User talk:Hesperian/Archive 41: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:28, 27 April 2009

User talk:Hesperian/Archive 41/Archives

Wardle

[1] A scan would be appreciated. No rush. Djanga 06:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expect it Tuesday morning. Hesperian 10:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sent. Hesperian 01:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. Djanga 03:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cited a point on Wardle from my own 1977 essay about The Western Australian Opera Company. Finding a stub titled 'West Australian Opera', I hastened to consult the phone book and found the company name has indeed been changed. I wonder why, and when. (At least I now know why my 1970s 'life membership' has died in the water :)) Cheers Bjenks (talk) 08:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barbados

Shouldn't Barbados be part of this list? Guettarda (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed under the Windward Islands[2], which is on the list. Hesperian 04:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. The problem is that Barbados isn't part of theWindward Islands. (I'll answer the other questions on my talk page). Guettarda (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you're wrong—you know this area much better than me—but Barbados is explicitly included in the region defined on the maps at article Windward Islands; and the list of islands at that article, which doesn't contain Barbados, is introduced as a list of the "Antillean Windward Islands". Is it possible that Barbados is part of the "Windward Islands" but not part of the "Antillean Windward Islands"? Hesperian 13:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's not on the list, and the maps are, to put it simply, crap (e.g., Trinidad and Tobago are also included in the Windwards in this map, while Dominica is excluded). Guettarda (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's not on the list Yeah, that's what I said.

Okay, so the next question is, have the WGSRPD taken slight liberties with geography, in the name of compromise with floristics, such that it is reasonable for us to follow them; or have they made an unacceptable error that must be corrected here? Hesperian 00:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, misread what you said.

As far as "Antillean Windwards" goes, I think that term is used to distinguish them from the other groups called Windwards (mentioned in the hatnote). With regards to the second issue - I'm not sure. There are smaller entities than Barbados that are Level 3, but most (all?) of them probably don't fit easily into other geographic entities. It makes logical sense to lump Barbados into some larger, Eastern Caribbean entity. I just have a problem with the name since it is, quite simply, inaccurate. That said, if we're following a classification scheme, it isn't our place to edit it. That said, I think it would be useful to add a few explanatory hatnotes - to Cat:Flora of the Caribbean, cat:Flora of Barbados and cat:Flora of the Windward Islands. Clarity and accuracy are probably good things :) Guettarda (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what the heck is the Venezuelan Antilles? Hesperian 04:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the creation of the "Venezuelan Antilles" is one of the possible outcomes of the Dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles which is currently underway. It does not exist at this point in time. The Netherlands Antilles consist of the Leeward islands, including Bonaire and Curaçao, and the Windward Islands which include Saba, Sint Maarten and Sint Eustatius. This is a fairly comprehensive rundown. Djanga 08:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, interesting links. But I think in the present context, which is a usage in a 2001 publication, it must exist, and must mean some or all of the federal dependencies of Venezuela, and/or Nueva Esparta, possibly also La Tortuga Island. Hesperian 11:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the Venezuelan Antilles are the Venezuelan islands in the western Caribbean. Guettarda (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my bad. Djanga 14:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Banksia photos

Thanks for the hint. I'll withdraw that nomination and see if I can't find a spike in the condition you subscribe. It may be too late in the year however. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It'd been there for a while: diff. I just got around to renaming the file prior to the FPC nom. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not fully sure on the ID of that banksia, especially after seeing the "cone", it seems somewhat different from the local Banksia marginata here, but I can't come up with a satisfactory alternative ID Melburnian (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tas Banksia
Tas Banksia "cone"
Vic B. integrifolia & B. marginata

Banksia marginata can vary widely in appearance - from 30 cm shrub to a 15 m tree. The only reason it hasn't been split up is that the changes across its distribution appear to be uniform, with no 'zones of rarity' to allow even subspecific classification - a bloody headache. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the intro to George's latest paper:

"Significant variation remains in several taxa but very detailed work is required (beyond the scope of this study) to determine whether distinct taxa can be recognised within them. They include, in particular, B. marginata Cav. which has arborescent and shrubby forms, fire-tolerant and fire-sensitive forms, as well as variation in leaf and follicle morphology."

Hesperian 02:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I don't think that the cone is hugely representative, the tree is only a few years old. I went back and found that the flower was at a mature stage (and attracting insects). I've added a composite image to the article, which should get the best of both worlds. The exposures are different since the mature spike was lighter in colour. The framing is also slightly different since I no longer own the lens which was used for the first image. Close enough though. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have B. Integrifolia, B. Serrata, B. occidentalis (though that may not grow) and B. Prionotes at seedling stage at the moment, so I may have pictures of them for you in a few years time :P. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

with Hobart weather? youre hopeful :) Satu Suro 09:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah.. barmy and sunny everyday down there ;) Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 09:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least compared to Launceston anyway :P. I shouldn't have problems with frost at least (being planted relatively close to the water). I am also growing a number of other Australian Natives, the principle aim being to provide a steady supply of food for honeyeaters. We used to have a Tasmanian Waratah in the garden, it died suddenly after quite a few years, they are supposedly very difficult to grow. Fortunately flowers of that species are easy enough to find at the right time of year in the right places.Noodle snacks (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gawd you must be in one of the sandy bay walled garden environments - the mount wellington breeze would be enough to kill off anything that has a sniff of mainland provenance :) Satu Suro 09:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I'm in Austins Ferry actually. I am in sandy bay fairly regularly for uni though. The spot where the plants are going is both relatively sheltered from wind and sunny (when the sun is out), so fairly ideal. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well your plants have a chance - I dine out on the mainland as to the ineffectiveness of lined wet weather gear to keep mt wellington breeze induced hypothermia out or off Satu Suro 09:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Growing WA banksias is alot easier in Tassie than up here in humid Sydney. I find most sclerophyllous proteaceae quite frost hardy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Essential

Ta for that - good start not crappy - have almost a whole project equivalent arts could come off that one stub but hey - need to finish shark bay sometime :) - and million others - so thanks anyways Satu Suro 06:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC) In two weeks - perth, melbourne and back i am still not what sure of what is the time ok? (thanks btw) Satu Suro 06:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up bad habits

I remember seeing pages on the extinct plants of Hawaii categorized in both flora of Hawaii and extinct flora of Hawaii. I assumed that was standard procedure and did the same for other articles. I am sorry for the inconvenience.--TDogg310 (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mallee

Bloody good idea (scuse if interrupt the flow) I cannot remember seeing any of the euc texts with such a distinction - bloody good! pity I cannot think what to tage the talk page with though :( Satu Suro 13:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Right now I'm trying to figure out whether it should be a subcategory of Eucalyptus. I was sure there are non-eucalypt mallees, but I haven't found any yet.... Isn't there an Acacia commonly known as "Mallee Wattle"... and is it so named because it grows as a mallee, or in' the mallee?

Hmm bloody nightmare that one - like the articles on the bush and outback - contested domains if ever were any :( - http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/profile.aspx?id=10019 suggests one way - bu there is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mallee -issues arise from the list in that bugger Satu Suro 14:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hell i like the b and w in the Mallee (habit) art - wish i had the time to b and w some of my marri forest shots - never enopugh time i say Satu Suro 14:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In 3 references I have at hand it refers to mallees as certain eucalypt species/growth habit. Melburnian (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"eucalypt" sensu lato I presume.

http://florabase.calm.wa.gov.au/search/advanced?habit=mallee lists 14 Corymbia and 21 pages of Eucalyptus. I've added an Angophora to the category but I suspect that is an error.

Hesperian 03:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've characterised it as exclusive to the eucalypts. Next question: are they unique to Australia? Hesperian 03:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One would assume so, but I haven't yet found a reference that specifically says so. I wonder if we need to make a distinction between Mallee (habit) and Mallee (species) - eucalypt species from mallee areas - Angophora hispida falls into the first, but not the latter. Also mallee species do not always have a mallee habit. Melburnian (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Mallee eucalypt" is certainly an ambiguous term, as demonstrated by the common name of Acacia montana: Mallee Wattle. But I find it a little harder to see whhat is confusing about Category:Mallees; do you really think people will interpret anything with "mallee" in its common name as belonging to that category? What do you suggest? Hesperian 05:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about the article, rather than the category. Given that your category comes with a scope and definition, it is quite precise. Melburnian (talk) 06:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I stalk Hesp's talk page. Very interesting stuff - I never got around to actually figuring out what mallee is. Now I need to know more about lignotubers, what exactly makes a lignotuber a lignotuber, and figure out how widespread they are in vegetation of dry areas adapted to coppicing. Definitely learned something useful this evening. Guettarda (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eucalyptus botanists seems to have their own language for describing habit: mallee, marlock, mallet.... it's very strange. Hesperian 05:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem (for me, at least) with Australian ecology/botany is that ecosystems don't map well onto Neotropical systems, and I blame most of it on the eucalypts. The whole temperate-tropical transition is messed up, and rather than either true dry forest or true savanna, you have eucalypts. With non-eucalypt vegetation embedded in between. But the most interesting work on the ecophysiology of dry forest vegetation is being done in Australia. And just a quick glance at mallee (habit) makes me wonder if I should reassess my understanding of Neotropical dry forests... Guettarda (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Western Australia, we cleared vast tracts of mallee woodland to plant wheat. The land was semi-arid and infertile, so the wheat farms were marginally profitable at best. And it turned out that those deep-rooted mallees were keeping a saline water table at bay. With the mallees gone, the water table rose, the soil turned saline, and the whole ecosystem was fucked. Now it turns out that some of those mallee species produce so much high quality Eucalyptus oil that farming mallees pays better than farming wheat ever did. They require no care. The tolerate grazing well. They grow well on marginally saline land. Because they are lignotuberous you can harvest them repeatedly without having to replant. They sequester carbon. Processing yields oil, electricity, and a charcoal by-product that improves wheat production when added to the soil(!). They support far more biodiversity than wheat fields. And best of all, little by little they beat the salinity back.

Somehow, I think you'll be heading a lot more about mallees in future.

Hesperian 06:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More of my ignorance. I didn't realise this was Western Australia. I remember when I first read about the situation in the Wheat Belt - probably Margulis work or Hobbs - I was seriously amazed. I have used that example so many times in teaching. It's just such a perfect example of ecological interactions, and how they aren't what you think they'd be. Hadn't kept up with it, didn't realise that replanting trees actually brought a higher economic yield. Very interesting, very cool. Guettarda (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PhotoCatBot bug report

Just to let you know that I did finally track down the bug that led PhotoCatBot to incorrectly tag an article again after only a few days. It was hard to identify the source because the bug appears to affect only articles that have mixed-capitalization titles (like Talk:Battle of Cromdale). I have taken the bot offline until I can file an appropriate bug report and write a workaround. Thanks for your bug report and your patience. Tim Pierce (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Pine

Hello Hesperian,

Why is the Virginia Pine considered "near threatened"? There are quite a number of them here where I am. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I can tell you is http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/42426. Hesperian 01:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll see what I can find out..
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This strictly applies to the State of New York only, who have placed it on a near endangered list..please see the USDA listing to confirm. It is extremely plentiful in its range. NY had a small area in its range once but it has been depleted. Their classification for that state is misleading. I'll post to the article talk page.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

good to see

Your moniker flash by on the indonesian project monitoring gismoes - suppose it means one day might even try to locate more info on the either undocumented or endangered biota over there Satu Suro 05:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings

Thanks for the comment. I sometimes wonder if it worth it, but I try.--Grahame (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red-headed Woodpecker

There is something wrong with the infoxbox on the Red-headed Woodpecker. I do not know what is wrong with it, but I note that you were the last person to edit the page Template:Taxobox. Can you fix it? Snowman (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It couldn't figure out the taxobox colour because the kingdom was unlinked. I've fixed that now. Well may you argue that the taxobox should handle such situations more robustly; and you'd be right; but that has nothing to do with me or my edits. Hesperian 12:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STJFL

Swallow it. It's notable because it is the first and only grand final result to be affected by the Sirengate ruling. The fact that it was juniors is irrelevant. I need to view the Mercury microfilm to get a page number because the story is no longer online. And that entails a visit to the State Library. AFL-Cool 12:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 111: / Line 111: @@
 There is something wrong with the infoxbox on the [[Red-headed Woodpecker]]. I do not know what is wrong with it, but I note that you were the last person to edit the page [[Template:Taxobox]]. Can you fix it? [[User:Snowmanradio|Snowman]] ([[User talk:Snowmanradio|talk]]) 12:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 :It couldn't figure out the taxobox colour because the kingdom was unlinked. I've fixed that now. Well may you argue that the taxobox should handle such situations more robustly; and you'd be right; but that has nothing to do with me or my edits. [[User talk:Hesperian|Hesperian]] 12:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
+== STJFL ==
+Swallow it. It's notable because it is the first and only grand final result to be affected by the Sirengate ruling. The fact that it was juniors is irrelevant. I need to view the Mercury microfilm to get a page number because the story is no longer online. And that entails a visit to the State Library. [[User:AFL-Cool|<font color="green">'''AFL-Cool'''</font>]] 12:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)