User talk:Aelwyn

Archive 1

Inflorescence

Hello, Aelwyn. I saw your query at the reference desk. German is my mother tongue and I have translated scientific texts from German to English. If I can be of assistance, let me know how. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vielen Dank. The page is [1]. You can watch my edits, which are surely full of errors, or if you feel like it you could translate any part of the article yourself. It is considered of the utmost importance for our Project, so help will be very appreciated. Or maybe I may indicate the parts which I find tougher to understand. As you prefer. Aelwyn 14:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I'll have a thorough look at it later tonight or early tomorrow, when I'm at home and have access to books and no disturbances. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, most of the parts in English are an automatic translation! I'm not that bad ;-) Thank you again. Aelwyn 14:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I hadn't even noticed yet! But before I get started, I just wanted to point out this response at the desk as well. What do you think? ---Sluzzelin [[User

Wilhelm Trtalk:Sluzzelin|talk]] 18:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's true, the article is unreferenced, but I think that the referencitis many wikipedians have is dangerous in some cases. Similar articles can be ok even without much reference, because they are very descriptive, they are something like a series of dictionary entries which any botanist can confirm. I was once asked to reference my description of the cyathium, the typical flower of the genus Euphorbia. I wansn't able to do that, although anybody in ProjectPlants could confirm my information was OK. The willing to restart the article about inflorescences from a translation of de:Blütenstand (but is this real English?) has been posted to our Project's TalkPage and nobody had anything to complain about it. It is even a featured article. In any case, I strongly suspect that most of the article in German comes from the so called "Bible of the botanist" Lehrbuch der Botanik für Hochschulen, originally by Eduard Strasburger. Aelwyn 07:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello Aelwyn, i used this books to write the article about the inflorescenses:

Focko Weberling: Morphologie der Blüten und der Blütenstände; Zweiter Teil. Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart 1981
- Weberling is given as a source by Strasburger, excelent book, main source for the article
Wilhelm Troll: Die Infloreszenzen; Erster Band. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart 1964
- This book by Troll (the others less) is the main source for Weberling, excellent book, main source for the article
Wilhelm Troll: Die Infloreszenzen; Zweiter Band, Erster Teil. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart 1969
- many additional informations, excellent book, additional source for the article. i will use it to expant the artikel (if i had time to do it).
Wilhelm Troll: Praktische Einführung in die Pflanzenmorphologie. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena 1957
- few additional informations, good book, additional source for the article
Bernhard Kausmann: Pflanzenanatomie. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena 1963
- only few additional informations.
Strasburger: Lehrbuch der Botanik für Hochschulen
- contains only few informations, i didn´t use it.

i hope i could help you. if you need more informations or help about the article you can ask me anytime. please write on my german user-page as you did last time. i will answer here, thats the easyest way for me. bye, martin

Lighten up

I was just joking with you. The vanilla picture could seriously be improved and there are a lot of good plant photographers. Anyone can look at that particular picture and see that it would be nice to have some better macros of details in the article about orhids. It's about Wikipedia, not you. KP Botany 18:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and collaboration is a good idea--if you're willing to shop the photos, and someone else can get them, voila, Wikipedia gets a great and usable diagram of an orchid. So, let's let the request stand, you can edit the wording if necessary. KP Botany 18:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin syllabification

Please make your edit summaries a bit more accurate.[2] Also, please comment on the suggested page move, as I think a general article could cover sresses in general, not just Classical Latin stresses--see article talk page. KP Botany 05:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ocreae

Thanks for finding a good picture of ocreae for the Polygonaceae‎ article. It illustrates the structure better than the one which I had found. Kingdon 01:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Species plantarum

Nice edits ~~but... are you following me? ;-) (just kidding,~~ I enjoy very much cooperating with others). SOLANUM caule inermi herbaceo foliis pinnatis incisis, racemis simplicibus means NIGHTSHADE, (with a) herbaceous stem without spines (=inermis), pinnate incised leaves, simple racemes. Is incised a word used for the shape of leaves in English? How should it be translated? And what about inermis, any more technical term than without spines? Is the translation worth including? Species in latin means type or kind, whether it was already used in a modern sense I don'know. And, BTW, what do you think about moving the discussion about Top priority stubs to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Collaboration, as I have proposed? All in all it was you who started it! Bye! Aelwyn 15:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just happen to have put all 6 Top priority plant stubs on my Watchlist, so I saw your edit comment and had a go at tdying the English. I'd also some some preliminary looking in my personal library for additional information. I think there's a good deal more we could add to the article, but I don't have the details. I'll have to see about making a trip to Berkeley at some point so I can use their library.

Yes, incised can be used in English to describe the leaves. I'll have to check the OED for meanings of "species". I'm a sysop on Wiktionary, and their entry for species is definitely in need of work. I think moving collaboration discussion to the Collaboration page is a fine idea. --EncycloPetey 15:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Family level articles

Again, if you edit anything, I'll be glad to copyedit, and you can also just post a request on WP:Plants. Also, I'm a native speaker and college educated yet use awkward phrases that need rapid copyediting. KP Botany 16:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, love the user box--very technically and impressively awkward. I should have that one on my user page. I do have inflorescence on my watch list, but simply don't have time, as I'm in the midst of professional exams--step one down. Will try to look at it this weekend, though. KP Botany 23:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you're touchy, you haven't watched any of my exchanges with other editors--and that, too, is awful nice of you. KP Botany 23:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fabaceae

I notice your 'at work' sign go up, great that it is getting some attention. Do you think the merge tag can go? Regards, Cygnis insignis 15:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your english is fine, I'm a bloody australian. :) I thought I removed the tag already, I will do that now. Regards, Cygnis insignis

I note your page mentions the Venetian language, fascinating, I'm off to read the article. Good luck with the improvements. I sometimes find curious facts about plants, I will post one to you. Cheers, Cygnis insignis 16:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too fine a taxon for your article, but a friend of mine is working on genus Gastrolobium. Non edible beans! There are bacteria in the soil that deal with the 1080, but it helps make the southwest of Australia one of the most toxic places on earth. I feel okay though, Cygnis insignis 17:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've been adding corrections to the Fabaceae page...I'm supposed to be doing a big presentation for class on the Fabaceae next week, so I've been combing through the literature and have made corrections to the page and will probably continue to do so. --Clickie 18:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In use

I removed the {{in use}} from Asteraceae, as your last edit was yesterday at 3 o'clock-ish. Hope you're not on a marathon, 20 hour edit, if so my apologies :) WLU 15:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orchids wiki

Hello Aelwyn

I would like to invite you to join Orchids Wiki on wikia dedicated on documenting orchid genres, species and hybrids. If you have any questions please contact me --Cs california (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orchids wiki has more in detail information about orchids. For example you would not be able to find culture information on most orchids. It also has forums for questions on culture. Some pictures on orchids wiki is copyrighted but permission was given by the owner for usage. In general it is more specified towards orchids --Cs california (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I in fact need help on taxonomic information on Bulbophyllum bicolor which has a synonym of Sunipia bicolor. I checked the Kew monocot list and both names were accepted and Google does not seem to have two different plant. Is there a way to look up the accepted name --Cs california (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malvaceae

I've checked Judd et al (1st edition), and it differs in a few respects from what you wrote. For example, it says that the flowers are unisexual or bisexual, and that the stamens are 5 to numerous (in the hundreds in Bombax and related genera). Judd et al don't give the full range of floral traits in Malvaceae - in addition to cauliflorous, oppositifolious and termimal inflorescences, there a couple of genera with single carpels, another without a superior ovary, two in which the calyx aestivation is not valvate, and so on.

My problem is I know too many of the exceptions - it makes it hard to write a succinct description of the family's traits.

(By the way, when you've finished Malvaceae, you might like to have a look at Rosaceae.) Lavateraguy (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stifftia

Ouch! You got me there. But I was actually concerned with the plant, not the alga (it's unusual for Asteraceae to have hummingbirds as pollinators); the alga had been added time ago by somebody else.
Anyway, Stifftia Nardo described in 1834 (= Stiftia Kützing described in 1845) is indeed preoccupied by Stifftia Mikan described in 1820 and therefore the alga is now Zanardinia Zanardini, established as replacement name in 1841. Source: Index Nominum Algarum
Thanks for notifying me! I reverted in the Asteraceae articles, and deleted the algae genus (had no page yet) & left a comment in Cutleriales as an annotation. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resupinate Orchids

I made some changes on the Orchidaceae page with respect to resupination. The biggest change is adding a link to a new page I created, titled "Resupination." Please review the changes and consider polishing my treatment of resupination in orchids. Jay L09 (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosaceae

Welcome back.

With regards to species counts for rosaceous genera, Rubus has a large number of species, but the question of how many is difficult to answer, which means the species count for the family is also uncertain. Identifying species boundaries in Crataegus is also difficult. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I know it is always very difficult to give such data and this is especially true about a family in which complications like apomixis are epidemic deseases ;-). In any case, I don't even have a good reference, so -at least until the revamping is finished-, consider those numbers as a sort of placeholder (or provide something better!). Aelwyn (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rosaceae cladogram isn't after APG II - this only goes down to families. I think you should cite the Angiosperm Phylogeny Webpage (if it agrees), or a prinary source (Campbell et al, 2007?).

I'd drop the statement about apples and strawberries being hybrids; the statement is problematical, and I don't think it adds anything to the paragraph. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does actually conform more ore less with that, but it comes from the German wiki. I was considering to only go down to the subfamilies, all is a work in progress. As for the statement, it was already there and I agree, thank you.

You need Rubus and Rosa somewhere in the cladogram. (Have any other groups been left out?) Lavateraguy (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re:Risotto

Please Forgive Me

Please accept my most sincere apology for my behaviour at Risotto. I have thought long and hard about what happened and I realise how very upset you must have been.

I am really sorry for creating the situation which I know I should have handled better. I admit that I was in the wrong and can only say how sorry I am. I can promise you that this will never happen again and hope that you will give me the opportunity to prove this to you.

I understand that it might be difficult for you to accept my apology but hope that this post will help.

Anirudh Emani (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xerophyte image

The image you posted on Talk:Xerophyte looks useful, but I don't know enough about the subject to use it. Perhaps you can look at my comment there and provide some more information? Thanks! Augurar (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Science lovers wanted!

Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2012 (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) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Aelwyn. 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]