User talk:Berton/Archive 2006

Cassytha

Hi Berton - I think this is best if the Lauraceae genus has first place to the Cassytha page, as it is an accepted genus, whereas the other name is just a synonym - I'll start a quick page about it now (it is easy to change). Please do add more - it is not a genus I know a lot about! - MPF 22:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have done it now - the Lauraceae genus is now at Cassytha :-) MPF 23:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Engler

Hi Berton - I wonder if Adolf Engler would be better moved to his full name Heinrich Gustav Adolf Engler? That is the format that comes up on the IPNI search page (here) so is the one most likely to be used in links from species he described. Any thoughts? - MPF 15:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just passing by. His full name is Adolf Engler. The "Heinrich Gustav Adolf Engler" is just the name that is registered with the authorities: it is to be used only on his birth certificate, marriage certificate, etc. Not otherwise. Brya 10:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flora cats

Hi Berton - thanks for the compliment! The idea of Categories:Flora by country or region has already been thought of, there are several around (interestingly, all southern hemisphere: Category:Argentine flora, Category:Flora of Chile, Category:Trees of New Zealand, Category:Australian plants). It has never been coordinated before (note that they all have different formats! - "X flora", "Flora of X", "Trees of X", "Xian plants"). The main problems with them are that (1) national / political boundaries do not match floristic boundaries (so e.g. Chile and Argentina share many species as the Valdivian rainforests extend a short way across the border); (2) the size of some floras (e.g. Emei Shan in China has over 3000 species on just one mountain); and (3) conversely, some species have huge ranges so would have to be in about 30 or 40 or more national categories (e.g. Juniperus communis, found throughout most of Asia, Europe and North America; native in about 50 countries). So the idea has not been used very much. I guess it would be best to raise it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants, and see what others think, too. - MPF 14:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cateogries (re Aboriella /Urticaceae)

Hi Berton - the reason I put this into Category:Rosales is that there are so few articles written for taxa in Urticaceae (only about 6), not enough to make it a useful category. The ideal is to have 100-200 articles in each category, so that clicking on 'Related changes' in the category gives a useful large list of recent changes made to articles for the minimum of working through lots of subcategories. Maybe one day when there are over 100 Urticaceae taxa with articles, then Category:Urticaceae would become more useful, but at the moment, it merely hinders checking for recent changes by making one more tiny subcategory to have to check. - Thanks! MPF 20:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northumberland flag

Hi Berton - from Northumberland#Culture: "Northumberland has its own flag, based on the design first used on the tomb of St Oswald in the 7th century". It is nothing to do with Hadrian's Wall (though it is still one of the oldest known flags!) - MPF 23:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Gottfried Nees von Esenbeck

For some reason I missed the duplication.In entomology Nees von Esenbeck is sometime abbreviated Nees or, sometimes, von Esenbeck and I may have searched in error. Many thanks I'll merge the two articles under his full name (with a Daniel) Soon I hope Best wishes from IrelandNotafly 15:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC) Notafly Tildes not working today it seems[reply]

Page moves

Hi Berton,

I'm sure your page moves are well intentioned, but please stop. For one thing, it looks like you are doing the page moves in the wrong way. You should use the 'move' tab at the top of the page rather than using cut-n-paste, this is in order to preserve the contribution history - see Wikipedia:Page move. Secondly, I think you are going against consensus in moving plant articles to their scientific name. This sort of thing is organised by groups of editors such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life (a project you might like to join). In general we put articles at their common English name where possible - there is also some policy discussing article naming at Wikipedia:Naming conventions. -- Solipsist 17:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Solipsist, thank you for info about move process (I don't know to using cut-n-paste, the contribution history would not be preserved).

However, I am not going against consensus in moving plant articles to their scientific name, since genus is a taxonomic category, not must be like species with a common name widely in use.

Even because there are several common names in several languages (there is no consensus). Berton 18:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I might not have picked up on that subtlety. I certainly wondered about restoring the article at Goldenhead, given that although that is where it was originally created, it never seems to have actually used the name 'Goldenhead' in the article text.

However, with nettle the article should surely be at the common English name. The main reason for putting articles at their common name (and not just on taxonomy related articles), is to try and ensure that when someone guesses an internal link, they get it right without needing to disambiguate it. If you check the 'What links here' link on the nettle page, you'll see that there are already quite a few articles linking to it quite naturally. -- Solipsist 18:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malvaceae e.o

Dear Berton,

I revised the entries on Bombacaceae, Malvaceae, Sterculiaceae and Tiliaceae, aiming for a more balanced whole. Of course, it is inevitable that any taxonomic circumscription is a point of view, and the use of any botanical name (especially at higher-levels) will likely be a PoV as well. Since Wikipedia tries to be neutral (NPoV) I tried to smooth these entries out.

Some notes: a “valid taxon” is not really a good way to describe anything. Names are valid, but by definition any botanical name is valid(ly published): it is a requirement (by ICBN). The fact that IPNI lists a name only means that it has been published, not whether it has been accepted, or by who.

A listing of authors who used a name in the past is of limited usefulness: the de Candolle’s recognised lots of taxa that are no longer accepted (they probably used Cupuliferae, and nobody will use that these days). A balanced view means documenting who will use a name today (or in the past decade). A separate segment on the historical usage is OK of course, if designated as such.

Anyway, I hope you will take a careful look at what I have done. Higher level systematics is not very interesting reading for the users: most people do not look further than species and genus. Brya 08:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Gottfried Nees von Esenbeck

I have merged this with Christian Gottfried Daniel Nees von Esenbeck- now the proper title.The Christian Gottfried Nees von Esenbeck (without the Daniel) can now be deleted.I don't now how to do this.Can you help? Very many thanks from rainy Ireland. Is it sunny in Brazil? Notafly 09:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiliaceae, Bombacaceae, etc

Hi Berton - lists do actually recognise things, because those lists are compiled by taxonomists and the list is therefore a reflection of the taxonomist. The only way we know that a long-dead taxonomist recognised something, is because the list he/she published recognises it. The reason I made those edits is that including a complete who's who of who recognised what a hundred years ago is completely out of place on these pages; it doesn't add anything useful, clutters the page up horribly and makes it read like a poorly-concealed editorial fight (which is exactly what it is!). Linking to a list of those same taxonomists on a separate page makes for a much more readable page. We've got to produce an encyclopaedia which can be read and understood by Joe Public, not produce a page of arguments that no-one will find any interest in reading. - MPF 21:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hanstein

Hi Berton - I would guess it is Hanstein, J. (1868). Die Scheitelzellgruppe um Vegetationspunkt der Phanerogamen, Festschr. Niederrhein. Ges. Nature-und Heilkunde 1868: 109–134, or other article(s) by him. I must admit I agree fully with MrDarwin, and like him, have been surprised at the number of times I have seen the new molecular phylogenies making better sense than the older classifications. - MPF 16:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :-) that pine was not so very difficult to identify, there are only two species of pine native in that area of eastern China; P. hwangshanensis is very recognisable (google pics) and the other (P. massoniana) is very different in appearance (and is also a lowland species, not growing on those mountains). If the location was not given it would not have been so easy, as there are several other pines similar in appearance elsewhere in the world (P. nigra, P. thunbergii, P. luchuensis, etc) - MPF 16:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flora do Cerrado

Oi Berton, Eu acho que as suas referânicas podem contribuir para aumentar a lista. Eu também tenho uma nova referência:

Leitão Filho, H.F. (1992) A flora arbórea dos cerrados do estado de São Paulo. Hoehnea 19 (1/2):151-163.

Eu também já fiz uma lista de plantas da Caatinga. E as próximas listas são de plantas do Pantanal e da Mata Atântica. Se você quiser incluir alguma espécie nas listas de Plantas do Cerrado e do Pantanal, fique à vontade. Abraços, --Ricardo Carneiro Pires 18:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Berton, my primary request is that if you don't like the way I have edited an article, rather than simply revert it to a previous version, edit it to your liking. I have tried very hard to provide additional, relevant, and accurate information to all of the articles I have worked on. I did revert the Sterculiaceae and Bombacaceae articles to my versions because I put a lot of work into editing them, and all that was lost when you reverted to your own, older version. MrDarwin 15:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Berton, this looks like good advice to me. Move forward, do add information. Reverting is usually not a good idea, unless an edit was really bad (introduced errors, was plain silly, etc). Reverting back and forth is not going to make for a good atmosphere. Brya 21:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abrotanella

I reverted my change of ths, and speedily restored the Category:Antarctic Flora, it has previously been listed for speedy deletion as a move to Category:Flora of Antarctica. If one of these categories is no longer needed, it can be broguht to WP:CFD for deletion. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 16:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Antartica is a recognized continent and should have it's own category Category:Flora of Antarctica. If Abrotanella is not growing in Antarctica then it should be removed from that category. You might want to think of another name for your +cat Antarctic it is not a recognized place or region that I have heard in my travels. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 17:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do u suggest with regard to dealing with fauna growing in Antarctica proper ? SirIsaacBrock 17:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some ideas for naming conventions for you Category:Flora by region SirIsaacBrock 17:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, they should be "flora" without a capital "F". Cordially SirIsaacBrock 18:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about this idea, we have two categories Category:Antarctic flora and place it in the category Category:Flora by region and Category:Flora of Antarctica and place it in the category Category:Flora by country sound okay to you ? I think your idea of the regional approach is important; however, laymen "like me" understand areas better by country/continent. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 18:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created a +cat called Category:Arctic flora do you feel this is the appropriate name for this +cat ? The Arctic has to be classified as a region as it is not a Continent or Country. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 18:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pará cities

I have replied on my talk page. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phylocode

Berton, I am at least as opposed to the Phylocode as you are, but the citation of the Taxon letter to the editor that is otherwise not mentioned, discussed or cited in the article, has dubious relevance out of context (and the context is not clear from the citation itself), and is inaccessible to most Wikipedia users in the first place, is quite pointless. It simply adds no new information to the article. MrDarwin 16:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing discussions

Berton, please stop editing your old comments on the discussion pages, for example those for the Talk:Cladistics and Talk:Phylocode articles. It is exceedingly bad form (and I would suggest dishonest) to do so after other editors have already replied to those comments. If you have more to add, please add them as new comments later in the discussion. MrDarwin 16:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Systems

Brya, congratulations on last edits (De Candolle system and Bentham & Hooker system). I have the Hutchinson's system (but only the 1st. Edition) and the one of Goldberg, do you find convenient to add them? BTW, Dalla Torre & Harms system is not system, but list, according to Woodland, D. W. (1997):Contemporary Plant Systematics, 2nd.Ed. Berton 13:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Berton, thank you for the kind words on de Candolle, etc. At this stage I am in favour of adding all the extra systems we can find, perhaps even several different versions of one particular system.

As to the Dalla Torre & Harms system, I must admit I am not closely familiar with it, so I cannot say how distinct it is (taxonomically) from the Engler system. What I do know is that it has a special status in nomenclature, and therefore stands out: in a way it is more prominent than the Engler system. Sooner or later it should gets its own entry, in which the details can be explained. Brya 13:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pages as discussion fora

The problem with something like that on a page like Talk:Evolution is that basically all that ever happens is that you spend time answering the same complaints that "evolution didn't happen" or "evolution is a lie", over and over, and it runs for pages and pages...and any attempts to discuss the article and its content get lost. In addition, arguments like that get heated and lead to more bad feeling (as if there isn't enough). There are fora available for discussing things like that, but turning a talk page into a discussion forum puts an unnecessary (and often, unacceptable) burden on people who are trying to write an encyclopaedia. How many times do you want to interact with yet another aggressive person saying "there are no transitional fossils" or "the probability of proteins assembling by chance is too low to have happened" or "evolution has never been observed"?

On a more positive note...Lauraceae? Wow. They are bane of a field ecologist! Even fertile they can be impossible to ID. Guettarda 14:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda, I have been increasingly frustrated by Berton's use of discussion pages for the expounding of his ideas on evolution, classification, cladistics, and molecular systematics (see in particular his comments under Talk:Cladistics, Talk:PhyloCode, and Talk:Malvaceae). MrDarwin 14:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the positive note, I have something of an interest in Lauraceae; some more entries on Brazilian members of the family would be a nice thing to have. Brya 14:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cassytha filiformis was actually the only Lauraceae in my field sites in Puerto Rico (unless there are some among my unknowns), but in Trinidad they are some of the most common forest trees - a few easy ones, the rest just leave you scratching your head (easy to get to family even without being able to reach the leaves, but beyond that, nothing). I like Rubes as a whole - easy to get to family, again. I like dry forest rubes - Guettarda, Exostema, Antirhea, Randia - but I am less fond of them in rainforest understoreys - Psychotria is a headache, Palicourea, and the rest I can't remember. But yeah, I picked my user name because it was one of my favourites. It does cause confusion about my gender though (which can be quite amusing). Guettarda 15:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lauraceae can be pretty dominant in neotropical vegetations, in a bewildering array of species, even the genera are something of a mess. As to the user name, I suppose I get more confusion than you do! But in my case it comes with the territory: plant names are confusing! Brya 17:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goldberg

Dear Berton, thank you for adding the Goldberg system! I am a liitle curious about the absense of any higher grouping (above the rank of family). Did Goldberg say nothing about this at all? Brya 08:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stearn

Hi Berton - thanks for the note! I suspect you had the wrong ISBN though, I couldn't find it when I checked, then looked on Amazon search for Stearn and found it at ISBN 0715316435 (2004 paperback; publisher David & Charles, who is the copyright publisher, with Wikiklaas's citation of 'Timber Press' being merely a licensed secondary distributor, not the originator). Want to change it in the Linnaeus article? MPF 14:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at Talk:Evolution

Thanks for defending the neutrality of the evolution article. But I disagree with your theistic-evolution (or whatever it was) viewpoint. A cosmic day is some several million years, and Genesis clearly (to me) indicates seven earth days. Read it for yourself if you don't believe me. Once again, thank you for defending the neutrality of this article (something most users accept as is), and keep it up. Scorpionman 14:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OT

OT = "Off topic". And I don't think that Slrubenstein was directing his comment at you. Guettarda 18:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elm

Many thanks for your kind comments, pleased to know a northern tree is of interest south of the Equator. Conversely, the other genus I am interested in is Buddleja. An American lady, Dr Meyer-Norman, was reviewing the South American buddleja in the 1990s, but I don't think she ever published her report. Regards, Ptelea.

Zomlefer

Dear Berton, I see you are using Zomlefer. I cannot say I use it a lot, but it is a likable book. I am glad to have a copy. Brya 08:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The floral formulas is on Appendix B (floral summary), there is also a very good glossary, well illustrated. Berton 13:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recently bought Plant systematics by Simpson, which is also nicely illustrated but entirely in color pictures. I am not sorry I bought it! Brya 14:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I placed it in my Amazon wish list. Perhaps I will buy it. What system it follows? Berton 14:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The book lives in the APG II world, but appears to be civilized about it. The systematic part is some 300 pages (about half the book). It looks to have decent chapters about morphology. The color pictures are not of the WOW! quality, nor anything near it, but are good enough. Brya 16:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Berton 16:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki:pt

Olá Berton,

Eu reparei que está contribuir em artigos relacionados com a lusofonia e gostaria de convidá-lo para participar na Wikipédia em português, actualmente temos mais de 135 mil artigos. Sua ajuda será muito bem vinda.

Se por acaso tiver algum problema ou dúvida deixe uma mensagem na minha página de discussão.

Continue com esse bom trabalho,

Rei-artur 21:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rautavaara

Hi Berton! Which of Rautavaara's works do you like best? Mine is Symphony No. 3. Gorgeous, especially the finale. However, I consider Ulrich Leyendecker to be the greatest contemporary composer. (Of course, Rautavaara is still very good!)

Simple English Wikipedia

Oi Berton. Vejo que você é brasileiro também. Por acaso você não teria vontade de contribuir também no Simple English Wikipedia em artigos relacionados ao Brazil? Obrigado. --Paulistanum 20:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flora cats

Hi Berton - it depends on the wording of the category. The wiki software treats Category:Flora of Brazil and Category:flora of Brazil as the same, as the first letter is auto-capitalised. The preferred format is also Category:Flora of Xxxx, so they will be alright. The problem to watch for is something like Category:Brazilian Flora, which is not the same as Category:Brazilian flora - but since they don't fit with the preferred format (I'm expecting them to be redlinks when I save the page!), any like that should be changed from "Xxxxian F/flora" to "Flora of Xxxx" style anyway. Hope this answers your query! - MPF 15:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - so far they seem to be mixed. I found a Category:Arctic flora, and a Category:Neotropical Flora. I think before adding any more pages to these categories, it would be best to post a query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants, so that the format can be standardised - MPF 16:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scrophulariaceae

Sorry, I was trying to fix the link for Veronica but must have edited a previous vesion of the page by mistake. I've fixed it. MrDarwin 15:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Berton 15:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lomandraceae

IPNI is generally not a good reference to use for family circumscriptions. IPNI does not follow any particular taxonomic classification scheme as it is compiled from several different databases that often treat the same genera in different ways, and often using seriously outdated classifications. While IPNI consistently places Lomandra itself in Lomandraceae, if you search on the other genera you will find a variety of familial placements, including Xanthorrhoeaceae, Agavaceae, Liliaceae, etc. MrDarwin 17:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MrDarwin, I agree that IPNI is not a reference source for family circumscription. However it is, no doubt, the most important source of nomenclatural reference, which many people consult and they obtain taxonomic information. If it refers Lomandra as Lomandraceae, I find this important.Other people will have this information and why will wonder at Wikipedia it is Laxmanniaceae and at IPNI (this immense database, of sources highly reliable like Kew) it is Lomandraceae. Berton 17:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil Nut

Hi Berton - thanks for the note, seems US Govt people are not above breaking copyright! (I originally found it in an USDA website, which is why I thought it was OK). I've deleted the pic now. - MPF 11:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engler

Hello Berton, I've just been admiring your article on Engler and hope that you don't mind my putting in his full name. Like you and Linnaeus I also regard botany as scientia amabilis and have done quite a few pages on South African botanists like Galpin, Marloth (busy), Bolus etc. I think your photo of Engler is an excellent one . Was he ever married with a family? Cheers Paul venter 15:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Dear Berton, thank you! Let's wait and see. As to your user page you might also start:

Username Berton. I live in São Carlos, São Paulo State, Brazil. My major interests are Geography and Botany (especially the Lauraceae Family).

As only the first sentence is in third person, and the rest in first person this looks a little odd. Brya 16:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for suggestion. Berton 16:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked it. BTW I restored Adolf Engler, as his baptismal name really hurt my eyes: it is quite properly given in the text and that should be enough. Hope you don't mind. Brya 16:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it. Nice. Berton 17:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme request

What's the problem? --Alex (Talk) 16:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

I suspect it is because English is not your first language, but many of your comments on the issue of blocking Brya come across as personal attacks. I advise you to choose your words more carefully; some of the things you have written, had they come from a native English speaker in other contexts, could be taken as vile insults. Brya faced the same issue, and in fact some of those who supported his blocking did as well, despite being native speakers of English. Everyone should stop, and you can do your part by not responding in kind.--Curtis Clark 14:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second this request. No doubt you intend well, but you would gain much more respect if you can voice your opinion in a calm, relaxed, and non-agressive manner. TeunSpaans 09:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

email

hallo Berton,

you had posted your email adress on Bryas talk page. Brya was concerned about your privacy, and asked me to remove it, which I have done. I hope you don't mind, Brya has read your message.

kind regards,

TeunSpaans 10:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]