User talk:Brya/Archive2

family/Precis : Thanks

Dear Brya, thanks for correcting the title of Latreille's book. It was my mistake. Alexei Kouprianov 13:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. I could not find exact verification, but "precis" is good French, and all the websites refer to this as the Precis, so I felt it was fairly safe to correct this. Still, one cannot be too careful about the spelling of titles in the literature, so I am glad to have your confirmation. Brya 14:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope, you won't find inappropriate my small addition to the Family / history section. Alexei Kouprianov 14:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am not familiar with Magnol's work so I will trust you for this. A detail is that the book will have been in Latin which will mean that the word he actually used was "familia" or pl. "familiae" rather than the English "families" ? Brya 15:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, he surely used latin. Tried to rephrase. Alexei Kouprianov 22:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Should 76 be spelled as "seventy six", "seventysix", or "seventy-six"? As I am not a native user of English, I am in doubt... Google gives 18 100 for "seventysix" and 1 860 000 for both "seventy six" and "seventy-six" (without distinguishing between them). Wiki gives "seventy-six" in 76_(number), so I corrected it. Alexei Kouprianov 09:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, after changing this, I started wondering about that too. I have always written it together and not gotten into trouble, but from Google I, too, get the impression "seventy-six" is quite popular. Certainly I have no strong feelings about it. I will keep this in mind to determine usage more closely. Thank you for attention to detail! Brya 10:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Nomenclature: Thanks

Nice job of straightening it out.--Curtis Clark 17:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. As you may have noticed I had already put in quite a bit of work to have the basics of botanical nomenclature in place. It was just a matter of referring to these. Brya 19:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

A new template for the pre-Linnaean botanists proposed

Dear Brya, please, consider the Template:Pre-Linnaean botanist. I made it as a follow-up of the article on Pierre Magnol by User:Wikiklaas. Don't you think it would be reasonable to apply it to the pre-linnaean botanists with author abbreviations instead of the Template:Botanist? Alexei Kouprianov 22:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Alexei, thank you for keeping me in mind. For my thoughts on the matter see Template talk:Pre-Linnaean botanist. Brya 07:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Johann Christian Buxbaum

Dear Brya, thank you for cleaning up my messy entry on J. C. Buxbaum. I added some more info to it after that. Alexei Kouprianov 04:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I have two points worth considering:

• You write "the Russian Ambassador to Constantinopolis. " It looks to me that the function of the ambassador was the "Russian ambassador to Turkey". At that time Constantinopolis was not an independent state. Did he reside in Constantinopolis? Was this the seat of the Turkish court? Possible ways to express this are "he joined the Russian Ambassador to Turkey in Constantinopolis. ", "he joined the Russian Ambassador to Turkey, at the court in Constantinopolis.", "he visited Constantinopolis, to assist the Russian Ambassador to Turkey. ", etc.
• a second point is author citation in botanical names. You should either include this in all the names you cite or in none. So if you cite Carex buxbaumii Wahlenb. including the author you should also cite the moss genus Buxbaumia Hedw. including the author. Or you could cite both without the author: Carex buxbaumii and the moss genus Buxbaumia. In general I would prefer not to include the author, as this will only hinder easy readability. Brya 08:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact, hat was a temporary mission. It was called posolstvo (посольство) which can be literally translated as Embassy. Which means that the Ambassador Alexander Rumyantsev went to Constantinopolis and returned to St. Petersburg without settling in Turkey. I was a bit puzzled how to describe this ancient diplomatic practice in a couple of words. A "Diplomatic mission"? A "temporary diplomatic mission"? Resulting in:

As a physician, he was called to accompany Alexander Rumyantsev in the Russian diplomatic mission to Turkey.

I think, we can skip the author citations for now. However in a longer paper about Pierre Magnol the history of the plant name Magnolia is given in full detail. Probably this tiny moss with its barely visible gametophyte (I saw it at botanical excursions near St Petersburg) is less important than a magificent flowering tree populating parks all over the world, but? Alexei Kouprianov 10:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I tried to include this in the entry on Buxbaum. As to citations of authors in botanical names, the point I am trying to make is not that no history should be given: it may be quite relevant who gave the name. I am just aiming for consistency. There really is no right or wrong way. That is

1. "Carex buxbaumii Wahlenb." including the author and the "moss genus Buxbaumia Hedw." including the author.
2. "Carex buxbaumii" not including the author and the moss genus "Buxbaumia" not including the author

are both correct. I just want to be consistent within the entry. Different entries might adopt different policies.

The entry on Pierre Magnol tells about the authors involved in the name Magnolia, but does not cite this name including the author (which would be "'Magnolia L."). BTW, the history given in Pierre Magnol is slightly inaccurate. Brya 14:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thorne system

The "version at the Norton Brown Herbarium, Maryland" is based on an unverifiable secondary source: a professor's unpublished, unreferenced, undated, and apparently out-of-date lecture notes. Reveal's version differs from the one published most recently by Thorne (2000), which is the one which should be used as it presumably reflects his current taxonomic opinions. MrDarwin 15:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

More or less true, which is why I emphasized the source. It is the best I can do at the moment. Of course, it is verifiable as the system has been published (in several versions). Perhaps I will at some time get round to a more firmly grounded statement. Besides that, there is the question of the different versions, and how to evaluate and present these.

May I take your statement as an offer to enter the latest version? Brya 17:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you may take my statement as an objection--and one I have raised many times, with regard to many Wikipedia articles--to the all-too-frequent, uncritical, and often unreferenced or unattributed use of copy-and-paste lists from the web, which may or may not be reliable or accurate. If any system is to be used, it should state explicitly which published version is being referenced. When a scientist has published modifications of his or her own ideas, I believe it is a disservice to him or her to use old information (unless it is being used specifically to compare to more recent info).

BTW with regard to the Cultivar article could you please confirm that you have checked my quotations against the latest edition of the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants? I copied the text directly from the 1995 edition and can assure you that they are not misquotes, but my library does not have the 2004 edition yet. I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that such important and basic text would not have changed between editions. MrDarwin 17:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

As to this last point. I can confirm that I used the current edition of the ICNCP (I think have had my copy for over a year now). I see you don't know much about the nomenclatural process ;-) Brya 17:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. As long as the information is accurate, up-to-date, and properly attributed, I have no objections. (My own mistake was not explicitly citing the edition I was quoting from.) MrDarwin 18:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

APG II and Britannica

My dear Brya, I have one subscription on Britannica online and this is on Angiosperm entry: "Classification > Annotated classification: The classification here presented is based on that of Arthur Cronquist (1981, 1988)." Please correct your statements. Berton 12:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

My dear Berton, As far as I can judge you are quite correct in that Encyclopædia Britannica on line is using Cronquist. I had been told by eminent authority that the Encyclopædia is going to switch. Apparently they either have changed their decision, or have not yet implemented it. If I may guess I would think the latter is more likely, but guessing is all I can do. You appear to be quite correct in that what I said in APG II system is an overstatement or worse. I have corrected this. Were there any others? Brya 13:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Cultivar

I see you have felt the need to extensively delete and/or rewrite what I added to the article. Fair enough, but did you have to add the insulting comment "replacing factually incorrect and misleading" when you have essentially just re-stated what I had written (I am mystified as to what you considered "factually incorrect"), while adding your own extremely misleading comment that there is "only one kind of cultivar"? MrDarwin 12:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I did not restate what you had written. What I put in (again) is what is in the ICNCP, while what you had written is derived from what realm I dare not guess. Also, strictly speaking, clearly there is only one kind of cultivar. Or, there are as many kinds of cultivars as there are cultivars. If you are going to differentiate in kinds of cultivars you are introducing "original research", if not complete myths. The cultivar world is a strange place, but the one thing it is not is unstructured. There is no need to invent anything ad hoc. Brya 13:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What I derived it from (although for the most part paraphrasing) was the 1995 edition of the ICNCP, which as you have pointed out is superseded by the 2004 edition. Here I am at a clear disadvantage as you have that edition and I do not, so I will have to take your word for it that you are right and I am wrong. However, I did compare what I wrote with what you replaced it with, and am at a loss to find anything "factually incorrect" or even "misleading" in my text.

Regarding "kinds" of cultivars, the 1995 edition says, in Art. 2.6, "cultivars differ in their mode of origin and reproduction and may be one of those defined according to Art. 2.7-2.17", with those articles then going on to describe clones (of various kinds), graft-chimaeras, seed-derived assemblages, lines, F1 hybrids, etc. In other words, the ICNCP clearly describes several different originations, or classes, or groups, or kinds (choose your word) of cultivars. Has that changed in the 2004 edition?

Please give me a little credit, Brya, you should know by now that I am not an idiot. MrDarwin 13:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I do assume you are not an idiot, but this only means I cannot understand your actions here. The 1995 Art 2.6 has become the 2004 Art 2.4:

"Cultivars differ in their mode of origin and reproduction, for example as described in Art 2.5-2.16. Whatever the means of propagation ..."

This new wording makes it a little more clear what is also in the 1995 edition, viz. that it is not possible (nor desirable) to delimit the nature of cultivars. The 1995 edition says "... MAY be one of those ..." (Caps mine, also in the subsequent quotes) and in the Arts 2.7-2.17 in each case says "... MAY be given a cultivar name ...". In the current edition this has become "... MAY form a cultivar." What the ICNCP is bending over backwards to do here is list a number of possibilities of cultivated plants that could become cultivars, while making it clear that this is not a delimiting list.

Nor do I think that the article on "cultivar" should be based on a single reading of the ICNCP. It is quite a complex world (not really a botanical topic at all), affecting and being affected by horticulture, agriculture and forestry (and who knows what else). In addition it is squeezed in between the ICBN on the one hand and the commercial names (with legal repercussions) on the other hand. The article needs to be as clear as possible, certainly in the beginning. Brya 14:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No time to deal with it now, but your latest revision of the article is much better, and goes a long way towards satisfying some of my objections. MrDarwin 12:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Brya 14:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Zomlefer

Dear Brya, it is really a beautiful book, full of beautiful illustrations and floral formulas (!) and where I discovered the reference Goldberg (1989 Monocotyledons) to complete the Goldberg system. Berton 12:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is really nice! Unfortunately I am using it so little I did not really notive the floral formulas. The drawings are really good. Every botanist should have this. Brya 13:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Drosera anglica

Mostly I stay away from anything with a green taxobox, no matter how bad the mistakes I see. Sometimes the state of things is so truely terrible that I cannot help myself and correct anyway. It is bad enough that some misguided soul thinks that Drosera anglica and Drosera ×anglica could be different plants, and goes into print saying so. No need to repeat that! Brya 16:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC) (copied from User_talk:NoahElhardt#Droser_anglica)

Dear Brya! Thanks for taking a look at the D. anglica article. I have reverted most of your edits, as they took away important factual information. You comment about D. anglica v. D. x anglica on my talk page, while well meant, only displays your lack of knowledge in this field. D. x anglica is the sterile natural hybrid between D. linearis and D. rotundifolia, whereas D. anglica is a fertile SPECIES which originated from D. x anglica. I hope that makes sense. Comments and questions are of course welcome. --NoahElhardt 17:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I would like to point out that on the whole it is a good thing to check facts before reacting. If someone points out that you have written down something completely silly it is natural to go into the defensive and 'retaliate'. However, although this is natural this is not a good reaction. First check the facts then act.

In this case, it does not matter what you may assume, because Drosera anglica and Drosera ×anglica are the same. This is by definition. They cannot be separate plants. Under the ICBN they are one and the same name (e.g. Art 50.1). There is merely a limited difference in status.

I should also point out that D. x anglica is a way of writing that is to be deplored: the professional way to write this is D. ×anglica.

Your response makes sense, psychologically. Factually it is nonsense. :-) 19:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)(copied from User_talk:NoahElhardt#Droser_anglica)

Perhaps more clear is the Art. H.3.3 Brya 20:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)(copied from User_talk:NoahElhardt#Droser_anglica)

Hi Brya. I was in a rush when I sent the first message, and so did not take the appropriate care to word my ideas in a careful manner - I apologize for the overly defensive nature of my comments.

Thanks for pointing out the ICBN info. Let's take a look at it:

H.3.1. Hybrids between representatives of two or more taxa may receive a name. For nomenclatural purposes, the hybrid nature of a taxon is indicated by placing the multiplication sign × before the name of an intergeneric hybrid or before the epithet in the name of an interspecific hybrid, or by prefixing the term "notho-" (optionally abbreviated "n-") to the term denoting the rank of the taxon (see Art. 3.2 and 4.4). All such taxa are designated nothotaxa.

With Drosera ×anglica, I was referring to the natural, diploid, sterile hybrid between two established species: Drosera linearis and Drosera rotundifolia. I am not making this hybrid name up, it is recognized by other authorities on the subject. see article

Note 1. Taxa which are believed to be of hybrid origin need not be designated as nothotaxa.

Note that only taxa which are believed to be of hybrid origin need not be designated as nothotaxa - not taxa which are first generation hybrids themselves. Therefore, plants which are natural sterile diploid hybrids of D. rotundifolia and D. linearis cannot be called merely Drosera anglica. They must be called Drosera ×anglica'.

Ex. 3. The true-breeding tetraploid raised from the artificial cross Digitalis grandiflora L. × D. purpurea L. may, if desired, be referred to as D. mertonensis B. H. Buxton & C. D. Darl. (1931); Triticum aestivum L. (1753) is treated as a species although it is not found in nature and its genome has been shown to be composed of those of T. dicoccoides (Körn.) Körn., T. speltoides (Tausch) Gren. ex K. Richt., and T. tauschii (Coss.) Schmalh.; the taxon known as Phlox divaricata subsp. laphamii (A. W. Wood) Wherry (in Morris Arbor. Monogr. 3: 41. 1955) is believed by Levin (in Evolution 21: 92-108. 1967) to be a stabilized product of hybridization between P. divaricata L. subsp. divaricata and P. pilosa subsp. ozarkana Wherry; Rosa canina L. (1753), a polyploid believed to be of ancient hybrid origin, is treated as a species.

At some point in the past, a Drosera ×anglica reproduced to form a tetraploid offspring, which stabilized and formed a population of plants. Although this is still continually happening today (as I mentioned in the article), the original occurrence must have been ancient, since this population now exists in places as isolated as Hawaii and far away as Japan (remember, one of the parents, D. linearis, exists only in the Great Lakes area.) Since this tetraploid population is "a polyploid believed to be of ancient hybrid origin", it is therefore treated as a species. It can no longer be called Drosera ×anglica.

The distinction between Drosera anglica and Drosera ×anglica is vital for understanding the history of Drosera anglica. If you are not convinced, also take a look at the definition of a species: "A species is a group of organisms that can interbreed in nature to produce a fertile offspring." Drosera anglica and Drosera ×anglica can not interbreed to form fertile offspring, and so therefore can not be lumped together in any taxa below the subgenus level.

I have put the mention of Drosera ×anglica in bold on the article page, as it is described enough to probably constitute being included in the page. However, the taxa, as far as I can see, must remain separate. I welcome your comments on the subject. --NoahElhardt 22:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What Brya is saying is that Drosera anglica and Drosera × anglica are the same name by the rules of nomenclature. It has nothing at all to do with whether there are two species. If there are, the rules of nomenclature specify that they can't share the name, with or without the "×".--Curtis Clark 04:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Brya 08:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I read in the rules of nomenclature, I couldn't see any specific hindrances to giving two taxa the same name, one with the "×" and one without it. (If there are, please point them out to me). Regardless, I am not making these names up, as they are accepted and published names. (See 1) What should I do? Ignore these publications, assuming that the taxonomists that wrote them made a mistake (which is possible)? For the sake of correctness (if indeed it would be incorrect to have them share the name), should I replace D. ×anglica with D. linearis × D. rotundifolia? Thanks for the help. --NoahElhardt 14:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well there is an Rule saying so, Art H.3.3. I will admit this is not the most readable rule, but it does say that the multiplication sign is to be disregarded, when it comes to judging whether two names are the same.

Clearly I never said, or even suggested that the error originated with you: the error is in the publication you cite. I cannot tell what would be the exact correct way to deal with this. What is clear is that the name Drosera anglica Huds. is very well accepted for the species. If they are indeed two different plants then your suggestion to "replace D. ×anglica with D. linearis × D. rotundifolia?" looks as if it may be a good solution. However, taxonomy is notoriously tricky, and in the absence of real information it is dangerous to reverse engineer an erroneous publication. I hope this helps. Brya 14:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, after reading http://www.carnivorousplants.org/cpn/samples/Science284Dxanglica.htm, I see what has happened. There are natural F₁ hybrids between Drosera linearis and D. rotundifolia, and there is an amphidiploid derived from them. The type specimen of the name Drosera anglica Huds. may be an F₁, or it may be an amphidiploid. LePage and Baldwin evidently saw F₁s and decided that Drosera anglica was a nothospecies, hence Drosera × anglica (I've done this sort of naming myself).

If the type is indeed an F₁, it is correctly Drosera × anglica and the amphidiploid can be given another name. If the type is the amphidiploid, it is correctly Drosera anglica, and the F₁s are best called Drosera linearis × D. rotundifolia.--Curtis Clark 19:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Continued at User talk:NoahElhardt. Brya 06:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for rewriting segregate (taxonomy)

I admit I didn't know what it a segregate was before I encountered it while researching for another article. So input from a specialist was greatly needed! :) Flammifer 08:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Gunnera

Why did you remove the categories from Category:Gunnera? Alan Liefting 20:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought that was obvious. The category Gunnera had a single entry only. It is not very helpful to have such small categories: a category is handiest if it has between, say, 25 and 150 entries. Even if all species in Gunnera get their own entry these will comfortably fit in category:Gunnerales, and this remains true if all species in Gunnerales get their own entry. It is a matter of convenience. Brya 07:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Paraphyly amended

Dear Brya, after a long silence I amended the entry on paraphyly. I do not know whether this is of any interest for you, but, as for me, the nomenclature is just another facet of any taxonomist, so why not to suppose that you are interested in the phylogenetics as well? Any comments on the current revision? Am I not more pattern-cladistic than pattern-cladists themselves (consider also Talk:Paraphyly)? Alexei Kouprianov 22:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not a hard-core cladist, but I looked at the article and made an attempt to improve readability. Brya 07:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

taxoboxes

I've noticed thatyou removed quite a few species variables from taxoboxes (Waterwheel plant, Pink Sundew, Amaranthus tricolor...) Unfortunately, tha element is an essential and standard part of the taxobox standard. Could you stop doing that? Circeus 20:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it depends what you mean by essential. These are against basic Wikipedia policy (no orginal research). Brya 20:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

How is taxonomic placement "original research"?? --NoahElhardt 00:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It is if it is an original taxonomic placement, as in this case. Brya 08:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I don't claim to be a taxonomist of any sort, but I must have missed something major if much of classification has suddenly become original research. Isn't this kind of thing set in stone (more or less) already? Plant families aren't just swimming in a sea, with every Tom Dick and Harry allowed to place them in whatever Order they want to according to their own "original research". Last I checked, every order had a specific well known class it was placed in, and each class a phylum, and so forth. When I make a page, I don't make this info up on the spot, or do some kind of "original research" to deduce this information. Its widely available. (Drosera anglica taxonomic tree can be found here for example). Please enlighten me. I'm confused. --NoahElhardt 15:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You describe it pretty well, except that such placements are not mandatory (an order does not have to be in a class). What is important is to use a particular tree, from one particular point of view. There are many different systems of plant classification. Probably the two foremost systems in use are the Cronquist system, of 1981, and the APG II system, of 2003. The tree you refer to, here is a tree according to Cronquist, also used by ITIS. You can recognize Cronquist by its use of classes (Magnoliopsida) and subclasses (Dilleniidae). On the other hand the APG II system designates only families and orders. For the higher level systematics it uses clades (eudicots, rosids, etc): this saves a lot of arguing about assigning ranks and choosing formal names. Also this improves clarity as the clade names are unambiguous.

Basically you could use either system and be fine. The French Wikipedia is using both, side by side, which is also fine. In the English Wikipedia most of the taxoboxes have sawed both systems in half: the bottom half, the families and orders are according to APG II while the top half, classes and divisions are according to Cronquist. It (mostly) leaves off the layer of subclasses, presumably because then it would not fit at all. In all cases the result is an original taxonomy. In some cases it is not all that bad, in others it results in a true travesty. For example the family Nepenthaceae exists in both systems. Cronquist assigns the family to the order Nepenthales, while APG II places it in order Caryophyllales. Cronquist then places the order Nepenthales in subclass Dilleniidae in class Magnoliopsida. APG II places the order Caryophyllales in the clade core eudicots in the eudicots. A typical wikipedia taxobox will use APG II for family and order (family Nepenthaceae in order Caryophyllales) and then places that in Cronquist's class Magnoliopsida. Such a taxon as Cronquist's class Magnoliopsida not only does not exist in APG II, but it cannot exist (actually it is close to blasphemy).

So mostly I am leaving taxoboxes alone, but when I am writing a page, extensively rewriting a page or feeling tired (and am editing the page anyway), I am correcting to one system, and at this moment it is APG II, which Wikipedia at least claims to be following. Does that make sense? Brya 19:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Class is still part of the ICBN (Article 3), and cannot be ignored. APG has not yet chosen to deal with classification above the level of Order (and of course Phylocode devotees would abandon it all), but a Taxobox presupposes a classification that fits a code of nomenclature (otherwise it is truly original research).--Curtis Clark 21:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly Class is part of the ICBN. As I understand it there is no requirement that it MUST be used (IIRC a Note is going to be appended to Art 3.1 to that effect). See also Art 2 ("indefinite": there is no required minimum number of ranks). If a taxobox were to require a Class then it can only use a classification such as that by Cronquist, Takhtajan, Dahlgren, Thorne, etc. Designing a new taxonomic system merely to fit the Wikipedia taxoboxes is original research. Brya 10:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That was my read, too, even in the Saint Louis code, and now I need to find out when it changed (not too long ago, species, genus, family, order, class, and phylum were required).

Your view of "original research" and the sanctity of published classifications is charming. Wikipedia is rife with juxtapositions of information that may never before have been juxtaposed – that is the nature of an encyclopedia. And APG II doesn't include species or genera (beyond the ones they use to anchor, circumscribe, and typify families); should they, too, be left out of taxoboxes?--Curtis Clark 14:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, such juxtapositions should be dealt with very carefully. As to placing genera and species in families, yes, this too needs care. However, the problem is not the taxoboxes. If a genus or species is recognized (of course, this is a big IF already), then its placement will on the whole be unproblematic. The problem lies in the reverse: when describing a family what are the genera that belong to it? This indeed is not answered by APG II (the list of synonyms gives some indirect information). Personally I tend to be very careful when dealing with this question of intrafamiliar classification: it is very easy to give the wrong impression. Brya 09:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, this point would be moot if Wikipedia were to adopt the Mabberley version of APG II, which would otherwise be good as well. Brya 10:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Another possibility for "stopping the madness" would be to top out the taxobox at Family. The Family treatment could (as many already do) consider placement in alternative systems.--Curtis Clark 15:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the general public deals only with family, genus and species. Still, as APG II 'tops out' the formal classification at order, that might be better. Also, it looks to me that the APG orders are more stable than the families. Topping out at order would still put most of the emphasis on family. But I agree, higher classification mostly clutters up the taxobox, without adding real information. If it is clear that a plant is a flowering plant aka angiosperm then that will be enough for most practical purposes. Brya 09:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And yet there are a number of families that APG II doesn't assign to orders.

When I first started looking into the APG II system, I was pleased with what I saw; many of the reassignments addressed long-standing incongruities in the classical families. But part of its value (and a conundrum of biological classification in general) is that it is unfinished.--Curtis Clark 14:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and in back of the system there are even some genera not assigned as to family. Any representation of the system tends to look untidy. This may all contribute to reasons to shift to the Mabberley version which will be tidier and likely will incorporate some of the progress made. Brya 06:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Species

I don't care about higher order. I was specifically complaining about your removing of the |species = '''D. foobar''' core element of the taxobox. Circeus 01:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a remarkably silly piece of clutter. What is the purpose of repeating (in abbreviated form) what is already in "binomial name" (and likely in the title of the taxobox and the title of the page)? Brya 10:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've always wondered what it was doing there.--Curtis Clark 14:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Also, what's with recategorizing all of the carnivorous plant articles? If you have a good reason, I really don't have a problem with it, but it would have been nice of you to bring it up on the Carnivorous plant wikiproject talk page or something so that those of us who have been working with the old cat system know what's going on. Thanks --NoahElhardt 00:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I suppose that would have been better. It was just that I am not interested in categorizing carnivorous plant articles as such. I am working my way through the order Caryophyllales, and this was blocked up completely because of the Nepenthes-items. These were categorized in Nepenthaceae a subcategory of both Caryophyllales and of Carnivorous plants and in both these main categories. This is against common sense and against the guidelines on categorization. The result was a hopeless mess. I tried to gently nudge User:Mgiganteus1 into cleaning up his act, but he did not get it. I did not feel like getting into a big hassle and tried to do the sensible thing.

Categorization depends on the number and nature of the things to be categorized. This means that on the whole there is no fixed "right categorization" but that it needs to be adjusted as items are added. At the moment the Category Caryophyllales contains lots of non-related items, and the exceptions belong to the family Cactaceae (in category Cacti, which looks to be allright) and a few genera only (Amaranthus, Drosera, Nepenthes) so at this moment it seems clearest to move these items into subcategories dedicated to each genus : this has several advantages. As items are added it will be wise to look at it again and to add new subcategories. As I see it, at this moment this looks best. However I have not finished yet; a category should not contain that much over 150 items and Caryophyllales will be near the upper limit even after Nepenthes is properly filed away. The same goes for Carnivorous plants, although as I said I have no real interest in those and would gladly leave that to you, as long as it does not interfere with Caryophyllales. Brya 08:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks. As far as the carnivorous plant category, I find it really useful for me to keep track of what is going on, and I think users would as well. It may end up getting too large (there are some 500-600 species to cover in this cat, so we'll see when we cross that bridge). --NoahElhardt 15:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Genus categories?

Noticed that the category for order Caryophyllales seems to have genera as subcategories, but not families. This sort of makes things disorganized... did you start this? (You're the only editor on the subcat Dianthus, so thought it might be you.) I'm working on moving cats from order to family on plant articles, will also move these genera to families in order to maintain consistency. SB Johnny 10:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yikes... this genus-cat thing has led to votes for deletion of family cat pages. Please help move them back to the family cats! SB Johnny 00:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I made categories for genus pages. With good reason. See above. It depends if (1) you want to make sensible categoies for the items that are in the category, following the guideline that wikipedia sets for this. This is what I did. Or (2) you could look at a topic and look at the categories you are going to want (even if in only the long run) and make those categories even if there are only one or two items in each category. The latter of course may contribute to interchangeability with other wikipedias.Brya 07:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the consensus over time (at least in the TOL crowd) has been to avoid genus cats... the only ones I've seen are the ones you've created. In taxonomy, it's really the heirarchical structure that's most appropriate, wouldn't you agree? SB Johnny 10:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks to me the "TOL crowd" is a rather loose gathering of people, often with a rather limited level of knowledge. As to taxonomy, it is pretty well understood in taxonomy that what matters are good taxa. In some groups you have good families, with genera ephemeral. In other groups there are good genera, with families ephemeral. Rank often is relative to the moment and to the purpose to be served.

I don't really oppose family cats in Caryophyllales, at least not if it means that from now on you are going to keep the category in order. When I came accross it it was an impassible swamp and it is odd to see people taking an interest only after it has been put in order. Still, I do feel that in this case cats of genera were and are more appropriate. Brya 06:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletions and revertions

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue to delete information, as you did at Ghillean Prance, Loranthaceae, and others, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule. May I also remind you of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, Wikipedia:ISBN, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life project, which specify on matters such as the formatting of references, ISBN, and style for scientific names. If you think any of these should be changed, please raise it at the relevant project talk page, not by changing individual pages to suit your own preferences. Thank you - MPF 08:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please refrain from reverting in violation of wikipedia guidelines, as as you did at Ghillean Prance, Loranthaceae, and others. As you appear to be completely oblivious of Wikipedia guidelines I suggest you read up on them. Brya 10:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Brya, I happen to have stumble into the long-winded edit war you two are having over at Botanical name. Now I see that this is not limited and the both of you have doing constant reverting without justifying or discussing whatsoever. I am this close to fulfilling a RFC as a third party, because I firmly believe your actions (on both sides) are not conducive to improvement of the article.

Your reverts at Loranthaceae are nothing but improper formatting and information deletion, and I am completely omitting the APG crusade this is involved in. I expect to see the both of you justify (and giving the exact pages you are refering to, as the manual of style is not exactly easy to navigate) any reverts to the following pages on the respective talk pages:

• Ghillean Prance
• Loranthaceae
• Botanical name
• Leitneriales
• Santalales
• Misodendraceae
• Family (biology)
• Coniferae
• Ranunculaceae

Circeus 14:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

While an edit war is never called for, it looks to me like User:MPF is at least giving reasons for his edits (see 1, POV text 2) and for the most parts doing edits that actually add information. Brya's tendency to removed information (such as genus lists, taxonomic rankings, etc) or recategorize hundreds of articles without any warning or stated reason has been a cause of annoyance for me and others. I welcome the call to "discuss before you delete". Thanks --NoahElhardt 15:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I just want to say that MPF provided with a detailed rationale for reverting your edits. I expect to see the same from you if you choose to revert all or part of these edits. Circeus 02:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me point out that I am not the one stalking another user to insert PoV ideas about typography and spelling into pages, withouth regard as to content. Brya 07:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Brya, you are not being stalked, but you are being watched (by me), because you seem to be editing out of a sense of mischief. Please respond to this mediation before continuing to make these edits, which do seem to be violations of the accepted MOS vis a vis WP:TOL, which in turn is the project where you should bring these issues up to reach consensus. Please consider the following:

1. The broad consensus -- judging both by the MOS at TOL and by the vast majority of articles already written -- is that the names in ranks above family are not italicised. By changing them to italics you are:
   1. Creating inconsistencies in style between one group of articles (i.e., "articles Brya works on"), and other groups (i.e., "the articles everyone else works on")
   2. Causing unnecessary wikistress to other editors who are, like you, trying to build a comprehensive encyclopedia.
2. By dismissing both this mediation as well as the members of TOL (see topic above), you give me and others little alternative but to think you are not interested in collaborating. WP is not "your own encyclopedia", except in the sense that it is also mine, MPF's, and everyone else's.
3. By engaging in this edit war (which is exactly what it is), you are not adding anything to the project. For example, the back-forth-back again on the Botanical name article has not done anything to clarify the article... in fact, it needs a cleanup tag as it stands (I know what a botanical name is, but I am unsure how useful that article is in describing what it is or how it works).
4. By continuing to revert even after Circeus was kind enough to mediate, you are making it difficult for those interested to discuss this with you.

So again, please refrain from this for a few days while the discussion continues. SB Johnny 10:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to make sure you're aware, the discussion is going on here. SB Johnny 16:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Manual of Style:

This Manual of Style has the simple purpose of making the encyclopedia easy to read by following a consistent format — it is a style guide. The following rules do not claim to be the last word on Wikipedia style. One way is often as good as any other, but if everyone does it the same way, Wikipedia will be easier to read and use, not to mention easier to write and edit. In this regard, the following quotation from The Chicago Manual of Style deserves notice:

Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity.

[...]

Disputes over style issues

In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles, although editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk

I don't see that this is all that hard to read, or ambivalent. If a style is suggested by the wordlwide accepted rule book (i.e. in the real world) governing the matter and it is followed by 10-30% of the publications (in the real world) then it is an acceptable style. Brya 08:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Brya, in case you haven't remarked, disregarding the MoS in such a way is blatantly disregarding the principle of Consensus that is central to wikipedia. Replacing a standard header by non-header text is NOT an "optional style" by any definition. Circeus 12:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I am quite consistent is the style I am using, both within articles and between articles. In this I am scrupulously following the Manual of Style. To repeat (again) what this says (copy and paste):

One way is often as good as any other, but if everyone does it the same way, Wikipedia will be easier to read and use, not to mention easier to write and edit (Italics/boldface added by SB_Johnny). In this regard, the following quotation from The Chicago Manual of Style deserves notice:

Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity.

In this vein, editors of new and existing articles should strive to have their articles follow these guidelines.

Clear, informative, and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Wikipedia does not require writers to follow all or any of these rules, but their efforts will be more appreciated when they do so: the joy of wiki editing is that Wikipedia does not require perfection.

I am scrupulously putting content first, making sure readability comes first. I will admit to being an exception here. There are all too many people on Wikipedia who care nothing for content but only about how things look and how they conform to some pet rule they believe in. The other day I came across a page where someone had did a copy and paste from a website to make a page consisting entirely of copyrighted text. This page went through like some twenty edits, by about as many editors, of people formatting it, categorizing it, adding tags. None of these editors had even bothered to read it.

So, Wikipedia favors a style of headings that is very bold. This means that if you have a short text only, it will get overwhelmed by inserting these heavy headings into this. It not only looks terrible, but hinders readablity. Putting content first, it thus is necessary to judge (from page to page) where the recommended standard will be counterproductive.

The page on consensus says:

Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of policies and guidelines such as Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication fails.

As I read it this definitely precludes the deliberate starting of edit wars as happened here. Brya 04:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Response: The guideline you used above (sentence now italicized/boldfaced) is pretty much the point when it comes to the italics-in-higher-taxa battle you're fighting here. As I said above, your insistence on doing things your way is "Creating inconsistencies in style between one group of articles (i.e., "articles Brya works on"), and other groups (i.e., "the articles everyone else works on")".

It's quite clear that you know more about certain subjects than do most editors here (myself included). We read what you add (I personally have learned a lot from your contribs), and simply want to help out by making the articles conform to the style of other articles within the same subject or related subject. This includes (possibly minor) issues such as appropriate font styles, lists of genera within families, standard usage (regarding headers, taxoboxes, etc.,), inclusiveness of alternate uses of terminology among various fields (see my edits to tautonym), proper (wiki) referencing (including the use of ISBNs), and so on.

You are clearly an intelligent, well-researched, and valuable editor and contributor. Other users (like me) who might know a bit less are ready and willing to dot i's and cross t's so that you can feel free to add substantive content. We're all trying to build a great encyclopedia... if you feel the styles/templates/footnoting needs to be changed, you need simply bring the topics up for debate on the appropriate fora and make your point. If you're not sure where to bring things up, consider me "at your service" and leave me a message on my talk.

I am confounded by this whole thing. Are you in some sort of academic turf battle in "real life"? If that's what's going on, you won't have much success making WP a battleground, because (to be frank) you're now being watched very carefully here, as are the articles you work on. You speak of consensus, yet you seem to have no interest in swaying it (instead, you simply dismiss your fellows). Your latest reply on User_Talk:Circeus was pretty much a non-sequitor, and makes me feel that you are grasping at straws.

To sum this all up: I have great respect and admiration for your knowledge and scholarship. I have no respect for you whatsoever when it comes to your sense of the importance of collaboration. WP is not a good vehicle for "pushing the envelope"... it's just an encyclopedia, and reflects the current understanding of the things in our world. Some (or even all) of your views may in time be adopted by the community at large, but they aren't right now, and the best way to sway opinion is to bring it up on project pages where policy is decided. SB Johnny 17:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The next to last sentence is an important one.

WP is not a good vehicle for "pushing the envelope"... it's just an encyclopedia, and reflects the current understanding of the things in our world.

If wikipedia is an encyclopedia, as I think it is, then it should present information, aiming for encyclopedic quality. Anybody can edit wikipedia and can enter schoolbook definitions and commonly held prejudices and misconceptions. So people can band together and vote on what they would like reality to be {their "current understanding of the things in our world") rather than looking at reality and describing that (the actual current understanding of the things in our world).

A repeat:

One way is often as good as any other, but if everyone does it the same way, Wikipedia will be easier to read and use, not to mention easier to write and edit. In this regard, the following quotation from The Chicago Manual of Style deserves notice:

Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity. {italics and boldface by Brya}

Chopping up things fine and making a paste is not helping wikipedia. I do suggest you read up on basic Wikipedia policy especially Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. A ToL forum is a means to aiding Wikipedia be an encyclopedia, it is not an oligarchy dictating their preferences to wikipedia, in violation of wikipedia policy. Brya 06:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have all but given up on being a regular contributor to Wikipedia, largely because it has become evident I was fighting a losing battle against those who were not necessarily more knowledgeable, or better editors, but apparently have limitless time on their hands to edit thousands of articles. However, I have been following this "discussion" with some amusement and feel compelled to come out of retirement to comment.

Brya has (apparently unilaterally) decided to follow a typographical practice for botanical nomenclature used in printing the ICBN that does not even rise to the level of "example" (as defined within the Code): the italicization of all botanical names at all ranks. As others have discovered, this leads to stylistic inconsistency between botanical and zoological Wikipedia articles, and between those botanical articles which Brya has or has not edited. In the end this is about as inconsequential a disagreement as I have ever seen on Wikipedia, but as Brya clearly has no intention of accommodating, cooperating or compromising with, or conceding to, any other editor, and has displayed such breathtaking arrogance in all his (her?) past and present editing, I hereby award him (her?) my "Does Not Play Well With Others" award.

Now to the matter at hand: the ICBN (Saint Louis Code, published 2000), in its preface, states, "As in the previous edition, scientific names under the jurisdiction of the Code, irrespective of rank, are consistently printed in italic type. The Code sets no binding standard in this respect, as typography is a matter of editorial style and tradition not of nomenclature. Nevertheless, editors and authors, in the interest of international uniformity, may wish to consider adhering to the practice exemplified by the Code, which has been well received in general and is being followed in an increasing number of botanical and mycological journals."

I became curious as to how "well received" this practice has been and to what extent it has been followed, so I did a quick survey of the most prominent botanical, mycological, and phycological journals in my library. I was hard pressed to find any that italicize botanical names above genus. Of 30 journals I checked, only 3--exactly 10%--have followed the example set by the ICBN. (The actual percentage is probably lower, but I did not check every minor journal.) The journals I found using italicization are Edinburgh Journal of Botany, Mycotaxon, and Kew Bulletin. In my judgment, it would appear that the non-binding practice of the ICBN is little more than a quaint typographical convention that has not been widely adopted. MrDarwin 17:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha MrDarwin, it is good to see you take an interest again. However it is somewhat curious to see you come out in support of those against whom you were "fighting a losing battle [namely] those who were not necessarily more knowledgeable, or better editors, but apparently have limitless time on their hands to edit thousands of articles."

Pity. I suppose you are right and that Wikipedia is doomed if it continues on this path. Brya 06:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

PS. You missed quite a few journals. I am sticking to a lower estimate of 10%, although quantification is impossible, unless one draws up an elaborate set of criteria of how to measure this. The important point is that the range of journals to do this is quite wide. Brya 06:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Brya, my interest is mostly that of a motorist slowing down to rubberneck at an accident scene. I have had my own share of disagreements and disputes with MPF, but have generally found him willing to accommodate me or accept my edits when I was willing to explain my reasoning. And yes, sometimes I had to compromise. You, on the other hand, seem unable to ever concede that another editor might, just might, have even a slim ghost of a point and seem unwilling to even consider compromising or reaching consensus on any issue.

I will say this much in your defense: Wikipedia policy seems to give you, as the creator of an article, both broad leeway in the style of that article and deference in its later editing, and I assume it is on this that you are basing your revert decisions. Fair enough. Wikipedia also in many cases, with regard to style and other issues, basically says "here are the rules, but feel free not to follow them". (Not to mention, "be bold!") As long as such policies are in place, and as long as there are editors who place style above content in their editing, there will be problems. But your approach to editing Wikipedia articles does strike me as a bit odd when you are such a stickler for the rules of zoological and botanical nomenclature (to the point of refusing to concede that a zoologist just might use the term "tautonym" even though only the word "tautonymy" appears in the zoological code!).

With regard to the italicization issue itself: it's interesting that you say I "missed quite a few" when you have no idea what I sampled. I suppose I should be happy that you didn't tell me I'm wrong, for no better reason than that you say it is so. Of course there are more than 30 botanical journals in the world and if you can point me to any others that follow this policy, please do. But if I could find only 3 of the top 30 in the world following this practice after the ICBN instituted it in (I believe) 1994, I think it's fair to say that it has not been widely accepted. For that reason alone I think you are fighting a losing battle on this issue, all the more so when the other editors of biological articles have reached a virtually unanimous consensus not to follow such a policy. MrDarwin 13:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Addendum (in case anybody still cares): having limited my first sample to what I judged to be the better known and/or influential botanical journals, I went back to the library and checked some of the more minor or obscure ones. To avoid any kind of bias I simply checked the current issue of the first 10 journals, as arranged alphabetically on the shelves, that I had had not previously checked. Not one of them italicized family names, so that brings the total number down to 3 out of 40, or 7.5%. MrDarwin 19:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

RfC opened

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Brya. This is going nowhere at the moment. SB Johnny 09:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

history of science

Brya, you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science. Keep up the good work.--ragesoss 22:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Various edits

Brya, you absolutely cannot stand to have anybody edit anything you have written, can you? Please forgive me for having trespassed upon what was apparently your personal property. MrDarwin 13:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking that is not so. Due to the nature of Wikipedia I am limiting my contribution~s to a minimum length, and with careful thought to how words can be misinterpreted. My standard is that if you put in the five top experts in the world in a room with one of my contributions they should not be able to find fault with anything that is there (they will no doubt be unhappy with lots of things that they feel are missing, but likely won't agree among themselves on what should be added). So after giving very careful thought on phrasing I am indeed dubious about changes. Especially in such cases as type (botany) when out and out errors are introduced when I went to great lengths to do everything I could to combat those errors in the first place. On the whole I feel my contributions are close to optimum, at least for that particular length of the page. Of course it would be possible to deal in much greater length and more detail with such matter, using a lot more examples, etc. But that is another case. Brya 13:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

But you do apparently object quite strongly to my (accurately) saying that most botanical publications do not italicize botanical names above the rank of genus, or my (accurate) description of this practice having been adopted by a small minority of botanical publications. (And I would strongly question whether fewer than 10% of publications italicizing such names counts as "many".) More on typification later, if I have time. MrDarwin 13:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Numbers and amounts are tricky. I suppose I will agree that italicization in all ranks has been adopted by a minority of botanical publications (so far). It is hard to be precise on degrees of minority. It distinctly is more than a "significant minority". Probably a "substantial minority" is fairly accurate. I am not at all sure what a "small minority" is, but is sounds like an underrepresentation. Brya 14:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding type (botany), upon looking at the article and its past versions I see that Brya did keep some of the things I added and left out many of things I considered best removed--so overall it looks like Brya did not revert or edit this article as drastically as I had thought. But I do still strenuously object to Brya's wording on, and characterization of, italicization in botanical publications. MrDarwin 15:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

When dealing with a good faith edit I am always trying to keep good elements. I am also always trying to remove bad elements from any source (I am my own most severe critic, as you will have noticed).

I have tried to be strictly NPoV in my "wording on, and characterization of, italicization", making only basic and true observations. A NPoV characterization tends to be controversial (remember Malvaceae). My statements all look quite true:

1. In print botanical names are often italicized. -- One might debate "often", but it should be safe.
2. The example set by the ICBN is to italicize all botanical names. -- This is not in doubt
3. In practice a great number of styles are in use concerning typesetting of botanical names. -- I quickly gave up trying to count how many. There is a finite number of such styles, and it won't run to dozens, but more than I care to count.
4. Many publications do not italicize names above the rank of genus, or above the rank of subfamily. -- The word "many" is conservative, but it may well be accurate, depending on what publications one is counting.
5. In this there are national differences, with italicization above the rank of genus least popular in the US. -- A new addition; might need further tuning.

On the other hand, your statements were not as accurate

1. Botanical names at the rank of genus and below are printed in italics when it is possible to do so -- Very many publications don't use any kind of special typesetting for any botanical name, and quite likely these form a majority of publications. Possibly even a preponderant majority.
2. (underlined in some older references, especially those produced on a typewriter). -- This has happened, but actually is so rare I do not really see it rates a mention. Nevertheless I kept it (I remain dubious).
3. The example set by the ICBN is to italicize all botanical names at all ranks (e.g., family) -- The example "(e.g., family)" is a little odd, and limiting. Linguistically I am not happy with the repeat of "all" here ("all botanical names" firmly includes names at all ranks).
4. but only a small minority of botanical publications have adopted this convention, generally reserving italics for names at the rank of genus and below. -- There are many things wrong with this, such as that it disregards non-botanical publications to adopt this style. A "small minority" is not a particularly clear indication of the amount, and is rather a PoV characterization.

I am just trying to be as accurate an NPoV as possible. Brya 05:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed

Hi Brya,

I removed one of your remarks which read like a personal attack on Mr Darwin from Talk:Nomen nudum. Personal attacks should always be avoided. See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines point 1.4 "No personal attacks".

Also see: 1.2 How to use article talk pages:

• Communicate: If in doubt, make the extra effort so that other people understand you and you get a proper understanding of others. Being friendly is a great help.

Communication and being friendly helps a great deal.

TeunSpaans 18:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I do note that this is a somewhat selective action: if the first line of this edit by MrDarwin is not a personal attack then it is libel. Brya 18:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, In the first sentence you quote he offers an apology. If someone offers an apology, I count that in his or her favour, and I dont hold it against him. He did make a remark (for which he apologized on the place you referenced) for which I reproached him too, on his talk page.. His remark was less strongly worded than yours, so I removed yours, and left his remark. You can call that selective if you wish, but its always hard to make an accurate judgement.

I would like to contact you by email, but you seem to have that disabled. I'd appreciate if you could contact me at TeunSpaans AT yahoo.com. You can use an free email adress from yahoo.com or hotmail.com if you want to remain anonymous.

regards,

TeunSpaans 07:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I got to thinking about Brya's claim of libel, so I checked libel (which Brya has never edited, at least under that name). Assuming that the claim would be adjudicated in either a Commonwealth country or the US, in both cases it is necessary that the individual be identifiable. As far as I can tell, there is no demonstrative evidence that "Brya" is even a single individual (multiple users could be posting through that account), and certainly no evidence to connect "Brya" to an individual with legal standing to make a claim of libel (although Brya could of course disclose information that would settle both of these issues). Therefore, IMO (and IANAL), "Brya" cannot be libeled.

I, on the other hand, can be libeled; I post under my real name, and provide enough evidence that one can fairly quickly ascertain that my claim to be Curtis Clark is true. I know that there are many reasons, both "good" and "bad", for posting under a pseudonym, but when one does so, one gives up certain protections, and one of those seems to be the legal protection against libel.--Curtis Clark 20:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Battling botanists

All that anger and acrimony over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Nomen nudum, nomen conservandum, and other nomenclatural terms (continued) -- you know that's all totally unnecessary. I spent part of today explaining this to MrDarwin. The sooner you and he can agree to cite your references for whatever you write, the sooner you'll be able to sort the facts from the opinions and discard the latter. Wikipedia has an official policy against posting original research and voicing personal opinions anyway. Besides, if your articles have references for everything, they will easily be able to accommodate opposing viewpoints. Good idea? --Jwinius 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. As you may have noticed I have included references in the vast majority of the pages I created. I agree that acrimony is highly unwanted, and I have been doing everything possible to diffuse this and at least slow this down, but even a pause of two weeks does not abate MrDarwin's determination. You will also have noted that MrDarwin almost exclusive activity in wikipedia is to attack my edits (the logs make that quite clear).

I am doing everything I can to produce pages that are quite solid, and offer as little option of being misread as can be. However, even equivalents of the arithimetical statement " 1 + 1 = 2 " are being persistently attacked.

Also note that my operations are entirely defensive, maintaining pages that I created and that are rock solid. I am not making trouble, I am just trying to have at least a few pages in wikipedia on plants that can stand up to close scrutiny. Brya 18:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You will also have noted that MrDarwin almost exclusive activity in wikipedia is to attack my edits (the logs make that quite clear): No, the logs do not make that the least bit clear. I should not have to defend myself against accusations like this. Anybody is free to examine my contributions log to decide for him/herself. MrDarwin 16:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If this is not true than anybody examining the two logs will find this out for himself, so why this need to defend yourself? Perhaps to forestall such an investigation? Brya 17:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Brya, I would welcome an "investigation" and invite you to initiate one. MrDarwin 17:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've seen some of your pages, but those few "External link" references down at the bottom of the page are hardly enough. I meant like this: Atheris.
Actually, I didn't really start writing for Wikipedia until late March of this year, and for the first three months I didn't really use any references either. Then, in late June, I read an article about Jimmy Wales somewhere, who was saying that he receives an average of ten emails a day from students complaining that they quoted Wikipedia, and the information turned out to be wrong! That made me feel bad, but what can we do about that?
There can be only one solution: cite your references always; for every sentence if necessary. Only then can we hope to regain the trust of the skeptical reader. Then, if someone doesn't agree with a certain statement, they can follow the reference (view the web page, download the PDF, or even buy the book) and check its veracity for themselves. Without it, that's not nearly as easy, and all the reader can do is trust the honesty of the writer (who the hell is User:Jwinius anyway?!), or research the subject themselves (in which case you might as well not use Wikipedia).
Currently, I don't really have any problems with anybody, but there's not much I'll put into an article these days without adding a reference tag. My three main reasons are:

• To gain the reader's trust.
• So I can always find out later where the information came from, in case I begin to doubt what I wrote.
• To prevent people who think they know better from arguing with me. (If they do, and I quoted accurately, I can't loose).

If you always stick to the facts, only quoting published articles and on-line works (perhaps including your own) and always cite your references, people like MrDarwin won't be able to argue with you; they're not your words anymore. They become the words of the ICBN or an opinion voiced in some author in a publication. If MrDarwin doesn't agree, he can try to check up on your reference, but if you were accurate -- too bad. All he can do then is add another reference with an opposing point of view, which is excellent! That's the way it should be. Finally, the only things left to argue about is stuff like the structure of the article and whether certain parts belong in a separate article or not. If you think you can write like I'm suggesting, I think you'll get along with MrDarwin just fine. --Jwinius 20:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. This may sound like good advice, but unfortunately does not take into account the situation as it exist in those parts of wikipedia that deal with plants. There are some good pages on plants that do conform to the guidelines you suggested, but they are the exception. There is a very bad atmosphere in the plant section. It is full of errors at the level of species and genus and these errors are actively defended. I have seen references that were quoted being used for the opposite point of view (that is, the original text being changed while leaving in the references that thereafter support a new opoint of view). I have seen an editor, when questioned, produce a reference for his edit, and when I went to look up that reference found it to contain the opposite of what it purportedly contained. I could go on: for the long term I am hoping that some qualified editors are attracted, but I am not getting my hopes up. Such botanists of good repute that signed up under their own name have precious few edits to their name. I suppose I don't blame them.

I am limiting myself to edits that are directly supported by web-available content, as anything else is just too vulnerable. And as you see I get into trouble even so, when people refuse to follow the link or refuse to admit their own limitations in understanding the contents there and base their edits on their pre-existing ignorance.

You will also have noted that in the articles in contention I am the only one adding real content and correcting existing errors, while MrDarwin (and others) are just trying to insert their points of view and general beliefs. Brya 17:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)