^T/_C 02:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

it is regarded by the editors at WP:WikiProject Plants as being very accurate. Oh, really? Glad to hear it ;-) Aelwyn (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for fixing the template onthe Kellogg article! Montanabw^(talk) 23:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Rancho Cucamonga Edit (Notable Resident)

Hey there! I noticed you removed a "notable resident". While I agree with you that she doesn't meet the criteria for notability, you stated that "even the series lacks an article". Well, it does have an article, it just wasn't properly linked. Just thought you'd like to know! DeeKenn (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. That might have changed my mind, but I've seen so many non-notables added to the list that I tend to be suspicious.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Invite to review a set of articles

Hi there. You participated in this ANI thread. I picked out the names of some editors I recognised, or who had extensive comments there, and I was wondering if you would have time to review the articles mentioned in the thread I've started here, and in particular the concerns I've raised there about how I used the sources. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

rollback

Hey Curtis. I noticed before that you are using popups to revert vandalism and I thought you might like to have rollback so I added it to your account. You can read more here: Wikipedia:ROLLBACK, but it's basically just for reverting vandalism and other obviously disruptive edits. Cheers, Sarah 13:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool! thanks!--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism guideline

I've proposed we create a separate plagiarism guideline (or rather, how to detect, deal with and avoid it). Please contribute at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I just went huh, check this out....

http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?15138 <-- Is that you?

http://www.ipni.org/ipni/idAuthorSearch.do?id=1664-1 <-- not as convincing, but is that you also?

Your photograph of Encelia farinosa was in many ways the best one there, regardless to if that is you in those links or not. Also, in these recent few days, my respect for real help which I have gotten here has only gotten stronger. Thank you. -- carol (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's me. --Curtis Clark (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact the citation in the first link was my last refereed publication, a decade ago. I'm now an information technology administrator, so I don't have time for botanical research any more.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

the problem with blunders...

The problem with blunders is that as it stands right now, I only know of mistakes that I almost made but did not make and the few that have been pointed out by people who have more experience with the subject than me recently. Most of that is from my early articles (she said defensively). The wiki is not the best place to learn a science or a subject but the best place to learn these things is in a college or university, but the people at the colleges and universities should be working on those web sites and personal projects so 'best' is not the "best" way to sum up who should be contributing....

My first experience with my Physics Ethics class was to lose all respect for Nature (journal).

When I was in school, I think that the statistics class was a 3 credit ordeal class at a school where 12 credits was equal to a full load. When I went back there, the class is now worth 5 credits.

Be prepared, I feel a blunder approaching --> "How do you like them apples?" -- carol (talk) 04:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a question here, if I can figure out what the question is I will ask it.... -- carol (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll be here.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Genus locations

Individual species are native to many of the west coast states. -- carol (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

And in current practice for the western US, the article would be included in "Flora of..." all those states.

But there's a broader issue for all these categories: What should be included? Perhaps ideally there might be Category:Endemic flora of California, which would be contained in Category:Native flora of California, a separate Category:Invasive flora of California, and all of these in the broadest Category:Flora of California. As it is, it's not clear. Hesperian has dealt extensively with this for Australia.

Until it's all sorted out, I tend to be inclusive, because it's easier to take things out later than to remember to put them in. In a way, it's similar to the Commons controversy of cat vs. article for plant species-it seems stupid to have both, but it (barely) keeps the peace between those who favor the one and those that favor the other.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Just understand that it was not removed until the species that had articles for them were categorized by native locations. A genus doesn't actually exist as a single locatable thing, does it? That is the reason for the type species, an average of what to expect from most of the other ones? -- carol (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

First, I'm not saying what you did is wrong, necessarily (in fact, in other circumstances I would have done it myself), just that it's currently unnecessary. Second, to the extent that a genus is monophyletic, it is as single and locatable as a species. The locatable thing nomenclaturally is of course the type specimen, but on that basis, Eschscholzia californica would be in Category:Flora of Russia, since the type is in the Komarov Botanical Institute of St. Petersburg.

Again, the whole thing is more complex that simple "Flora of..." categories let on, but short of a complete overhaul (which I'd support, but don't have time to instigate), I think it's better to leave well enough alone. But that's just my opinion.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

On the location of species of plants in Australia -- it might be just the species that I have looked at, but they seem to all be located on the beach between New Zealand and the rest of the continent. I saw something similar at the commons where there are states of the United States which did not have a Plants of category. Given the meticulousness of all of the online engines and people working equally to deliver content here and elsewhere, it is one of those head scratchers or chin rubs for me. -- carol (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Botanist edits

I notice you've been fiddling with it. What exactly is the issue? Maybe I can help. Circeus (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I had wondered whether your fiddling had caused the collation issues with Category talk:Botanists with author abbreviations, where every article without a DEFAULTSORT is sorted under "<". There has been a discussion here about removing the second parameter in favor of DEFAULTSORT, and I have a vague recollection of the category sorting properly then.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Turns out it was my fiddling. I had typo'ed the "includeonly". Should fix itself soon any time now. Circeus (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Now we can get back to deciding whether to remove the parameter.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Culinary fruit recatigorisation

please look at the list of culinary fruits article's talk page about the preposition on the recatigorisation. I hope we can recatigorise the page quickly and neat. Thanks; 81.244.204.226 (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)