User talk:Peter coxhead

Please note that if you leave a message for me here, I'll reply to it here, so put this page on your watch list.
If I left a message on your talk page, you can reply there as I'll be watching your page.
This makes it easier to follow the conversation.
Thanks!

TUSC token 4e41785016df312d7f4772b046fd919f

I now have a TUSC account!

Plant article naming convention

Hi Peter coxhead. There is a plant article naming convention request at the Help Desk. I saw your name listed at Naming_conventions_(flora) contributions and am hoping you would post your thoughts at How long does speedy deletion usually take?.[1] I asked Pmanderson on the Pmanderson talk page, but not sure if she/he will see the request. Thanks. --

tetrahedronX7

Hey thank you for editing . My friend

Lists of Salticidae species

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Salticidae species (2nd nomination). Thanks!

For your tireless efforts

Mr. Coxhead, your tireless work across the wiki never ceases to amaze me, and your articles are some of the most comprehensive in the plants categories. Your list articles are always very informational, and your species articles are always clean, crisp, and precise. Thank you for all you've done, from one editor to another, and keep up all the good work you do! As a small token of my appreciation for everything you've done, here's the Biology Ribbon, I assure you you've earned it and much more for everything you've done. Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 19:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Fritzmann2002: many thanks for your appreciation and very kind words. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Fritzmann2002:, this was good of you to take the trouble, an excellent summation, so well phrased. This will save me having to compliment Peter's contributions in my own awkward way, I will just refer to this award when that impulse hits me (which is frequently). cygnis insignis 12:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Just a heads up

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spiders#Location foul-ups Sesamehoneytart 20:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

eMonocot

Peter, what is your understanding of the status of eMonocot? I notice that links to the portal I placed on taxon pages no longer work, and the site itself is not behaving. It was originally funded by NERC 2010-2013 but although it appears defunct I can find no formal acknowledgement. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 17:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Michael Goodyear: looking at this, it seems that the intention is to incorporate it into Plants of the World Online. It's annoying, because, like you, I have used it as a reference. Some subpages work at present, e.g. Amaryllidaceae at amaryllidaceae.e-monocot.org, but the main "taxon pages" eventually take me to PoWO "not found" (I need to refresh a few times for some reason). They are available in the internet archive, e.g. Scadoxus multiflorus (Martyn) Raf. is available here. If you look at the PoWO entry for Scadoxus multiflorus (Martyn) Raf., it has the same text as the archived eMonocot page (laid out differently).

The problem seems to be that they have changed the URN for a taxon name. In PoWO, Scadoxus multiflorus is urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:66765-1. In eMonocot, it was urn:kew.org:wcs:taxon:287367. If you put the new URN with the eMonocot address, giving for example, http://www.e-monocot.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:66765-1, it goes to the correct entry in PoWO. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

That’s what I thought, but it’s more than annoying. It’s sloppy. There should have been a smooth transition with redirects. Perhaps the grants didn’t cover that! Also it should have been announced not just left to die on the vine. I might write to them .... --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 21:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

M. rubra taxonomy

Please have a look at this edit for accuracy and representation of the two new sources added. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems fine to me. It would be good to add something about when and why the species was transferred from Morella to Myrica. Something to look into! Peter coxhead (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Rebordered / reborded

Thanks for stepping in at Acanthogonatus chilechico. I am not good at spiders. I did find a source however for "reborded" ( https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/onlinedictinvertzoology/7/ , reproduced https://species-id.net/zooterms/reborded ). Is this just wrong, or is "reborded" possible as an unusual variant? Ingratis (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ingratis: "Rebord" is a French word, a noun, defined in Larousse online as "Projecting part, sometimes added, which forms the edge of something; folded edge, turned, forming a bead or not". The great French arachnologist Simon uses it repeatedly in his 1892 Histoire naturelle des araignées. He very rarely uses it adjectivally as "rebordé". This form seems to have been adopted in English as "rebordered", with the noun rarely if ever used. For example, if you search for the exact phrase "rebordered labium" in Google Scholar, you get 21 results in papers by various authors. Searching for "reborded labium" gives 2, both by the same Israeli researcher.

Jocqué & Dippenaar-Schoeman (2007), Spider Families of the World, has 31 uses of "rebordered", and defines it in the Glossary (on p. 24) as "Rebordered: with a thickened edge; describes a sclerite in which the margin is thicker than the mainpart".

So I conclude that although "reborded" may rarely be used in arachnology in English as a version of the French "rebordé", the usual term is "rebordered". Peter coxhead (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Thank you very much for taking so much trouble over this - I'm very grateful for the explanation. Thanks again and best wishes, Ingratis (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ingratis: on the contrary, thank you for bringing the query to my attention. I make quite a bit of use of Glossary of spider terms myself, and it's always good to learn more and be able to add extra information – see "rebordered" now. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Rosa Iceberg

Shouldn't we start the article of Rosa Iceberg with the cultivar name instead of the tradename? Rosa Iceberg is the one of the only rosa articles starting with the tradename. Coldbolt (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, the general rule is to start articles with the title. So either the article is moved to the cultivar name, which I would support, or it starts with the title. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi

Hello. Help copy edit for article. Thanks you. Cheung2 (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)