User talk:Clickie

Welcome!

Hello, Clickie, 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:Questions, 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! --Curtis Clark 05:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

helpme tag

Hiya! Just so you're aware, if you place the {{helpme}} tag in your talk page, folks will show up here to see what you need... Welcome to Wikipedia! Waitak 05:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lupinus arboreus

Many thanks for the extra details on this one! I've moved the page to the scientific name Lupinus arboreus to avoid confusion over common names, and also re-written it a bit to fit this.

Could you perhaps annotate the old removed pics Image:BushLupin.jpg and Image:BushLupinLeaves.jpg with the sci names of what you have identified them as please, so they are easier to locate for use in their relevant species articles (when those get written!) - thanks, MPF 10:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added scientific names to the old images. --Clickie 18:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protologue

Any chance you can look up

Arecaceae Acoelorrhaphe H.Wendl.

in Bot. Zeit. xxxvii. (1879) 148.

in the RSA library? MPF is trying to find out whether it is properly spelled Acoelorraphe or Acoelorrhaphe. Index Kewensis gives the latter, Gray Card Index the former, along with FNA and USDA. Only the protologue will tell for sure. Thanks in advance if you can do it.--Curtis Clark 23:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is spelled Acoelorraphe in Bot. Zeit. --134.173.248.33 21:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was me; I forgot to sign in. --Clickie 21:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Curtis Clark 23:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! - MPF 00:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Index Kewensis is riddled with uncorrected errors, so should never be taken as the final authority on any name. Likewise the Gray Card Index contains numerous errors. However, I would also caution against slavishly following the originally published spelling for any given name, as some names are considered erroneous as originally published, either because of an error on the part of the author, typographical error, or later interpretations of Botanical Latin orthography that are applied retroactively. MrDarwin 15:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both spellings are acceptable latinizations, so there is no orthographic error to correct; hence the need to see the original spelling.--Curtis Clark 16:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: there is apparently an additional wrinkle to this. If I'm reading IPNI right, the original (1879) spelling was "Acoelorraphe" but the "description" of the genus was merely a key to genera and no species were formally included. The genus was described in full, and a species transferred into it, by Beccari in 1907 but Beccari apparently used the spelling "Acoelorhaphe". So the spelling depends on which publication you consider authoritative--and in most of these older cases the key is considered valid publication under the current Code, even when the genus included no species. MrDarwin 15:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clickie, you've seen the protologue for the genus; is that interpretation correct? It's interesting to note that the initial species were named in that period when the European and American codes were at odds. It has been a while since I studied the differences, but I wonder if they might not account for the differences in this case between IK and GCI.--Curtis Clark 16:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct; it was just a listing of genera with no proper protologue per se. I just assumed it was written before the ICBN was codified.--Clickie 23:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fabaceae

Thanks for the help, do more if you feel like it; that page really needs much, much work. Aelwyn 21:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in eventually doing more pages for subfamily Papilionoideae, including tribes and whatnot. --Clickie 23:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would definitely be nice, but I think I can't be of much help. My goal is to improve all the family-level articles and I'm not an expert of Fabaceae. After I've finished, I'll move to Asteraceae.

I'd be willing to convert my hour-long powerpoint on systematics of the Fabaceae into paragraphs that cover many of the listed to-dos. At least, I'd be able to summarize current phylogenetic view of the family and subfamilies, as well as talk briefly about nodulation in the family. I'll also be happy to talk at any length about Lupinus, as that's my taxon :) --Clickie 23:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An in depth discussion on the phylogenesis would be very useful. As for nodulation, please edit root nodule. For Lupinus, of course Lupius. Aelwyn 11:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Arboreus infl.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:Arboreus.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]