User talk:Hesperian/Archive 40

The following text is preserved as an archive of discussions at User talk:Hesperian. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Hesperian. No further edits should be made to this page.

CfD notifications

Your valuable work in notifying Australian editors of category changes possibly isn't required now. The new alert bot system appears to be able to collect this information on our behalf. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Article alerts. Your free time is actually yours again now :) Thanks. -- Longhair\^talk 22:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Hesperian 22:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You decide. Like I said, your work is valuable. -- Longhair\^talk 22:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand. You're not asking me to stop; you're telling me it is probably safe to do so if I want.

It seems to me there's no point carrying on with a redundant task, so I'll go find some other way to make myself useful... but I'll still keep an eye on the alerts page for a while just to make sure that it is doing its job.

Hesperian 22:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy

"Unranked" taxobox code is not fully APG compatible. I've been asking for a change many months ago on ToL, but none has been forthcoming. (AFAIK, the German Wikipedia has it working but does not use it. Also, I wonder if this succession of unranked clade names is easily accessible to the average reader without in-text explanation, but that's another matter). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

My view on this matter is that the taxobox code needs to be updated as to fully implement APG II. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Specific categories

I think the main category is unworkable, plants named after people, but I think the subcategories would be useful and workable. Just my opinion. --KP Botany (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you move Blighia sapida to its scientific name? And, are you named after the boulevard in Hayward? I'm not named after the muse, the city or the radio station. --KP Botany (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I've always thought all great Pacific overlooks (West Coaster myself, but you know, those oceans and their names) should be named "Land of the Setting Sun." I was disappointed with Santa Cruz Island that its western most point is called "Land's End" rather than, Land of the Setting Sun, or, now that I know, Hesperia. Greeks would know to watch the sun set over the Pacific from there.

Hesperian Boulevard is a large but unremarkable urban boulevard, the main thoroughfare through Hayward. Good used bookstore there where I buy most of my natural history guides.

I'll move the botany first, then simply create the artice, then. --KP Botany (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

In over my head

Hi Hesperian, If you have the time, could you look at Salvia tingitana? It's a new article that goes into some areas way over my head—especially the 'History' and 'Relation to other species' sections. Before I submit it to DYK, I want to be sure it's accurate, and that I use the jargon correctly. Thanks. (I'm also going to copy Rkitko on this). First Light (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll work on rearranging the sections and titles as you suggest. I looked for more information on its habitat and ecology, but found next to nothing, as you guessed. Even the only 'wild' colony hasn't been studied from what I gather, and I found myself wondering if it might even be a group that escaped from cultivation (though nobody has said that) — I'll look a bit further. The non-breaking spaces - is that just so the name doesn't split apart on a line break? First Light (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wsc-logo.svg

Thankyou Sir. Djanga 13:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please respect Jimbo Guidelines

Please respect Jimbo guidelines for neutrality as in the case of the Obama article. Thank you. JohnHistory (talk) 05:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Definitely no soup for you.

User Wikipedian For

Hi Hesperian. Could you explain this revert, and particularly why you consider this functionality to be undesirable? I don't mind that you've reverted, I am just curious. I added the functionality because I figured it would be harmless (364 days out of the year it wouldn't change your usebox anyway) and might just be a nice little thing—nothing that means anything or would change anything, but just a warm fuzzy. I also left a message about it at Template talk:User Wikipedian For before making the change.

Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice the message you just left there. I guess I can discuss this there rather than here. Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This fix of yours looks like a good compromise; thanks for your understanding. Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up that your recent edits have broken line spacing. — Manticore 00:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing the line break as I have done here seems to have fixed it. Want to apply that and see if that works? — Manticore 00:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed, thanks. (I was seeing the error on Firefox 3.0.7, but didn't check any other browsers) — Manticore 01:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "HyMap"

A page you created, HyMap, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content, but does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Matt (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it is real nice to know that I am welcome to contribute content. Maybe you should try it some time. Hesperian 02:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I love your responses to boilerplates and bots :) Orderinchaos 02:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I'm still memorizing the 1,627-long list of administrators and trying at the same time to keep them straight from the list of sockpuppets of JarlaxleArtemis. I didn't look specifically at who created the article. Even if I had, I'm not sure it would have made a difference in this case. All I saw was an article that had failed to assert itself as to why it was significant enough to be included in Wikipedia, so I tagged it. I guess I'm of the impression that you should either create the article in your userspace or make it so that it won't fail the CSD criteria before you post it to the mainspace. Again, my apologies. P.S. -- when you're trying to help a category that has a backlog of over 300,000 pages, you do tend to go a little fast. Cheers, Matt (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Note of appreciation

I saw you wrote this a while back and it seems to have been neglected. I just linked to it from my talk page as it sums up my view of "thankspam" very succinctly. Thank you. Themfromspace (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my one and only essay. I'm glad that someone stumbles across it now and then. Hesperian 12:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

a copyvio issue

I picked this up from Janthina janthina, a stub I copyedited and increased by 50%, then made the mistake of posting at the AN/I section in the edit summary. I have previously a brief discussion about another issue with the user in question, and he showed no reluctance in reversing a series of good faith, but incorrect, contributions. Now he is getting convicted in absentia. I can see little justification for his indefinite block, and the sysop responsible has ignored my request to undo it. Another told him to "calm down", but he moved on to other things. Can you recommend someone to help sort out a solution at the Gastropod project? cygnis insignis 05:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No idea; the only people from the Gastropod project that I have interacted with are GB and IZ; and this is too vexedly complex for me to offer any insight myself. Fortunately, this is what we have 13-year-old admins for: to simplify issues like this down to good versus evil, and respond accordingly. Hesperian 10:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, Hesperian is correct about this. I'm not sure there was any copyvio intent, but actually getting a group of admins to understand what the issue is, like AGF, understand that some editors don't live on line and can't be there to kowtow at the instant gratification in the form of a response is required, is difficult if not impossible with the current state of admins at Wikipedia.  ::Do read about this snail, though, Hesperian. It's a stunning beauty of a surface dwelling snail that is predatory on by the wind sailors and Portuguese jellies of war. It lives on the surface by floating attached to a raft it builds, and it dies if it loses the raft and sinks, because the adults can't swim! And natural selection appears to be the guilty party, as usual. --KP Botany (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

links?

Hesperian, would do me a small favor? E-mail me this? --Una Smith (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Hesperian 04:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --Una Smith (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

limestone

cripes i see it will be the end of the WP WA project as we knew it - various eds over time lost in the search for hesps limestone samples - gnang finding fences fit for top secret military (or was it turtle hideouts), djanga completely lost in salt marshes on rottnest,... what next?  :) SatuSuro 13:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of sending you to a little old lady's Home Open: Model Timber Home is for sale. ;-) Hesperian 14:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I betcha there is not a lump of limestone on the block, or under it - I was hoping for some thing more adventurous - something like limestone/karst borders of the subregions between kal and forrest south of the line - somewhere on the paddock :) SatuSuro 14:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(re OP) Not to mention my archaic Ministry articles about people who are busily turning into soil samples... Orderinchaos 09:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If you can think of a better hook....

For this...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Request

You made a mistake on Template:Infobox Actor, which is by no means your responsibility as you were not aware of it, just acted upon request (which is good), without knowing the details. I would therefore ask you to read my message here. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Banksia lindleyana

On March 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Banksia lindleyana, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ta

Re the position indeed - what a god forsaken position to be in, doo be doo be doo, to be or not to be, neither one thing nor de other - it must be getting cold/hot out there for a number like that :( and my main imac is currently dead - oh well SatuSuro 11:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well with my smaller macs keyboard being awkawrd to use- and a possible break coming up hopefully Ill slip down to a more realistic position :) - real life is so much important than this zoo - btw hope to go to talk on friday night which has someone talking about the dryandra-banksia shift SatuSuro 11:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Austin Mast and Kevin Thiele sank Dryandra into Banksia heheh it was Kevin giving a powerpoint (well produced mind you) and explanation on (there were some very pointed comments about linnaeus as well) the cladistics of it all and the arguments for sinking rather than the very difficult if not possible complete re-write of banksia. Interesting to hear from the horses mouth so to speak :) SatuSuro 13:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hope you enjoyed it. George's counter-argument is here. Hesperian 13:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did - better than watching my childrens choice of tv anytime - btw thanks for that link - some in the audience werent convinced altogether, and it would seem that the long duration hard sell is happening for a hakea/grevillea bun fight sometime soon :( SatuSuro 14:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm showing my ignorance, but I personally favour the reactionary view. The description of the new arrangement as a 'tree' seems to be going 'out on a limb'. Has there been any study of HGT in the genus (or genera)? cygnis insignis 14:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

B.cuneata

taken 10km east of Quairading at the site identified by the Shire(shire maps) as being the location for the Quairading Banksia500m ~ 1k passed this lake, this and what looked like B.ashbyi or B.prionotes(at/near the end of its flowering season) where the only banksias at that location. Gnangarra 08:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

either way its another speicies pictured Gnangarra 09:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

similar area, for B.fasciculata hmm must check the flora base links on the dryandra articles, yeah it does look similar Gnangarra 09:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, what a shame to have been out there and missed out on cuneata. Sorry, but it definitely isn't. The leaves are a gazillion miles off.

Those unusual linear leaves narrow it down to four or five species, and some of them can be eliminated by their location e.g. wonganensis, stricta. For that location acanthopoda and fasciculata fit the foliage well, and acanthopoda doesn't have such big bracts (those rust-brown petal-like things surrounding the flower head). horrida doesn't fit the foliage quite so well, and the flowers have a red tinge, and I don't think they extend quite so far south. All in all, the evidence points to fasciculata, but I lack the confidence to give a firm answer.

Hesperian 11:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

p.s. did you know that I wrote pink lake a few months ago? I needs a photo. ;-) Hesperian 11:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Garn - go there yourself with your new camera :-)SatuSuro 12:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Cripes the very mention of pink lake seems to have stumbled into a salty mess - what about mount gambier south oz and somewhere in north island new zealand i thought they had coloured lakes too - probably different chemsitry perhaps? SatuSuro 13:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Pink lake now has a photo as for cuneata it'll have to wait until around september when I'm planning to spend a couple of days out there at gardner reserve... Gnangarra 15:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards horrida

Location - yes, near to "6 km NW of Yoting" record [1]

Flowering time of year - yes - March to June [2] (earlier than many similar species)

Leaves - yes [3] Melburnian (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've leant back to rufistylis. This is the only one I've seen with bracts curled back like that. Hesperian 02:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

To me, the habit, look of the leaves, location, time of flowering of rufistylis are NQR in terms of Gnang's photos, but I do agree the reflexed bracts are at odds with the horrida FloraBase photo. Melburnian (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI i've tagged the file as dispute species when you all are happy with the id they can be moved to the correct name Gnangarra 02:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

alternate view to help Gnangarra 04:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That photo shows that the leaves have revolute margins, consistent with the FoA description of horrida. Melburnian (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that rules out rufistylis, margins of which are only "slightly recurved". The margins of fasciculata are "recurved"; can we rule it out? I suspect so; they really are strongly revolute. Hesperian 05:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken I see the hint of a stem with "many subulate prophylls". Hesperian 05:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

... and if I do, that would make the flower head axillary. Hesperian 05:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll differ defer to your expertise in the detection and interpretation of multitudinous subulate prophylls :) Melburnian (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"differ" or "defer"? Or was that a deliberate pun? So you've convinced me: Banksia horrida. Hesperian 06:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Nah, just a dumb typo :) Melburnian (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• so the conclusion of this prickle issue is thats its a prickly one or it is the prickly one. Gnangarra 03:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Very droll. :-P Hesperian

E. Robusta

In the distribution section, you have its northern limit as Rockingham, Queensland. Shouldn't that be Rockhampton,Queensland? Mike (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Exceedingly likely. There is a Rockingham reasonably near where I live, and my fingers have a tendency to move faster than my brain, jump to conclusions, and finish a word in accordance with what they are used to typing. I'll correct it now, and check against the source tonight. Thanks for that. Hesperian 01:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Verified. Hesperian 12:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

April Fool's DYK for Han solo

On April Fool's, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Han solo, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Hesperian/Fifty Rules of Generic Nomenclature

I was looking through the pages of Flora telluriana for something or other -- if Rafinesque were still alive, the commentary of the text would not have been so funny. He disses on all of them in this tome: DC. and L., etc. It was for me often very quotable.

I also found the "Fifty Rules of Generic Nomenclature" which I have pasted into your talk namespace. Raf. linked many of his guidelines back to L's. One of the things that I liked about it, having not formally studied systematics and kin was that it was mostly about naming and how to choose the names and alter them to be plantin. Modern systematics is all about what physical properties define the circumscription?

I have put it into your namespace because I am very deficient in my knowledge of the science to know how to make the article more relevant for today. For example, I was planning on adding it via a "See also" link on Linnaean taxonomy and History of plant systematics and also I had Biological classification#Linnaean in "edit mode" here. And honestly, I have no idea where it should be mentioned -- none what-so-ever!

As the text is now, it is transcribed better than OCR, linked to L's Philosophia botanica when Raf.'s text did this and the genus which are used as examples have all been disambiguated or current name found (as much as I was able to do so). Many of his suggestions/demands were not accepted which gives the linked genus a confusing appearance sometimes.

I have not yet seen much information about how and why names are the way they are -- I haven't actually been looking for that more than wondering about it though. Also, to be honest, if I were to attempt to turn the wondering into understanding, I have no idea where I would start to look. It is this reason that I think it could be the start of a good article about naming nomenclature.

Number 21 was somewhat poetic: Generic names must always be simple and never double nor triple.

Can you help to make it into more of a relevant article? -- Dr CyCoe (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

First of all, nomenclature, taxonomy and systematics are all different, though often confused. Roughly speaking, they are what names we give to things, how we group things and why we group things the way we do, and how they came to merit being grouped that way. (Linneaus revolutionised nomenclature whilst taking systematics backwards.)

I often come across material that I would like to add here but can't figure out how; this is another good example. My best notion is that it would make for a good base for a #Principles section of our botanical nomenclature article, which is woeful at present. That article also needs a good #History section. A year or so ago, I tried to find out how we ended up with a naming system based on priority (Raf.'s rule 8) with conservation. I found nothing here (but eventually found what I wanted in Dan Nicolson's A history of botanical nomenclature).

Hesperian 13:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know why you think L. took systematics backwards.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Because his taxonomy was what we would now call an identification key. Linnaeus knew, and acknowledged, that grouping plants according to the number of pistils and stamens failed to capture the natural affinities of plants. But he didn't care, because capturing the natural affinities of plants was not his goal. His goal was to create an index system into which all plants could be sorted: as I said, an identification key.

Before Linnaeus came along, we were on the right track. Ray and Tournefort both made progress towards a taxonomy based on systematics. Then along came Linnaeus, whose systematics-less taxonomy was universally adopted. The contributions of Ray and Tournefort were forgotten. Adanson was ridiculed for reviving systematic taxonomy in Linnaeus' lifetime. Systematics didn't start gaining ground again until a decade after Linnaeus' death, and even then only because Jussieu was an undeniable genius. And still there were decades of controversy and compromise before Linnaeus' system was finally set aside.

Hesperian 00:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The second paragraph was what I would have guessed to be your reason. But I wonder how much was shaped by L's apparent attempt to address the key question (for a creationist) of what were the originally created kinds? I've long wondered what he thought genera meant in that context; his arbitrary and artificial classification above that level seems more in keeping with his initial beliefs.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a fair point. Ernst Mayr, who knew a bit about the definition of terms like species and genus, reckoned Linnaeus' concept of genus was a natural one. It was only above that rank that the taxonomy was artificial.

I shall reveal no more of my ignorance until I have finished reading http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2007.06.003.

Hesperian 03:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is what I have gleaned from this. Nomenclature is important for Genera and species but loses importance and meaningful application in any classification subtribe or above. The importance of the difference between folia vs folius is probably somewhere in the above text and it will come to me later.

I am having a problem with synonyms right now. Most of the time with these things, I see in two or more sources that one species is a synonym of another and I don't question it. However, these last few days I am looking into a species which was assigned as the type species of a genus which was assigned to be the type genus of a family and then the species was declared a synonym of another. One of the species has red stalks and sometimes red leaves (a rubra, the type species) and the other never had red stalks until it was declared to be a synonym (an alba).

I have spent some time now trying to find where the synonym was declared. A paper, a memoir, some notes at some philosophical meeting -- anything! I can find nothing except that current species name servers call them synonyms. Current photographs are still of somewhat obvious different plants and the descriptions starting in the 1700s are of different plants and (here is one of the problems) I think that betalain studies of this species as separate species would show them to be different.

Who gets to declare synonyms and where can a person find where and when and why it was done? -- Dr CyCoe (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

When someone suggests that species X and species y are synonymous, what they are suggesting is that one falls within the range of variation of the other, or that one lineage is nested within the other. Anyone can propose it; what matters is how convincing your evidence is, and whether you are able to convince your peers that these two species are actually the same. There's no centralised location that keeps track of these things. If you have questions about particular species, I would recommend Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. Guettarda (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all; nomenclature is important at all ranks, as is taxonomy, as is systematics. The only thing you can glean from the above digression is that Linnaeus thought it was too hard to apply systematics to higher rank taxonomy... but he was eventually proven wrong.

The difference between "folia" and "folius" is merely gender. The gender of the specific name must match the gender of the genus name.

I can find no evidence that M. alba and M. rubra are currently considered synonymous. That someone once treated them as synonymous, I don't doubt; but it would seem that treatment was rejected. Considering that the synonomy is no longer upheld, you're unlikely to find the details of its publication outside solid taxonomic monograph of Morus. Does one exist?—The taxonomy is a dog's breakfast at present.

Hesperian 23:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hesperian. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ZooFari 2.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ZooFari 16:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

On Pentadiplandra

Hi,
You reverted my edit in Pentadiplandra. I will explain my edit, since from your edit-description I think you misunderstood it. Congo is an ambiguous word. It has multiple meanings, both in the real word and here on Wikipedia. It can mean one of the two Congo-countries, it can mean the river, and more. What I did was specify the word to a concrete and correct meaning, so as to rule out other, non-applicable meanings. The correct specification I cab think of is Congo basin. I ruled out using one of the the Congo countries Congo-Brazzaville and Congo-Kinshasa, since in nature human-defined state-borders are not relevant.It won't stop growing over a border. So: if the plant lives "in the Congo", the most precise meaning I can know is the Congo basin (or, plausible too, the "Congo region"). From me no "I think it means ..." here.
Further, literally the text says: "The plant grows in Gabon, Congo, Nigeria and Cameroon". Imo: "Grows in (..) Congo" is not a good sentence, because Congo is not a place. For readability we could write "the Congo", but still there is clarification left: what is "the Congo"? On Wikipedia it is undefined (or: has multiple meanings).
I suggest we revert to my version. And from the specific (but big) Congo basin: everyone is invited to improve the article, e.g. by looking for the more precise location: country/ies, forest, province. -DePiep (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Congo is an ambiguous word.

Yes.

It has multiple meanings, both in the real word and here on Wikipedia.

I know what "ambiguous" means.

It can mean one of the two Congo-countries, it can mean the river, and more.

Yes, I know.

What I did was specify the word to a concrete and correct meaning, so as to rule out other, non-applicable meanings.

That's all well and good, so long as you ask the right question, which is "What does the source mean by Congo?" Instead you asked "What do I think is the most sensible meaning of the term Congo in this context?" As a result, you ended up misrepresenting the source. The source does not state that this plant occurs in the Congo basin; it states that it occurs in both Congo countries. You would have discovered this yourself if you had bothered to check the source before making your "correction".

It is better to be vague, ambiguous, and therefore not incorrect; than to be perfectly precise, and just plain wrong.

Hesperian 04:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying & the edit. btw, above I did not intend to teach you, but to point out my logical steps in the action. If it can be read being paternalistic, I'm sorry and I'll check myself here, to prevent any repeat in the future. Just being curious in this matter, would you have objected "Congo region" too, as a first geographical description for 'Congo' here?

Well, and after rereading the article now, a minor, related point, which I will mention but not edit: the section "Traditional use" says: The plant grows in Gabon and Cameroon, where the fruit has been consumed by the apes and the natives for a long time.. Phrased as it is, don't we miss some countries here? ;-). Bye, -DePiep (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up my mess with Prince Regent Nature Reserve. Cheers. --Hughesdarren (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries mate. Hesperian 06:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Wardle

[4] A scan would be appreciated. No rush. Djanga 06:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Expect it Tuesday morning. Hesperian 10:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Barbados

Shouldn't Barbados be part of this list? Guettarda (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's listed under the Windward Islands[5], which is on the list. Hesperian 04:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, what the heck is the Venezuelan Antilles? Hesperian 04:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand that the creation of the "Venezuelan Antilles" is one of the possible outcomes of the Dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles which is currently underway. It does not exist at this point in time. The Netherlands Antilles consist of the Leeward islands, including Bonaire and Curaçao, and the Windward Islands which include Saba, Sint Maarten and Sint Eustatius. This is a fairly comprehensive rundown. Djanga 08:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, interesting links. But I think in the present context, which is a usage in a 2001 publication, it must exist, and must mean some or all of the federal dependencies of Venezuela. Hesperian 11:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The above text is preserved as an archive of discussions at User talk:Hesperian. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Hesperian. No further edits should be made to this page.