User talk:Grrrlgeek

Thanks for the translation of Neil Hardwick! -Yupik 10:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I didn't actually translate it, I just proofread it to make sure it made sense in English. It was translated by the excellent JIP. There was only 1 word I changed.-Grrrlgeek 18:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, silly me :D But thanks anyways! -Yupik 08:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Free Software

Hi Grrrlgeek, I notice that you're interested in open-source/free software. Please consider joining WikiProject Free Software. We're just starting out, and we could really use some members. Thanks! Geekman314^{(contact me)} 18:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ipomoea

Thanks a lot for clearing that up. However, the parent of multifida is AFAICT hederifolia - an I. coccinea was described twice, and the junior homonym (Sessé and Mociño's coccinea) is Linnaeus's hederifolia... which Gray treated as variety of the actual coccinea of Linnaeus... as far as I can determine (which is not 100% reliable as I have seen only semi-scholarly sources, no paper from Kew Bulletin or Novon or Taxon or whatnot... if there is any...). But what sources I found gave as parent the coccinea of Sessé and Mociño (= hederifolia of Linnaeus), not the "correct" coccinea of Linnaeus). "Scarlet MG" is AFAICT indeed hederifolia... its attributions to coccinea likewise referring to Sessé and Mociño's homonym.

(Also, while the hybrid's leaves are from quamoclit, the flower is tell-tale for hederifolia parentage.)

Note that ITIS is not a reliable source; we have been misled by it far too many times and so I usually simply remove it (better a glaring absence of sources than a known unreliable source methinks). I usually use Tropicos if I cannot find anything better, but it too needs to be handled with caution... they have many junior synonyms whath are not listed as such in the search output. At least it is reasonably complete (which ITIS is hardly ever). GRIN is also fairly good; if not more complete then at least it's more reliable than ITIS. The Kew checklists are probably best - if they are available already for the family in question, which is not the case here :( - except that they do not incorporate any revisions published in the last 5 years or so. The only plant taxonomic database I fund to be quite thorough and reliable is [1] ILDIS - but that's for Fabaceae...

Common names in Ipomoea are a mess BTW. Thanks for fixing it, hopefully it'll help to achieve some stability. hederifolia vs hederacea is a case to be resolved... is there a good name for the latter, so "ivy-leaved" can be used for the former? It is reasonable for both; -acea/us/ums are hard to translate, the literal "-like" is hardly ever used and certainly not in this case. And then we also have the ivy morning glory... ugh! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info, especially on what is considered a reliable source. I started messing with these mostly from the point of view of a gardener. Cardinal Climber and Cypress vine are often confused with each other in gardening circles, not too surprising considering that the common names are indeed a wreck, and were all mixed up together in Wikipedia. The pictures I tried to match up best I could; the scientific name of the file and the scientific name given in the description of the image often don't match, and the only one I've grown is I. xmultifida Grrrlgeek (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]