User talk:Ptelea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello, Ptelea, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  MPF 12:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Species names[edit]

Buddleja Entries[edit]

Hello Ptelea. I have been looking through all your entries for Buddlejas on Wikipedia. Excellent work! I have made a few changes and added a B.globosa cultivar. Happy to collaborate on the pages and I have images for some. Leave a message on my Talk page. Buddlejagarden (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello again! Just been looking at your B.xweyeriana Moonlight photo. I think it is actually Golden Glow. If you need a good Moonlight photo let me know. There are actually two cultivars around called Moonlight which are very similar. I have nick-named them 'Pale' and 'Biscuit', both can be found at the Lavender Garden National Collection.
We have duplicated the Reve de Papillons, I will mark mine for deletion. Buddlejagarden (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for creating the article Buddleja 'Flutterby' = Lavender. Despite its being currently listed at AfD, your efforts to improve the encyclopedia for the public are appreciated. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Convoy Faith[edit]

Hi Ptelea, I'm afraid that I've partially undone your changes to the Convoy Faith article. What's your source for that material on HMS Swale? It at least partially contradicts what's in Munro's book. Also, it's unclear what the ultimate sources for both the images you added are, so they're not usable unless this can be cleared up (for instance, one of them had been uploaded under a statement that it's in the public domain as its an image from the New York Public Library, without any evidence to demonstrate that the NYPL has released its images into the public domain). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ptelea. You have new messages at Nick-D's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Possibly unfree File:Sapporo A G leaf and Euro.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sapporo A G leaf and Euro.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks a lot for obtaining that file, and adding material from it to the Convoy Faith article. Please let me know if I can ever reciprocate with Australian Government files. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

George Ware[edit]

Thank you so much for your article on George Ware. He was my father. I do not know enough about his work to write an article but I am very appreciative of your article on his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Minor cultivars.[edit]

Thanks, Ptelea. I'm in favour. (Have amended the Greek Wiki page.) - Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ptelea. Re Procera, I haven't read all the Atinia evidence, but I think the English Elm article should present the Latium origin thesis and Henry's / Richens's Spain origin thesis as equally valid, unless the Latium evidence is irrefutable. At the moment the article says Latium is certain but Spain possible: a bit confusing. Re naming, I doubt the species idea (U. procera), but am puzzled by its early, atypical U. minor leaf-flush; I like U. minor Procera or U. minor Atinia; I dislike U. minor vulgaris (it's not 'common' across the U. minor range); and there's a case for U. 'Procera' or U. 'Atinia' ('Cultivars of unconfirmed derivation'). 'Alphabetical list of extant Elm species by scientific name' also needs updating, but I'm sure you know that! A really big merge would be sinking the U. minor subsp. minor article into the U. minor article: I feel it's wrong to separate them. The elms can't be subsp. minor in England but minor on the continent: it's the same variable species, and MC says "there's no clear distinction between [minor] species and subspecies". But I feel this merge is crucial for consistency - unless I've misunderstood something. Perhaps open a separate 'suberosa' page to shorten the article, and stress that 'suberosa' is doubtfully distinct (there's a precedent for this in elm pages, I think). Canescens also needs sorting out by the scientists; or has this been done? - Regards, Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ptelea. I didn't know about the ban, but it can't extend to Roman *proper* names, for we have 'Columella'. So U. 'Atinia' should be valid. Do Gil, Fuentes-Utrilla, Soto, Cervera, Collada (2004) use a scientific name other than U. procera? If they don't, they should have done: for I believe by their thesis Procera's a minor sport. I think we need to move on from the U. procera idea. Scientific protocol can't stand in the way of accuracy! (Richens's elm-populations in NW Spain, N Portugal and on the Med coast of France that "closely resemble English Elm" and appear to be "trees of long standing" in those regions are presumably related. They *would* only "closely resemble" English Elm, because they've mixed their genes there since the clone was brought to Britain. We know from Henry that Procera was fertile in Spain.) You could consult MC about naming. - Regards, Ftelia.

cv. 'Fremont'[edit]

I'd never heard of it. J. E. Zalapa, J. Brunet, R. P. Guries (2008) say pumila hybridizes in the wild with rubra in central US. Speaking of pumila, may I suggest that Koopmannii be changed from minor to pumila on Wiki? Margilan is outside the main range of minor, and Henry, who saw specimens in Berlin and Kew, believed Koopmann's to be a form of pumila. Henry knew how variable minor could be, but pronounced it pumila. The tree is treated in some north Eurasian treatises as a cultivar of pumila. The Morton Arboretum photo (footnote 8 on Wiki) strongly suggests pumila. We have a tiny-leafed pumila (identity certain) in Edinburgh by Rocheid Path, with equally delicate, wispy tracery. At least K should be Uncertain Status. - Regards, Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

U. pumila 'Hansen'[edit]

Hello, Ptelea. The pendulous Hillier 'Hansen' (File:Ulmus pumila 'Hansen'.jpg) can't be the same cv as RN's 'Hansen' in Brighton (File:RN Ulmus pumila Hansen Wilson Avenue S.D.Leisure Centre Brighton.JPG), can it? They look so different. Which is more likely to be 'Hansen'? - Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Got it! Thank you. (Perhaps a photo of unpruned 'Hansen' should go with the article.) Thanks, too, for the 'Koopmannii' change. - Regards, Ftelia.

Sections & subheadings.[edit]

Hello, Ptelea. Shouldn't the house style for sections following Cultivation (i.e. Notables, Hybrids, Cultivars, Accessions, etc.) be the section heading == == rather than the subheading === === ? They're usually an aspect of Cultivation, but they aren't always (some are wild); and subheadings within sections can be useful or necessary. There is inconsistency at the moment and some needless 'correcting'. Each article could be autonomous, but future editors might find section-heading uniformity clearer, allowing subheadings where needed. - Regards, Ftelia.

Agreed, Regards,Ptelea (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Here to make a different comment (see below), but I don't entirely agree. The "house style" here is the template at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Template, and this suggests subsections within the Cultivation section for some issues. Cultivars, for example, are usually handled within Cultivation. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Ulmus minor 'Paul King'.[edit]

Hello, Ptelea. Shouldn't 'Paul King' have a Wiki page? It's been in cultivation & marketed for five years, & (to go by RN's spreadsheet) has been planted at Kew as a cv. of U. minor. The parent tree in a newspaper photo looks U. minor. Perhaps at least as Ulmus 'Paul King', Cultivar of Unconfirmed Derivation? - Regards, Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Perhaps it falls into the category of elms not resistant if injected, but unattractive to scolytus nevertheless. A Wiki page might bring feedback. - Regards, Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hybrid query.[edit]

Thanks, Ptelea! It's a putative minor x laevis hybrid, outside the Czech consulate: File:Jilmy u muzea 1.jpg. Regards, Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Ptelea - wasn't sure how to take an April the First glabra x laevis query! But if your correspondent could tell me which cemetery... We do have a few laevis here and lots of glabra. I've always assumed laevis doesn't hybridise, but Richens doesn't rule it out (Elm, pp.9-10). The putative Czech hybrid is actually this tree in Česká Lípa (nowhere near our consulate) whose leaves look straight laevis to me. Don't know why the locals have declared it laevis x minor. As for who might have been hybridising in Ed, it depends how old the tree is. The 19th-20th century Ed plantsmen specialised in ulmus, the predominant genus here, so who knows? There are actually quite a few unidentified old elms here. Both Council & commercial nurseries, & RBGE, used to get some stock from abroad, which may have added exotic genes to the pool. - Regards, Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ptelea. Do forward photo (my address on D's 24/1 Plot Again email), and if it's local I'll take a look. The only curiosity I know in Warriston Cem (Purpurascens & possible Elegantissima aside) is an old Horizontalis with one branch that every year produces healthy but *curled* leaves, Crispa-like. - Regards, Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought I'd take a look anyway, since that quarter is new to me & has two cemeteries and a park. Several glabras in North Merchiston Cem and two definite laevis, one buttressed, with a blue label, the other less buttressed, without a label. Plus, true to Edinburgh form, a big old unidentified elm, grafted at four feet and not one of the usual suspects. Will go back in the summer to take another look. - Regards, Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"Probably extinct."[edit]

Hello, Ptelea. Perhaps "Possibly extinct" might be safer than "Probably extinct" for "lost" cultivars, given elms' ability to regenerate from roots and suckers, and given the vagueness of early descriptions, naming confusion, etc. Especially true of Field Elms & their hybrids, of course; e.g. for U. minor Plot, Wiki has "Like other forms of the Field Elm, however, it suckers freely and is thus not considered critically endangered", yet for U. minor Hunnybun, "reputed to have been commonly planted in the parklands and hedgerows of Essex, Cambridgeshire, and Huntingdonshire" and presumably also suckering, Wiki has "Probably extinct". Ditto Sowerby, "commonly found in the hedgerows and woods of Norfolk, Cambridgeshire, and Huntingdonshire", yet now "Probably extinct". Or were these non-suckering? And some of the Wiki "possibly extincts" are reported to survive in the Brighton collection (e.g. U. x viminalis Pulverulenta and Ulmus x hollandica Muscaviensis). On the Continent, U. glabra Monstrosa also appears (alarmingly) to have come back from the dead. - Regards, Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ptelea. Will amend any over-pessimistic 'probably extincts' I come across. I'm all for encouraging local enthusiasts and possible sightings, though. Your benefit of the doubt allowed me, for example, eventually to work out U. pumila Pendula and U. aff. Plotii here, where a stricter approach would have discouraged. A local enthusiast in Brighton could bring many improvements to the Elm pages. - Regards, Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Ptelea. Re elm cultivars, would you be OK with changing 'Probably extinct' to 'No specimens are known to survive'? After all, there are still many unidentified old elms in Edinburgh and other DED fringe cities. The elms concerned are these: - Regards, Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


Hi Ptelea, Should accession listings be current OR current & historic? As regards the Plotii page, if current, I am doubtful the Romney Gardens tree was correctly identified, and if historic then Westonbirt trees should also be included. Is there a convention for accessions? Thank you, Tom elm (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Plot Elm distribution map after Coleman[edit]

Hi Ptelea, I have replied to you on Ftelia's talk page here. Tom elm (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Stanmer Park aff. Superba.[edit]

Hello, Ptelea. I've added Stanmer Park aff. Superba image from Commons because 1) such an elm in Brighton is likely to be a cultivar, 2) so distinctive a cultivar is likely to be in textbooks, 3) in form it appears to meet textbook descriptions, 4) it would have been an ideal street tree (see Elwes & Henry on Magdeburg), and 5) it is worthy of the name. No harm in putting it under Notables as provisional Superba, I think. It needn't be the main image till we have a Magdeburg picture to confirm it. - Regards, Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Ulmus minor 'Plotii', cultivation[edit]

Hi Ptelea,

I see you removed the citation for the 3 'Plotii' in Seyne les Aples. Do you happen to know if these trees came from one of the confirmed (Coleman) trees?

If you could reply to this message on your (ie this) talk page, then it would be easier for others to follow the thread, starting your reply with a colon and so indenting the reply.

Many thanks, Tom elm (talk) 09:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The three Seyne trees came as rooted cuttings from the Grange Farm Arboretum, almost certainly wild collected from the trees at Laxton. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

A 'Suberosa' page?[edit]

Hello, Ptelea. A case could be made for an U. minor 'Suberosa' page, not for ordinary forms of U. minor that develop corkiness, but for the cultivar said by Bean to be abnormally corky and dwarf. The Ulmen Handbuch accepts it, so I added a paragraph to the Wiki U. minor page some years ago: "A form of U. minor not uncommon in central Europe, and considered sufficiently distinctive by some continental botanists to be recognised as a variety, is the so-called korkulme (Germany), korkelm (Denmark), or wiąz korkowa (Poland) - U. minor var. suberosa ((Moench) Rehder), the 'Cork-barked elm' of A. Henry, who says it "appears to be a common variety in the forests of central Europe".[39] Elwes and Henry, having seen specimens in Slavonia, Croatia, and in Gisselfelde, Denmark, as well as at Kew, describe it as having "branchlets of the second to the tenth year furnished with corky wings", but with "leaves and samarae as in the type". W. J. Bean reports it "to be often rather dwarf and to occur in dry habitats".[40] A fine specimen so labelled, with thick corky branchlets giving a dense winter silhouette, stands in the Botanic Gardens of Visby in Gotland, Sweden,[41] and others are found in the University of Copenhagen Arboretum [42] and in the Alexandru Buia Botanic Garden in the University of Craiova, Rumania.[43][44][45] R. H. Richens, however, regarded the tree as undifferentiated U. minor, not distinctive enough to merit varietal status, and the name a relic of taxonomic conservatism.[46]"

If some authorities, including Bean, believe it distinctive, if two photos show it to be so, and if it's in three botanic gardens, it's surely a cultivar, and so should have a page of its own. I think it as good a case as Goodyer's. This would also unclutter the U. minor page a bit. - Regards, Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ptelea. Of course Richens was right, most suberose U. minor isn't distinctive or worthy of varietal status. The claim, though, is that *nanism* sets one form of suberose U. minor apart, coupled with extreme suberose growth, whatever the soil conditions (e.g. the Visby specimen). Gerd Krussman in Manual of Cultivated Broad-Leaved Trees & Shrubs (1984 vol. 3) gives 'suberosa' varietal status on account of its *dwarfism*, as do Bean and Henry. Krussman knew his central European trees, and it tends to be Central & Eastern European botanists, or western botanists who have visited Eastern Europe, who think this form distinctive. It is usually reported in the wild from that area. Presumably the Kew, Visby, etc., trees were cloned to represent this form; they weren't local U. minor that turned out small and corky. I've never seen a 'Suberosa' in a collection, so don't have strong feelings, but Richens wasn't interested in the rarer cultivars, so I don't think we can dismiss the Visby tree - or a Wiki page - on his authority.
I think we risk being anglocentric and inconsistent with pages for Sowerbyi, Hunnybunii, Goodyerii, etc., but no page for a well-attested if putative dwarf 'Suberosa' cultivar, as distinct from the erroneous 'suberosa' [sic] of very old textbooks. There are precedents for putative elms on Wikipedia. Ulmus 'Pitteurs' was identified by Henry as just large-leafed wych elm, but it has a page. Ypreau (if it's not Major) is no longer a textbook elm, and even the name is probably obsolete - but it has a page. Heresies belong in an encyclopedia as well as orthodoxies. They have their place as historical curiosities, so long as they are flagged as heresies or disputed forms. Similarly, I think we should have a page on 'Coritana' as a historical curiosity, though most of us think it a will o' the wisp, and insufficiently differentiated U. minor. - Regards, Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Have rewritten the Suberosa paragraph to distinguish the well attested dwarf variety or cultivar, and have retained only the pictures from Poland. Ideally we'd have a picture from Visby. Also made other logical changes to the section. We need now, I think, to reinstate the Boissieri page, and to add a new Coritana page. - Regards, Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree about 'Coritana', though I still think heresies, properly flagged as heresies, have their place on Wiki. We're not a 21st C Flora, but an encyclopedia. Another editor, who perhaps has more faith in Melville, may start a page soon. I believe 'Resistant Elms' doesn't entirely dismiss 'Coritana'. And there were specimens in Kew, so it has a brief record of cultivation, making it a historical if not a botanical fact. If we don't do a sceptical 'Coritana' page ourselves, providing evidence, editors in the distant future may resort to Wilkinson and do a worse job. I think the same applies to dwarf 'Suberosa', though here I think we could genuinely be dealing with a mutation. And there's always the argument that others may contribute information and pictures new to us. On the whole, I'm pleased we have pages for Sowerby, Hunnybun, Goodyer, and others. - Regards, Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ptelea, I have reinstated U. boissieri page and moved to Ulmus minor 'Boissieri' as the tree is in cultivation beyond Iran. Tom_elmtalk 07:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Silver-margined English.[edit]

Hello, Ptelea. I see variegated English Elm has been placed under Cultivars of Unknown Origin, as U. 'Argenteo-Variegata', but aren't all authorities agreed it's an English Elm sport? Shouldn't it be U. minor 'Atinia Argenteo-Variegata', by analogy with U. 'Klemmer' and U.' Klemmer Blanc', U. minor 'Microphylla' and U. minor 'Microphylla Pendula'? Surely better to risk 'invalid taxonomy' (a changeable concept) than to overrule English botanists like Bean who had seen the tree? - Regards, Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

PS. Come to think of it, U. minor 'Atinia Variegata' would be better still, since there's only one variegated English Elm cv. Henry (following some earlier botanist) just calls it 'Variegata'. - Regards, Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Ptelea. To clarify, (1) the page-title U. minor subsp. minor 'Variegata' (the one with the Benalla photo) was obsolete, and needed changing to U. minor 'Variegata'; (2) the page-title U. 'Argenteo-Variegata' (photo in Wilkinson; no photo as yet on Wiki) was incorrect - it's a recognised English Elm clone - and needs changing, please, to U. minor 'Atinia Variegata'. - With thanks, Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Ptelea. They're currently the wrong way round. Not convinced that either U. minor 'Variegata' or U. minor 'Atinia Variegata' have been used before - certainly not the latter. Tom Elm was able to open an U. minor var. suberosa page after similar difficulties, so may be able to help. - Regards, Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello both. Is it as simple as this: and inserting correct markup in place of the redirect? Tom elm (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Ulmus categories[edit]

Hi Ptelea,

You may have noticed I have been categorising the various Ulmus pages. Currently, I have added Category:Commercially available Elms (incorrectly capitalised and due to be renamed) and the hidden maintenance categories Category:Ulmus articles missing images and Category:Ulmus articles with images.

Apart from the above categories, some articles are members of the categories Category:Ulmaceae, Category:Ulmaceae stubs and Category:Elm cultivars but there is not one coherent category for Category:Ulmus, but there is one, for example, for Category:Zelkova.

Please may I have your thoughts on creating Category:Ulmus and / or on removing each and every Category:Ulmaceae on the Ulmus pages. Category:Ulmaceae would still exist and Category:Ulmus would logically be a sub-category of this. Zelkova, by comparison is a member of Category:Zelkova which in turn is a subcategory of Category:Ulmaceae.

Would be grateful for any comments or objections you may have.

Many thanks, Tom elm (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


Hi, you might be interested in Buddlejaceae, a stub that I just created to try to clarify the nomenclature and phylogeny situation. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Ulmus minor 'Plotii' - {cn} & Westonbirt[edit]

Hi Ptelea,

Thank you for your recent amends to Ulmus minor 'Plotii'.

I see you added a {{cn}} to the addition of Calceby trees to notables section. May I ask what particular aspect of this requires a source? The photograph in the gallery of same section shows the trees and as can be seen by the car on the verge, these trees are large. Would be very helpful when you add a {{cn}} that you also include a reason, eg. {{cn|reason=Your explanation here|date=July 2018}}, so that an editor may be able to satisfy the request for a source - if it is necessary. The same logic can be applied to you recent edit of Ulmus laevis and the addition of a tree at Over Wallop.

One small point about your alteration to location of the specimen from Westonbirt; Jackson states that the tree was in the parkland (between Westonbirt House and Pickard's Lodge) and Elwes & Henry state that it is the park. The park is not the arboretum and I think it is important that this is noted.

If you could reply here, rather than on my talk page, that would be very helpful so that others may be able to follow the thread.

Many thanks, Tom_elmtalk 07:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Tom_elm

Thank you for your note. The Calceby trees entry should cite a reference verifying identification. I've no doubt the trees are Plot Elms, but Wikipedia doesn't allow contributions based on personal observation, which fall under Original Research. The White Elm at Over Wallop entry should have (and now does; my oversight) carry a reference, being the Botanical Society of Britain & Ireland database for north Hampshire, vc 12, entry confirmed by a qualified botanist. When is a park not an arboretum (:'a place with trees')? Longstock Park in Hants comprises mostly the arboretum, but the latter is not physically defined in any way other than by the presence of specimen trees. Wikipedia states '...Westonbirt House, became a girls' boarding school in 1927 when it was separated from the arboretum'. Regards,Ptelea (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ptelea,
Thank you for your reply. I quite understand about the issues with Original Research. I cannot find any previous records for these trees anywhere, which is a surprise as they are on the A16, a main road. They are the largest plot elms I have come across, but again I cannot prove these are the largest. All I would add is that a reason given to the {{cn}} would be really helpful, not just for me but for future editors.
I do appreciate the crossover between a park and an arboretum, but I would say the only good reason for stating that it is the parkland as opposed to arboretum is that to any future readers, they may misinterpret arboretum as being the current Westonbirt Arboretum. Some future plot enthusiast may go searching for these trees and waste their time looking in the wrong place (though they are likely long gone). To refer to the area between Westonbirt House and Pickard's Lodge as the arboretum would be to disregard the two reliable sources we have. Would you agree that we change the wording to: As the two late-19th century specimens in the grounds of Westonbirt House (one in the parkland between the house and Pickard's Lodge and the other in a plantation near the rectory)., citing Jackson.
Thank you for adding the source to Over Wallop U. laevis.
By the way, and not in connection with the above, I have some scans of two early 20th century French articles about Aldenham House, all of which would be eligible for Commons upload. If you'd be interested I can email them to you.
Best, Tom_elmtalk 09:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Ulmus × hollandica 'Dauvessei'[edit]

Hi Ptelea,

Have undone your edit to Ulmus × hollandica 'Dauvessei'.

RN emailed that the original identifier of this tree PB, more recently advised that this tree is not 'Dauvessei', but is U. procera.

Any questions, I can forward you the email from RN.

Best, Tom_elmtalk 10:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ptelea,
No worries, will forward you the email FYI.
Best, Tom_elmtalk 10:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Poort Bulten[edit]

Hello, Ptelea. Well done for adding the new Poort Bulten image. This looks much more like the Edinburgh tree. - Regards, Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ulmus 'New Horizon'
added a link pointing to Yankton
Ulmus 'Rebona'
added a link pointing to Yankton

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

Hello, Ptelea. You're right, of course! Will need to cut down on 'possibles'. There are still a few unidentified old elms in Edinburgh, and it sometimes helps to publicize them. Not sure about my aff. Kidbrook, though: possibly U. laevis, sadly. Photos of U. laevis bark do vary, & we have few U. laevis up here to compare. - Regards, Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ulmus 'Wentworthii pendula', you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elgin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

U. x viminalis & cultivars.[edit]

Hello, Ptelea. Am considering separate pages for U. x viminalis, the wild tree (like our U. x hollandica page), and for these cultivars (all in Green):- [x vim Aurea]; x vim Betulaefolia; x vim Incisa; [x vim Marginata]; x vim Pendula (= Antarctica Pendula); [x vim Pulverulenta]; x vim Stricta; x vim Viminalis. Would mean separating x vim Viminalis (the type cultivar, illustrated by Henry's viminalis leaf-diagram) from x vim Betulaefolia (these two look different). Am proposing we include Benalla as x vim Betulaefolia, and the current top picture as x vim Stricta (tree lacks the pendulousness mentioned in all other x vim descriptions.) The Leith Links tree (tree & leaf-photos recently circulated) am proposing as x vim Incisa. How does this sound? - Regards, Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

OK: will have the Benalla pair as x vim Vim, on an x vim Vim page, and do a Betulaefolia page without them, based on Green. (The Betulaefolia idea arose from their shape, & their difference from Henry's viminalis leaf drawing.) The only original research would be adding the Leith Links tree as a possible Incisa, as it fits the description in Green, or possible U minor Laciniata. This seems better than ignoring it. Errors (e.g Virens) are quickly corrected. A pity the Parks Dept never kept cultivar-specific records. They say they have none. - Regards, Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Chichester Elm page.[edit]

Hello, Ptelea. - Would you consider renaming the Chichester Elm page, to avoid two Vegetas? Of the three Latin names in the Synonymy section, 'U. cestria: George Lindley, Norwich, catalogue, 1801' is the earliest, so if what Max says is right we could go with x holl 'Cestria', and (despite chronology) leave 'Vegeta' to Huntingdon, since it is now established. Also, the Chichester Elm leaf is said to be close to Huntingdon, so are we sure the current leaf picture belongs on this page? It would be good to have a reliable Chichester leaf sample. - With thanks, Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

U. minor 'Umbraculifera', U. 'Turkestanica' and U. pumila 'Turkestan'[edit]

Hi Ptelea,

It seems as though Spath nursery sold two distinct clones; 'Umbraculifera' and another called 'Turkestanica' Regel in their catalogue of 1902-3, these two are currently lumped together on the 'Umbraculifera' page.

I suggest we create a new page: Ulmus 'Turkestanica' (for the Spath clone, I'm not sure yet if we know if it is likely U. minor) and to avoid confusion, we rename Ulmus pumila 'Turkestan' to Ulmus pumila 'Pinnato-ramosa' as this was the name by which it was first known and under which it is listed in many arboreta.

Any thoughts or comments you have would be gratefully received!

Many thanks, Tom_elmtalk 11:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

PS. if you could reply here please, it would help others follow the thread.

Dear Tom, I regret I can't run with this. It was Green who sank 'Turkestanica' as 'Umbraculifera', and I'd rather opt for his scholarship over the enlightened amateurism of Spath. Listing what is probably the same plant under two different names (a perennial problem with Buddleja cvs.) was hardly uncommon, and doesn't warrant two separate pages. Moreover, the Hillier Gardens (the world's largest arboretum?) have adopted and published U. pumila 'Turkestan' over U. 'p-r'. Enough is enough. Ptelea (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ptelea. I cannot argue with regards to the 'Umbrac.' and 'Turkestanica' logic. All I would add though is regardless of the size of an arboretum, it is the earliest published name with accompanying description that should be used as per email from RBGE. Thank you for your input. Best, Tom_elmtalk 15:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the RBGE directive; I just think it highly unfortunate if the name was changed again in less than two years. However, I agree that cultivar or specific epithets based on morphological characters are preferable to geographical origins, which are often too vague. While I created the Wiki page under 'Turkestan', the name was not my invention; I wish I could recall whose, certainly one of our UK cabal. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello both. No harm in correcting page-names. Date of last change seems irrelevant. I don't think we can justify a page called U pumila 'Turkestan' on hearsay, from a source now forgotten. Either 'Turkestan' (supported by citation) pre-dates 'Pinnato-ramosa' or it doesn't. If it doesn't, the page should be U pumila 'Pinnato-ramosa'. Would suggest you go ahead and create another page so-called, copy and paste text (with amendments), and redirect from U pumila 'Turkestan' (if that's how it's done). We also need a cultivar page called U 'Turkestanica' for Regel's tree - cultivated by Spath and planted at Benmore (where it apparently survives mislabelled). By all accounts distinct both from 'Umbraculifera' (see today's 'Umbraculifera' edit) and from U pumila 'Pinnato-ramosa'. - Regards, Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
PS. And with apologies if 'Turkestan' was my suggestion! We now have an U 'Turkestanica' page. - Regards, Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Hello both, just to clarify, here are the rules as regards cultivar names:

Brickell; et al. (October 2009). "21.5-21.6". International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (PDF) (8 ed.). p. 26. 

Best, Tom_elmtalk 10:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Ptelea. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Dauvessei edit.[edit]

Hello, Ptelea. Was your Dauvessei edit "However, there remains no record of its acquisition by the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, which is known to have planted exotic elm cultivars across the city at the beginning of the 20th century" based solely on the 1902 Spath list? There were later early-20th century RBGE-Edinburgh acquisitions. - Regards, Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ftelia. Probably. Are you saying there were 'later-early' acquisitions of 'Dauvessei', or of Spath elms, or of elms in general? I confess I am unaware of further deliveries from Spath. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Ptelea. RBGE acquired U campestris Japonica from Spath in 1903 (I believe some survive in the parks here) and an elm hybrid in 1904, according to a 1958 RBGE handwritten list by Melville (which I'll email you) - so there were later Spath-RBGE deliveries in the early 20th C. But we lack a 1902-style Spath accessions list for 1903 & 1904. - Regards, Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. As my French counterpart was fond of saying, 'Melville saw hybrids everywhere'. Regards,Ptelea (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Rugosa cultivars.[edit]

Hello, Ptelea. - Re your Rugosa query, the plan is to open a new page for Spath's U campestris [= U minor] Rugosa, probably calling the page U Rugosa (as we know so little about it), and to leave the two (?) wych Rugosa in Green on the U glabra Rugosa page (Brighton source assures me Brighton Rugosa is wych). All in hand. - Regards, Ftelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ulmus americana 'JFS-Prince II' = Colonial Spirit[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Ulmus americana 'JFS-Prince II' = Colonial Spirit has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of any notability for this brand-new cultivar.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Ulmus americana 'JFS-Prince II' = Colonial Spirit for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ulmus americana 'JFS-Prince II' = Colonial Spirit is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulmus americana 'JFS-Prince II' = Colonial Spirit until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Elm lists[edit]

Hi Ptelea,

We have five lists of elms which have a fair bit of duplication:

I see that the user @Kevmin: suggested merging List of Elm species with List of Elm species, varieties, cultivars and hybrids which I think is a good idea, so long as we don't lose any information along the way.

What can we do to reduce duplication in the remaining lists (say, via merging) and what are your thoughts regarding this?

I'd more than happily undertake any merging as and when time permits.

Best, Tom_elmtalk 15:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ptelea,
I have redirected both List of Elm species, varieties, cultivars and hybrids and List of Elm species and varieties by common name to List of Elm species.
This leaves us with:
...which can, I believe be merged carefully so we do not lose any information. However, do you object if we lose the details of hybrid parentage in the section Hybrids, natural and artificial, and hybrid cultivars? These are detailed on each the separate cultivar pages and would make for tidier list.
In any event, I will work on a draft before I make changes so you can see what I suggest.
Many thanks, Tom_elmtalk 08:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

U. 'Viminalis'[edit]

Hello Ptelea,

You added Cambridge Botanic Garden to the accessions list on U. 'Viminalis' back in 2007.

Do you happen to remember where you found this info please?

Best, Tom_elmtalk 10:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Acer morrisonense has been accepted[edit]

Acer morrisonense, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

U. x notha, U. x intermedia, 'Coolshade' & Fremont[edit]

Hi Ptelea,

Should the content of Ulmus × notha be merged to Ulmus × intermedia?

We lack references for the Ulmus × notha page, though I think I recall seeing U. x notha mentioned in an U. x intermedia paper.

Likewise, the 'Coolshade' & 'Fremont' pages would then be moved to U. x intermedia 'Coolshade' and U. x intermedia 'Fremont' as per convention with say U. x hollandica cultivars.

Best, Tom_elmtalk 11:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Ptelea. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ulmus × hollandica 'Major', you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William and Mary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited SM UB-18, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Start Point (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Results table notation[edit]

Hi. I can see where you are coming from regarding the edits to the Peter Collins (racing driver) page results table. However, this isn't the format we use at Wikipedia, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, these tables are for recording the outcome of the race. Harsh as it may seem, what happened after he crashed out of the race is irrelevant, so far as the race and historic records are concerned he is a 'retirement' only. Secondly, in any case to say that his retirement was caused by his death is wrong. Both his death and his retirement from the race – two separate events – were caused by one primary event: his crash. There are a very few cases where a driver's death results in them not finishing a race (see Denny Hulme's last race, for example) but Collins is not one of these. Either way, we do not record reasons for retirement in these results tables; those details are better covered in the page prose section, and this is especially true if the driver died. I see you have noted the additional footnote at the Luigi Musso page, but this is placed in addition to the race result (i.e. 'Ret') and in any case it shouldn't really be there, per the reasons given above. Plenty more drivers do not have any note in the table, and some of these were much more high profile than either Collins or Musso (e.g. Ayrton Senna; Wolfgang von Trips; Jochen Rindt; Jim Clark). Pyrope 15:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


Thank you for your kind comments and your edits. Though I love French music, and know a bit about some composers such as Fauré and Ravel, I'm really no expert on Debussy and any further contributions, comments and improvements will be gratefully received. Thank you, too, for a neat compromise over "get". We must agree to differ on the word. I was scared off it by my primary schoolteachers, but later came to the view that it was good enough for Chaucer, Shakespeare and even God (or at any rate the writers of the King James Bible) and so was good enough for me. But we don't need to cross swords over this. Best wishes. Tim riley talk 18:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

PS, after looking at your user page: absolutely with you about Housman. Tim riley talk 18:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

B&H list.[edit]

Hello, Ptelea. Good question. It is, but mostly in Citations, as "reported from", rather than under Accessions. I've urged its compiler to make corrections, to distinguish conjectures with (?), to add locations, to update losses where possible, and to expand his gallery I'm accepting new research elms as probably based on inside info, treating as "putative" elms supported by convincing photos and historical probability, querying the old cultivars if not likely, and deleting anything that sounds Melvillean and intrinsically unscientific. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)