User talk:Weepingraf

Beebe's Weeping

Dear Mr C

Thank you for your observations regarding 'Beebe's Weeping'. I acknowledge your comparison of 'BW' and 'Pendula', but would not so easily dismiss the enterprise of the late Mr Ray Evison, former Director of the Parks and Gardens at Brighton, who made it his life's mission to obtain elms from around the world. He also obtained U. americana 'Exhibition'. See http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/index.cfm?request=c1000983 Whilst legitimately obtaining any plant material from North America is difficult,it is not impossible; we have recently acquired the U. americana clone 'Lewis & Clark' (Prairie Expedition TM) from a Canadian nursery.

I will attempt to contact Brighton & Hove CC to determine details of BW's accession; I say 'attempt' because obtaining any information from that authority is like trying to pick up mercury with a fork, to quote Lloyd George. Thank you again for your comments. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy your trip. The Morton (George Ware) was very generous to us when we began our study. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 12:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rafael Thank you very much for adding the image of the real Beebe's Weeping. Yes, I switched the photo to Pendula in the light of your comments, and Ronnie Nijboer's (Dutch elm enthusiast) assertion that he wasn't sure of the tree's identity either when he photographed it. I regret I received no reply to my snail mail letter to Rob Greenland at Brighton; as you say, 'Overworked and understaffed'. We won't be bothering to supply Stanmer with any more new cultivars either, since they seem to have lost or misidentified the 20 Lutece elms we donated 4 years ago. So, overall, one up to Wikipedia! And yes, I'd be delighted if you'd post the photo of Rugosa Pendula on the Wiki 'Propendens' page. Green's work must have been a labour of Hercules, and mistakes would have been inevitable. If you're minded to venture west to the Hillier Arboretum, we'd be pleased to show you our main trials site at Fontley, and some semi-weeping selfed Accolade elms. Regards, Andrew, Ptelea (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, Just to let you know that I am the elm researcher who has found many of the elms in Brighton & Hove and brought them for the world to see. The Weeping elms in Woodvale that are quoted to be Ulmus americana 'Beeb's Weeping' was a name I origianlly pinned to the two trees in Woodvale Cemetery... and yes because of Green's work. The trees are under going examination, they appear NOT to have Ulmus americana features. The leaves are similar to Ulmus x hollandica and the flowers are without long petioles and certaily don't resemble Ulmus americana. One very definite feature is the scarlet red coloration on the Samarae, not known in any other elm I know of.

Also, the Chichester elm is known to exist in Brighton, through the work of Ray Evison, but Mr. Evison received the so-called elm from nurseries said to be at Chichester, West Sussex (?). Mr. Evison maintained correspondance with Dr. Heybroek of Holland and collected many unusual clones from Holland for planting in Brighton from 1958 to the early 1970's. Many of these trees survive. Some include the types Ulmus '202', U. '148', U. '260' and U. '297'. There are also some very large examples of the Commelin elm (formerly Ulmus '274') and other dutch and american additions.

regards... Peter Bourne (Tree Register Founder and Unqualified Elm Researcher)

Ulmus x elegantissima

Dear WeepingRaf I'm sorry to have caused so much distress. Permit me the following observations: (1) You did not move x elegantissima to the list of x hollandica cvs on the index page, suggesting this was a tentative revision? (2) I have never seen the cv. identified as x h. 'Elegantissima' before; please provide an example. (3) I note 'Plantfinder' tends to use the classification adopted by the nursery selling the tree or shrub, hardly the most reliable authority? (4) The leading authority on Plot's Elm at RBG Edinburgh still uses Druce's taxon of U. plotii. I doubt whether there will ever be universal agreement on the taxonomy of English elms. Richens proposed the 2 species format, Melville 15, and Armstrong no fewer than 40 species and microspecies. Until such time as there is, I would propose the existing taxonomy be left alone to avoid confusion. (5) The Truth? As Oscar Wilde once wrote: The truth is rarely pure and never simple (The Importance of Being Earnest, 1895). I will send you a photo of a weeping elm later today. Best wishes, Ptelea (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Euphorbia reversions and numbers of species

For the answers to your questions about Euphorbia reversions, please see the Euphorbia talk page. Anomalocaris (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is your basis for saying that there are 1900 species of Psychotria? Clicking to your source and entering "Psychotria" generates a page that says "3433 records retrieved", some of which are bold meaning "accepted names." Did you use a computer to count the bold records and was the result exactly 1900? Even if so, the Wikipedia article says "The distinction between Psychotria and the genus Cephaelis are [sic] not well known", which implies that there may be disagreements among botanists on some species. It's probably a good idea not to assert exact numbers of species in any large taxon, if only because the definition of species is somewhat fuzzy, as I stated on the Euphorbia talk page.

What is your basis for saying there are 142 species of Gardenia? Clicking your link and entering "Gardenia" generates a page that says "490 records retrieved." Did you count the bold entries? Did you notice that some of the bold entries are not species, for example,

Gardenia ewartii subsp. ewartii.
Gardenia ewartii subsp. fitzgeraldii Puttock, Nuytsia 11: 233 (1997).

Do you think it's a good idea for Wikipedia to provide exact numbers of species based on counting the results of kew.org searches? Anomalocaris (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving pages

Hello, I just noticed that you created Ulmus laevis 'Aureovariegata', while there was an old article Ulmus laevis 'Aureo-Variegata' with a similar title. Instead of creating a new article it would have been much better to WP:move the old page to a new title so the edit history is conserved. I have now requested some admin action to fix that, but the normal procedure for changing the title of an article is to click the "move" button on top of the page. Happy editing, De728631 (talk) 11:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's the new design. I've switched back to the old "monobook" layout which still displays the move button rightout. Now, for whatever reason, "move" in the default skin is implemented as a dropdown menu when you click on that arrow. You can try different skin styles though for Wikipedia by clicking "my preferences" on top of any page. De728631 (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:List of weeping trees

Category:List of weeping trees, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acer negundo 'Pendulum'

Hi, I wanted to let you know why I've reverted your edit to capitalize the common names on this page. It is certainly true that common names are traditionally capitalized, but unfortunately Wikipedia has decided to do otherwise. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Animals,_plants,_and_other_organisms explains this, it has to do with the "official common names" of birds, which they want to distinguish by capitalizing them. Sad, but true. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:WCSP cite

Template:WCSP cite has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Weepingraf. 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)[reply]