User talk:Sminthopsis84/Archive 4

Biological life cycle

Hello Sminthopsis84,

You removed a comment [1] in the article Biological life cycle. But the reference of this comment isn't about populations only, as you said. Despite of the paper being a sociology study, I haven't found other references about the origin of the concept of lyfe cycle in biology (in the paper, a book of Mayr is cited, but I don't have acces to this). Zorahia (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Zorahia, I'm not sure if I correctly understand what you are suggesting should be done for the Biological life cycle page. Is it that you don't think that that sociological study belongs there, but you think that Mayr, R. 1982. "The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and In­heritance" sounds like an interesting possible reference? Some snippets of the book are visible in google books. I don't immediately see a discussion of the development of the life-cycle concept as such, in fact, it looks as though Mayr's mention of the subject is as of something well known many centuries ago. My botanical bias makes me think that Wilhelm Hofmeister's discovery of Alternation of generations is what makes life cycles an interesting concept. In fact, it looks a bit to me as if the sociologists are somewhat confused: it wasn't the whole idea of a life cycle that arose in the late 19th century, but the astonishingly complex special life cycles of plants and fungi and some other organisms that were discovered then. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sminthopsis84, I don't have access to the article at home (I read it at a library), so I don't remember well what is said on it. But what you say makes sense. I didn't know Hofmeister, neither the Alternation of generations article (I think it could be more articuled with the Life cycle article). Although life cycles are studied under many views (genetics, larval ecology, developmental biology, reproductive biology), it seems there is a lack of information about its history (except in regard of Hofmeister, as you showed to me). Do you know where to find more references? Moreover, I think there is a error in the Alternation of generations article: "Alternation between a multicellular diploid and a multicellular haploid generation is never encountered in animals. In some animals, there is an alternation between parthenogenic and sexually reproductive phases (heterogamy). Both phases are diploid. This has sometimes been called "alternation of generations", but is quite different." Cnidarians have alternation of generations too (with diploid and haploid phases).Zorahia (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zohahia, finding more information might depend on exactly which type of life cycle you are interested in. They are so complex! I had no idea that Cnidaria have separate diploid and haploid multicellular generations. In fact, it is clearly very difficult to track down information about any of these organisms if one isn't already familiar with them. The Cnidaria page doesn't even mention meiosis, so it isn't a good starting point for us non-zoologists. Please add a nice citation somewhere. By the way, you might want to look at Dikaryon and the pages that are linked there (two nuclei in a cell, rather than polyploidy). So are you still looking for an introduction to the study of life cycles from a philosophy of science perspective? I wonder if your interest is in the question of whether everything can be explained by interactions of genes with environment. An article more-or-less on that theme is "The Varieties of Molecular Explanation" by Marco J. Nathan. Philosophy of Science Vol. 79, No. 2 (April 2012) pp. 233-254. It's not my area of expertise. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sminthopsis84, I found that information about Cnidaria on Brusca. I'm looking for an introduction to the study of life cycles in a general way (comparing them between animal, vegetal, fungi and any other group) and a history of this study (Who were the first to study them within each group?) Zorahia (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. I haven't actually been able to confirm your information about Cnidarians having both haploid and diploid multicellular life stages: as far as I can see the haploids are only the gametes. Can you point me to a genus name?

If you want weird life cycles, books by Harold C. Bold have that information, though it is considered to be material for a quite advanced university course. It's more information than you need, and doesn't directly discuss the history of discoveries. The titles are "Morphology of Plants", "Morphology of Plants and Fungi". The old editions of these books have the life-cycle information, but the taxonomic classifications have changed quite a lot in the last few decades. Wikipedia might actually be helpful for finding your way around more-recent classifications.

I'd suggest that you want to start with a selection of organisms that have different life cycles, and then look for history of discoveries about them. I'm not sure how deeply you want to get into this, so I shouldn't suggest a list. There's about 10 different groups that I could suggest to understand plants and green algae, but perhaps you'd want to consider that as just one group (with Hofmeister as the key person). Zygotic meiosis and gametic meiosis always seem central to me. I can't really help with the life cycles of animals like nematodes that include multiple diploid stages. The way the discoveries were made about the stranger organisms was generally, I believe, always to discover the behaviour in one species, and then to generalize to other related species. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm wrong, sorry, they have a life cycle with "alternation of generations", but there are no change of ploidy. Well, I don't have much time now to go deep into this. If I have time, I would like to know where and when the idea of life cycle emerged (before Hofmeister? Aristoteles?); and show how various disciplines deal with this (genetics, ecology, developmental biology, parasitology, taxonomy, systematics, reproductive biology, comparative biology...) I would like to gather details (including changes of ploidy) of the life cycle of each phylum or division. I think that, besides the books you cited, Invertebrates of Barnes/Calow would serve as a reference for invertebrates, and Algae of Van den Hoek. For protists, I think Brusca Invertebrates may help (but it has few details). I would like too to compare the concept of life cycle with the concepts of life history, ontogeny and reproduction. Zorahia (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

An interessant article related to life cycles: An ontogenetic-ecological conception of species: a new approach to an old idea [2]. This (and the article you cited too) could serve as references to the Biological life cycle article. Zorahia (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that article gives you a nice amount of material about Buffon. So the general idea of a life cycle would have long predated even Aristotle, but there's a citation on the page human fertilization at the end of the first paragraph that could give you the material for filling in the remainder of the cycle. Is the edition of Van den Hoek's book the 1995 edition (I don't know of a more recent one)? If you want to be absolutely up-to-date, then a difficulty could be with how the boundaries of the phyla have changed in the last couple of decades. When I studied the algae, the diatoms were their own phylum (their life cycle is quite nicely described on that page). Chromalveolata (a kingdom) seems to be a good place to start. This might be a useful tip: in botany the ending -phyta indicates a phylum (also called Division, not the same as a Division in zoology), but not all phylum names have that ending (e.g., Dinoflagellata). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's the 1995 edition. I'm beginning to study algae, and my professor said the classification used by Van den Hoek is a bit outdated, but that it's a good book. Well, when I have more time to edit in the next vacation, I think this discussion will be usefull. Thanks! Zorahia (talk) 01:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

That's wonderful, I hope that you have a very satisfying experience with your studies, and hope to see you back here again in the future. Here's a photo of one of my favourite swimming fresh-water algae. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hope all is well with you. By the way, up to now I'd somehow missed your user box – that's hysterical! Glad you're back, Hamamelis (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me add my support to that of Hamamelis. We need good botanists here – please don't disappear! Peter coxhead (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Like. Plantsurfer (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all very much. It is good to encounter your pleasant voices here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Schizandria chinensis

(→‎Botanical berries: That's an aggregate fruit) (undo)

What is it an aggregate fruit of? I was not aware of any other berries that contained Schizandrin.

Sorry, I should have linked to aggregate fruit; it's like a raspberry in that it is derived from multiple parts of the flower. Like a raspberry, it doesn't belong in the botanical berries list. That information isn't well incorporated into wikipedia; I've just added a link to the Flora of China page about the plant family Schisandraceae that includes Schizandra and Kadsura, which all have that type of fruit. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Crabapple nutrition

Hello. The reason I chose that particular article is because the nutrition information on the USDA NDB is not specific to a particular species of crabapple. I was also lured in by the article's touching on crabapples being a food source, however rarely that may be. There were a few interesting contrasts in the nutrition profile when compared to the nutrition info on the apple article.

Do you have a suggestion for where the information might be better placed, or do you think the information is not worth inclusion in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chango369w (talk • contribs) 16:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I do think it is important to give this sort of information with the correct species because, as you point out, it varies for different Malus species. this article deals with Malus silvestris, but the crabapples that I'm familiar with people using in large quantities for food are the cultivar 'Dolgo', which is apparently M. baccata. I can't find any information about where the USDA nutrients database took that information from, which is a pity. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The USDA entry for crabapples is regretably nonspecific (they have it in there as: Scientific Name: Malus spp., so it'd be impossible to associate the information with a specific species.

BTW, I didn't mean to present my questions in the form of a false dichotomy, I meant to ask them separately :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chango369w (talk • contribs) 20:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think it shouldn't be used in wikipedia. As a bit more background on why the USDA database might say Malus spp. (or Malus sp.): that is a common way of saying that it wasn't known which species a sample came from, it doesn't necessarily mean that the USDA believes they are giving representative information about crabapples. Harking back to the 'Dolgo' cultivar as a popular crabapple for eating, this document gives the ancestry of that cultivar in Figure 1. It involves hybridizing two species and an unknown ancestor, so it would be an excellent candidate for being called Malus spp. or Malus sp. The USDA needed to consult a horticultural taxonomist to get a good identification for their sample. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Phyllotaxis in art and architecture

Dear Sminthopsis84,
Could you please add PHYLLOTACTIC TOWERs to the main article about Phyllotaxis in the 7th section as a sample?
This design and idea has been translating in more than 3 languages and spreading rapidly worldwide.
see this, this, this, this, this, and this and lots of other personal weblogs in Spanish, Italian and others. Best,--2.187.107.80 (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've added one of the citations. As has been previously mentioned to you, blogs and advertising and other wikis such as solarpedia are not accepted as citations in wikipedia. One of the links that you gave, although it consists of a large quotation from you, is published in an online journal of architecture news, so I think it is acceptable. We'll see how other wikipedia editors respond. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks alot.

Chloroplasts and programmed cell death

At Chloroplast, in the pathogen defense section, you added a citation needed tag for the part that says PCD kills pathogens in plant cells. The source that section is based in states—

"Chloroplastic ROS and regulation of HR.

Rapid changes in ROS concentrations have been observed during biotic or abiotic stress responses. Once generated, quantitative differences in ROS concentrations can lead to initiation of PCD or, at lower levels, a phenomenon called systemic acquired resistance (SAR). During PCD, ROS can be cytotoxic to the host cell as well as the pathogen whereas, during SAR, ... "

I'm pretty sure it means that the reactive oxygens kill the cell (and any pathogens in it) at high concentrations. I'm going to remove the tag for now, feel free to add it back if you disagree.—Kelvinsong (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay. What I was thinking of is PCD that is triggered by a surface pathogen such as a fungus, or one that might have entered the cell wall and triggered the reaction, but is not inside the cell. So I have a bit of a problem with the phrasing "killing itself and the pathogens in it", which sounds as if the only defence mechanism is through ROS destroying the pathogen, but I've heard that in at least some cases it is more that the plant cell is dead and the pathogen starves. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, it sounds like the problem is less about an inaccurate paragraph, rather, a misleading paragraph. How's this for a rewrite?—Kelvinsong (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

That looks great! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

On another matter, this recent addition, "According to the serial endosymbiosis theory, chloroplasts are believed to have arisen after mitochondria, since all eukaryotes contain mitochondria, but not all have chloroplasts." could use a citation. If a cell has a chloroplast might there not have been a way for it to survive without mitochondria, perhaps back in Precambrian times (among the Acritarchs), for example? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Well that's what my biology textbook says—eukaryote with nucleus→eukaryote with mitochondria→eukaryote with chloroplasts. There appears to be some confusion elsewhere around where/when mitochondria came, but I've never heard of chloroplasts coming before mitochondria. What you're saying either requires for a chloroplast to be lost afterwards, to account for animals, etc, (From what I've read, the plastid is a very hard organelle to get rid of, since it does so many things.), or that every surviving aplastidial and plastid-containing eukaryote lineage managed to acquire mitochondria.—Kelvinsong (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, just that chloroplasts might have been in some lineages very early, lineages that didn't take over the planet until they obtained mitochondria. Losing chloroplasts is quite common among, e.g., Dinoflagellates; they are expensive to maintain if they aren't earning their keep, such as when the organism is in long-term darkness. Could you add a citation to your textbook? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I just added the citation. I just remembered something about apicoplasts I read and why they're still around, though looking around again, plastid loss seems a lot more common than I thought. Probably warrants its own section. Can you find a reference for early chloroplasts?—Kelvinsong (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

That's looking good. I just added another 2009 review article citation, next to your textbook citation; they both date from 2009. The conclusion that all chloroplasts derive from a single endosymbiosis event is quite recent, and that the cells already contained mitochondria is definitely stated in that review. You might also want to look at this, a 2008 article giving a major part of the puzzle, but I know for certain that the red-algae–green-algae link was known much earlier, it was the other colours such as brown and yellow and perhaps Euglena that were earlier thought to possibly have different plastids. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

That article has an interesting cladogram, though I don't know how to show the endosymbiosis events in wikicode. I took a shot at translating part of it—

Primary endosymbiosis	Cyanophora Plants Green algæ Red algæ

On another note, the article says

"Almost all chloroplasts are thought to derive directly or indirectly from a single endosymbiotic event in the Archaeplastida."

I'm thinking about removing the "Almost" part, as it introduces unnecessary doubt, but that depends on whether or not chromatophores (also mentioned in the article) count as chloroplasts.—Kelvinsong (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree that chromatophores should not be called chloroplasts, even if similar, and even if the plastid term is a bit slippery because some chloroplasts (such as in algae) are not developmentally related to other plastids. Drawing a good, understandable, phylogeny is challenging because of the lateral transfer. Given the way that people have of challenging anything they don't understand in wikipedia, I think it might be inviting edit wars, so you shouldn't invest too much time in it unless you have a personal use for it outside wikipedia. If you limit it to a tree diagram (ignoring the later lateral chloroplast gains) it would need some longer labels so that more readers will understand it without needing to click each label, e.g., Wikipedia currently uses kingdom Plantae as the green algae plus land plants (changing your label to "Land plants" should fix that problem), "Cyanophora" could benefit from "(Glaucophytes)" after it ... Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I've added this to the article—

Cyanobacteria

Cyanophora
(Glaucophytes)

Land plants

Green algæ

Red algæ

Primary
endosymbiosis
600–1600
million yrs ago

Secondary
endosymbiosis
550–1200
million yrs ago

Cryptomonads

Diatoms

Plasmodium
(malaria parasite)

Possible cladogram for chloroplast evolution(ref name=CurrentBiology-Endosymbiosis/)

—Kelvinsong (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Amazing! Food for thought. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Not really—it's just an image with a list of links overlaid with {{Template:Annotated image}}. They're positioned with (x, y) coordinates (from the top left).—Kelvinsong (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Synonyms

Re your addition to the project page, I regularly find synonyms tricky to write about. The result is that I'm often reluctant to list them in the taxobox, except in very straightforward cases, and prefer to explain in the text. This is particularly true for taxa higher than species. The problem is that we know that names don't imply circumscriptions. However, my experience is that this is not widely understood, even by keen naturalists and horticulturalists. I've been writing about the Scilloideae recently. Ornithogalum of Manning et al. (2004) is divided into 19 genera by Martínez-Azorín et al. (2011). So if we accept the former's circumscription, each of the 18 other names used by the latter are synonyms of Ornithogalum. Listing, without explanation, a monospecific genus as a synonym of a genus with literally hundreds of species seems to me misleading to the general reader. So I prefer not to do this, but rather to explain the different approaches in the text. Sources like WSCP don't ever seem to use qualifications like "pro parte". Peter coxhead (talk) 08:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think your approach is an excellent one, and I'd like to see it explained further on the project page. However, we are in a bit of a bind here because wikipedia is choosing a taxonomy, by the page structure, even if multiple taxonomies are being explained in the text.

I like to use the taxobox where there isn't a lot to say about the taxonomy, perhaps to be replaced later by a simple "see text". I have moved a few synonym lists to the taxobox, but I think that has only been when I've found some unsourced and quite out-of-date list in the text. What I don't want to see is people grabbing mismatched components from multiple sources, and I think that I'm seeing a greater tendency to do that when the synonym list looks less mysterious. I've found myself giving multiple citations on a synonym list which has the unfortunate effect of perhaps looking as if I'm doing that; it happens when, in order to sort out conflicting statements between Tropicos, WCSP, TPL and others, I need to cite something, usually from IPNI, to show that a name that some people are using is illegitimate or invalid.

There are many not particularly well-known genera where the taxonomy is being rapidly updated as specialists comb the older literature and choose type specimens. I've favoured putting the synonym lists into the taxobox because it seems beneficial to have it sort-of out of the way like that, while it goes through various upheavals.

The reason for my recent (tentative) addition to the project page, is that it seemed desirable not to assume that wikipedia must create a separate page for every subspecies and variety, so we need an explanation of the procedure to consolidate the synonym lists, which seem to be increasingly fragmented in the major databases.

Thanks for discussing this with me, I was afraid that nobody would, and that my wrongheadedness would become institutionalized! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we are in bind over choosing a taxonomy for the page structure, which we can't avoid doing. I started off Wikipedia editing working on early land plants for which the best supported higher level classification can't be reconciled with the traditional scheme for extant plants. There are automatic taxoboxes hierarchies for both, but they don't fit together. Now I'm encountering these problems at a different level. We agreed as a wikiproject to use APG3 for angiosperms, but while working on Scilloideae every single one of the 10 or so recent papers I've looked at uses Hyacinthaceae, not Asparagaceae/Scilloideae. (A couple of papers have slightly sad minority statements by APG members who were coauthors, but it's clear that they aren't winning the argument.) So there's no doubt at all in my mind that the consensus taxonomy for this group, supported by reliable sources, is not APG3, and that considering the Scilloideae article alone it should be moved to Hyacinthaceae under the logic of WP:AT. But clearly we can't do this in isolation. However I'm then in serious danger of falling foul of WP:SYNTH, because I have to take statements expressed in the source in the nomenclature based on Hyacinthaceae and rewrite them in the nomenclature based on Scilloideae, mapping subfamilies to tribes, tribes to subtribes, etc. (I nearly made a serious mistake and used a subtribe name which hasn't actually been published elsewhere, as far as I can tell. I wonder if under the new Code, a name could actually be validly published in Wikipedia?!)

However, this is off the point of synonyms. I think the origin of the synonym matters. A simple change of name for a species because an earlier name is found is one thing. Synonyms created by different divisions of the same higher level taxon are another. I think our advice on how to handle synonyms needs to reflect some of these differences, although quite how I'm not totally sure. What I am sure about is that this is an important area in which clarification is needed. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes. You might have noticed that I generally stay away from taxa above the rank of genus, and that's only partly a jest.

Article 36 should save you from accidentally creating a validly published name: "A name is not validly published (a) when it is not accepted by the author in the original publication ... (c) when it is merely cited as a synonym ..."

If you really need to know whether a suprageneric name has been published, IPNI isn't a reliable guide, for example, Malinae isn't listed there. You may be already checking Jim Reveal's list; I've found it very helpful several times.

I can't think of any suggestions about how to reduce the number of synonyms that ought to be listed.

We should, no doubt, be discussing some of this at WT:Plants. What needs to be said on the project page, could be quite substantial. For now I'll have to go off to do other things, but perhaps a few points could be pulled from the above discussion, and with luck might even be comprehensible to a few other people. Mañana. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Biological studies section in Manilkara zapota article

Hi. I'm a little new at this and have lots to learn. I think the in vitro distinction is important, so in future I'll keep my eyes out for it.

But I do have a question. In the original article, they talk about using Wistar strain rats, dividing them into seven groups, feeding them diets with/without the extracts, drawing their blood and so on. I might be missing something, but isn't animal testing of this sort in vivo? Chango369w (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I totally misunderstood the abstract, and thought that the animal testing was only for the LD50, and the enzymatic/colorimetric testing was done on the blood samples! I've reversed my silly change. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

No prob. I really wasn't sure about it, so I figured collaborating with you was in order. TBH, I was afraid that I might be getting in over my head when I added that section in, so it's a relief to know that there is some peer review going on. Chango369w (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It was a good addition, it's good that you queried my action, rather than letting it discourage you! Best wishes, Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, rather than be discouraged, I viewed it as a learning opportunity.

One last thing, somewhat unrelated, but I didn't think it necessary to create a whole new section. I saw your edit to Pouteria sapota and learned some important things. In fact, I had to go back and make corrections to similar errors I had made in other articles, so knowing about your correction was valuable.

So this raises a couple of questions for me. Is there a way to look at your contributions and get the inverse effect of the Only show edits that are latest revisions checkbox? It'd be convenient if there were a way. Or is the Watchlist the conventional method used for detecting changes made to an article that you contributed to? Chango369w (talk) 11:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, the synonyms list is something that I'm currently discussing with User:Peter coxhead, and your change was something that I was thinking of mentioning to him. I'm reluctant to have the synonyms brought out into the main text because it sometimes happens that well-meaning people add synonyms from other sources that are incompatible (so we can end up, e.g., with taxon A has synonyms listed that are actually synonyms of B, which at one time was considered a synonym of A, but no longer). Peter feels that the long right-hand column that results from having them in the taxobox is a problem, and suggests rolling it up. I've come to agree, having dropped my worry about redirects pointing to a page where the target string is hidden. I've been too busy so far to further discuss that with Peter.
• The watchlist is a good way to detect changes to an article that you changed, and there is an option under Preferences to add every page that you change to your watchlist. A problem comes when your watchlist gets so large that you have to check it every day because there's a limit to how many entries it will show, though you can always remove pages from the list either individually or by editing the raw watchlist. In your contributions list, if you use consistent edit summaries, and want to go back to find what page it was where you made a particular change, you can (uncheck "Only show edits that are latest revisions" and) display more of your contributions list (e.g., 500 of the newest) and search for the edit summary. There are some other options under "Preferences" for the watchlist that might or might not make it easier to scan changes there, such as omitting your own edits, omitting bot edits, and "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent". Under "Recent changes" is "Group changes by page in recent changes and watchlist (requires JavaScript)", which I currently think is more useful than not, though it has the disadvantage that pages jump up to the top when another change happens on the same day, which is a little bit confusing. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorbus aucuparia

Hi, please reply to my questions on the article talk page. Regards Hekerui (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I left another comment on the article talk page. Regards Hekerui (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I won't be working on that page again. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Savar Upazila, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pukka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix

I noticed your edit correcting my error at Jagannath. At one point I realized that those A.D.s were part of a book title, but later I took them out. Thanks for cleaning up after my mistake. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm not quite sure why I noticed that it was in the book title ... Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Replaced the disambiguation page with a page about a subject that is already covered at Feni Sadar Upazila

Hi I'm GmySmn. Thanks for your notification. I removed contents from Feni because it's not covered at Feni Sadar Upazila. Feni is a City and capital city of Feni Sadar Upazila, on the otherhand feni sadar is a upazilla of Feni District. These are different from each other by area, population, administration. Unfortunately when you restored the removed content I was updating Feni City article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GbySmn (talk • contribs) 21:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see, that wasn't apparent from the text that was on the page so far. I'll discuss this further at your talk page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Road Ecology?

Before I propose merging your new Road ecology article with the previously existing Environmental impact of roads, I wanted to ask you about your intent in creating the article. Will it cover a clearly different aspect of the subject than the earlier article? If so, how? Thanks, --Triskele Jim 17:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for checking with me. Yes, when I created the road ecology article, I hadn't found the one on environmental impact of roads, and I think merger would be appropriate. Road ecology is being used as a catch phrase, particularly to cover efforts to build bridges and underpasses for wildlife, but it is being defined, e.g.,here in a broad sense to include effects far from the actual road. I would prefer to see the articles merged under the title "road ecology" because it appears to be growing in usage. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Chloroplast shapes

So, I'm rewriting the structure part of Chloroplast, and I was wondering if you could provide a source(s) for the part on chloroplast shape diversity—

"Greater diversity in chloroplast shapes exists among the algæ, which can have chloroplasts shaped like a net (e.g, Oedogonium), a cup (e.g, Chlamydomonas), a ribbon-like spiral around the edges of the cell (e.g, Spirogyra), or slightly twisted bands at the cell edges (e.g, Sirogonium). Some algae have two chloroplasts in each cell; they are star-shaped in Zygnema, or may follow the shape of half the cell in order Desmidiales."

Thanks—Kelvinsong (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Good descriptions of algae genera are in Algaebase. Do you want to put these into the Chloroplast page itself, or should they go on the various genus pages?

Oedogonium: algaebase page: "a large reticulate, parietal chloroplast containing one to many (usually) pyrenoids"

Chlamydomonas: algaebase page: "Chloroplasts variously cup-shaped (Euchlamydomonas, Chlamydella, Bicocca, Pleiochloris), band-shaped (Chlorogoniella), bipolar (Amphichloris), "H"-shaped (Agloë, Pseudagloë) to indistinct (Sphaerella), or even highly dissected (e.g., C. zebra). Pyrenoids one to several with position variable depending upon the species basal (Euchlamydomonas), lateral (Chlamydella, Bicocca, Chlorogoniella), or axial (Agloë, Pseudagloë). Eyespot prominent in most species, at cell anterior embedded in chloroplast."

Spirogyra: algaebase page: "chloroplasts from 1-15 per cell, number uniform in cells within filament; plastids ribbonlike, coiled, pressed against cell wall within parietal layer of cytoplasm, edges ruffled, and many disc-shaped pyrenoids. "

Sirogonium: algaebase page: "chloroplasts 2 to 10 per cell, ribbonlike with pyrenoids. Filaments similar vegetatively to Spirogyra, except ribbonlike chloroplasts straighter instead of coiled."

Zygnema: algaebase page: "chloroplasts usually two (rarely four) per cell, each plastid with large pyrenoid at center of radiating short branches in stellate pattern."

Desmidiales, an order, therefore without a description in Algaebase. This could be changed to an example genus, e.g., to Micrasterias: algaebase page: "Cells ... much compressed, with very deep median constriction (isthmus) where semicell walls overlap. ... Usually one chloroplast per semicell, with few to numerous scattered pyrenoids."

Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright, thanks!—Kelvinsong (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating John McNeill (botanist), Sminthopsis84!

Wikipedia editor Barney the barney barney just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

good article. Remember to check Who's Who if you can.

To reply, leave a comment on Barney the barney barney's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Artemisia

Don't pull a silly stunt like that again. You clearly don't have consensus, and there is a NORN pending, which you yourself filed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You are being a bully. If you wish to continue in wikipedia rather than court being blocked, then please take the following four actions:

• Read Wikipedia:NORN; there is no pending action. NORN is a noticeboard where one asks for advice about a question of whether OR is involved or not. My subsequent attempts to adjust the subject page to bring more sophisticated citations to it are entirely in line with having posted that NORN notice.
• Recuse yourself from the discussion at Talk:Artemisia_absinthium, where you have stated here that it's "baloney" that the content of articles is decided by the consensus among editors. It is a discussion that aims to reach consensus and such interference is unwelcome.
• Familiarize yourself by careful reading with WP:CON.
• Consider filing a WP:UNC request. Your user name may include the non-Latin "du" which makes the entirety of it incomprehensible, but the Latin parts "Dominus" and "Vobis" are suggestive that whatever "du" means to you, the phrase may be intended as a curse. If you wish to collaborate with other editors, then you should consider changing it.

Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Taxonomy (general)

You may be interested in a proposal to move Taxonomy (general) to Taxonomy. Discussion is at Talk:Taxonomy (general)#Requested move. Cnilep (talk) 07:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Chlorella (at Chloroplast)

Hey, do you have a source for the following material at Chloroplast—

(for example Chlorella has a bell-shaped chloroplast that occupies much of the cell).

I can't find it in its algaebase entry.—Kelvinsong (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

How about this pdf, or if you want more detail, they are often described as cup-shaped, but are not always that shape, as described here, for which the full citation is John, D.M.; Whitton, B.A.; Brook, A.J.; Society, B.P.; Museum, N.H. (2002). The Freshwater Algal Flora of the British Isles: An Identification Guide to Freshwater and Terrestrial Algae. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521770514.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I added the second book (the first one calls cyanobacteria plants, so I would consider it a bit dated)—Kelvinsong (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Botany

Is ecology up to snuff now or should I add more to it? 512bits (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Minor expansion, I think, to clarify what is there. These sentences aren't clear: "This includes structure, genetics and mutations, metabolism, diversity, fitness, adaptation, climate, water, and soil condition. The conditions that constitute an organism's life cycle is its habitat." Questions include: structure of what (population, community, the plant), should mutations be listed as well as genetics, is constitute the right word? Honey bees are a minor part of the pollination activity in many parts of the world, I'd suggest pollinator instead. I've changed this sentence a little to reduce the suggestion that an organism could be in competition with a rock, but it still might be clarified somehow to emphasize competition between species rather than between individuals in a population: "Every organism is dependent upon certain elements of its environment and in competition with other organisms in its environment." Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have fixed the last one. I changed the first one to "This includes structure, genetics and mutations, metabolism, diversity, fitness, adaptation, climate, water, soil condition, and competition with other species. The conditions that comprise an organism's life cycle is its habitat." Thoughts? 512bits (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Fairly substantial edits are now in place. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I think Plantsurfer's edits to the introduction made it worse though.512bits (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope it is stable now. That seems to be quite an interesting example where adding the word "human" takes away quite a lot of potential confusion. I've added a bit further down to help support the sentence "The beginnings of modern-style classification systems can be traced to the 1500s–1600s when several attempts were made to scientifically classify plants", but it could really use information about more people to support the "several attempts". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Move requests you may be interested in

Talk:List of airports in China and Talk:List of islands of the People's Republic of China. GotR ^Talk 16:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Pls review my article on plants

Dear Sminthopsis, since you are an expert in Botany, pls go through my article Dasapushpam, I believe you can help imporve that article. Your opinion on the factual accuracy matters :) .. Thank you .. Danke .. Bilingual2000 (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your help to brush up the article Dasapushpam. I would like to present you .. a gift from this part of the world.. a flower that blossoms once in 12 years .. called Strobilanthes kunthiana. Danke :)Bilingual2000 (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, it must be a magnificent sight when it blooms. Best wishes, Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Involvement in Botany

I am sorry to have lost your involvement in Botany. The article badly needs contributions, comment and feedback from experts like yourself, and I hope you will reconsider. At least I would be grateful if you could indicate what it is about the recent changes I have made that you object to so strongly. With best wishes, Plantsurfer (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, what I wrote was more curt than I intended. I'm quite busy now, and it is a struggle to deal with any significant portion of the failings of the wiki that mean that someone who had a plant named after them could appear to be more important than someone who transformed the foundations of botany and of genetics. The same shocking oversight applies to many of the botanists who have worked in languages other than English, and to those who did the actual work rather than trumpeting a distorted version of the actual discoveries. I'll work a bit around the edges as time permits, and will respond to direct questions about the article (as time permits), of which I see there is one above. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that I was very careful to avoid any behaviour that violates the wikipedia definitions of an edit war, and I was merely trying to step in to curtail the sustained abuse that this user had been heaping on another user over the course of several days. But fine, now that an admin is involved, I'll step aside. I hate to see the RfC process used in this way. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sminthopsis84. You have new messages at Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.
Message added 14:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I regret for the bad episode. Faizan 14:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not leave talkback notifications or other messages here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Phaseolus vulgaris

I notice you've made quite a few edits to Phaseolus vulgaris. I made a few changes earlier because there was some confusion with Phaseolus coccineus. It's not clear to me that all the varieties discussed are actually of the right species. (In the UK, it's unusual to grow climbing varieties of the Ph. vulgaris – we grow almost entirely bush varieties of this species, hence climbing beans are usually Ph. coccineus. Hence I'd always assumed, clearly wrongly, that the beans grown as part of the trio of species by native Americans, were Ph. coccineus.) Anyway, if you look at this article again, you might be able to check further that the correct species is being discussed throughout. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
On re-reading my comment above, I see I'm showing my age by abbreviating a genus name beginning with a digraph to two letters rather than one. I have to say that "P." for a genus name beginning with "Ph" still looks wrong to me! Peter coxhead (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I had a quick look at this and clearly, the whole Bean subject needs quite a lot of work (starting with Bambara groundnut, which the FAO refers to as Bambara bean). The classic three-sisters beans that are usually talked about by North American ethnographers have a P(h). vulgaris-type pod, and a relatively short climbing habit. They were grown with a special type of maize that is now very hard to obtain, that had longer stalks on the female inflorescences, which provided a good ladder for the beans, which didn't tie the tops of the maize together (as I know from experience can happen if one plants runner beans instead!). I'll be a bit slow getting to prodding this material, but in the next few days. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that there is quite a bit of confusion over beans in general. The different uses of common names in English-speaking countries seem a particular source of confusion! I grow broad beans, which don't seem to be easy to find in Canada, where anyway fava beans seems to be the common name, which I have never heard used in the UK. "Pole bean" doesn't mean anything to me, but I would have guessed it meant runner bean, since these are the commonest beans grown on poles (canes) over here.

We've touched on the general issue of common names for plants before, I think. Many editors seem to think that common names don't need referencing, and that it's ok to have long lists of unsourced names in many languages. I'm not sure whether anything can be done to strengthen the requirement for this information to be sourced just like any other, and also to emphasize that only names used in English-language sources are relevant. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Why yes, I think we may have touched on the general issue of common names for plants before :-) Have you encountered anyone who wants to remove citations for English common names where they exist and satisfy RS requirements? The most negative reaction that I've seen is a small protest that the introductory paragraphs don't need citations, but, of course, the style descriptions say that they don't need citations if the material is a summary of later parts of the page where citations are given, and that isn't usually the case with common names.

I've assumed that in order to achieve citations for English common names, a necessary first step would be to add some critical mass of that sort of information, so that protests (if any) would be prompted.

I've been thinking of Phillips & Rix's books as quintessentially English, but now realize that it's the Random House edition of their vegetable book that I'm looking at, and it's the same edition in Google books. It has about twice as much coverage for bush beans as for pole beans, with 13 cultivars included for the pole beans, some described as originating in Germany and France, and one at Wisley, and one in Lancashire, so they aren't all North American, and may simply be relatively uncommon. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I've also had a mild protest about citations in the lead, and made the same response. What I don't know is what would happen if I or another editor went around putting {{citation needed}} against lists of common names with no sources given. I'm not quite sure if I want to try...

No, what I call "climbing French beans" aren't that uncommon; in fact I have some waiting to be planted out right now. But I hadn't heard of them being called "pole beans", which of course doesn't mean that some people in the UK don't call them that. The two problems with the cultivars I've grown is that (a) to grow well they need higher night temperatures than runner beans, showing chlorotic symptoms if too cold (b) they suffer in strong winds as their leaves seem to shred and snap off easily compared to runner beans – I guess that growing them together with the appropriate maize cultivar would give them wind protection. Anyway, enough beans for now!! Peter coxhead (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit worn out by beans; there's probably only so much untangling of this sort of material that a person can stand. French beans to me mean without strings in them, but some people, including Phillips & Rix, use that name for the whole species. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Indo-Pak war RfC

Hi!

Thanks for backing me up in those discussions. I believe you may still need to clearly point out your position in the RfC, as to what the Bangladeshi side should actually be termed. Thanks. --ArmanJ (talk) 07:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry that I don't have a great deal of stamina when it comes to reading wikipedia's policies about wars or for battling with administrators. However, I have reiterated my statement as demanded by that other editor. This is an enormously important matter to the people of Bangladesh! Best wishes, Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

See, statements like that are one of the reasons I was very wary of supporting your proposed changes. The importance or otherwise to the people of Bangladesh is of no consequence whatsoever as far as Wikipedia's concerned. As soon as you introduce statements like that, you turn what should be a discussion of Wikipedia policy into a battleground in which to rehash real-world socio-political grudges, and that simply isn't on. Please, by all means comment on the discussion - but do so as a Wikipedian, not a Bangladeshi. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

What?! You're criticizing me for sympathizing with the people of Bangladesh to the extent that I want to have reasonable accurate coverage of matters that concern them in Wikipedia? Or is the problem that I think that some matters in the real world might actually be important? F.Y.I., two points (1) I am not a Bangladeshi and (2) this is my talk page. Take your griefing behaviour away from my talk page! You are an admin; a higher standard of behaviour is expected of an admin. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry for making the assumption that you were of Bangladeshi origin; I guess I must be jaded from seeing too many Indian-Pakistani-Bangladeshi edit wars flare up. Please accept my apologies. I totally agree that accurate information is needed; my point is that if you're adding that information for the people of Bangladesh then you're doing it for the wrong reasons. We're aiming for neutrality here; if you sympathise with one side or the other in real life then obviously that's fine, but it shouldn't influence how you edit. Since you wish me to stay off your talkpage, I won't post here again unless required to in an administrative capacity. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your gracious apology. I see now that you might have reasonably assumed that I am Bangladeshi. It is the rapidity of wikipedia editors to jump to conclusions about other editors that has prompted me to edit anonymously in the first place. The fact is, that when it comes to mass-murder, I always side with the victims, and would wish to contribute to wikipedia in a way that allows their side of matters to be heard. This is a choice very much parallel to any other choice to contribute to wikipedia, such as a choice to work on articles related to soil nutrients or pokemon. P.S.: I would point out that "unless required to in an administrative capacity" sounds quite threatening. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Then if you'll permit me, I'll break my agreement to stay off your talkpage just this once to assure you that no threat was intended - it's purely procedural. I can't envisage any admin action I might take that would require me to post here, but I reserve the right to do so just in case there is. That's all, and I apologise again if it came across as threatening. I'm dewatchlisting your talkpage now, but if you want to get in touch, you are welcome to leave a message at mine. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mountain lion may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [[Young Harris College]]'s team, the Young Harris Mountain Lions)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Phenetics

Sorry to bust your balloon but neighbour-joining was invented by Saitou and Nei in '87, 30years after pairwise distance was invented (see Yves van de Peer-Phylogentic Inference BAsed on Distance Methods, p. 8, at 2.ib.unicamp.br) Also, cladistics is not synonymous with phylogenetics. ML, BI, and ME do not use parsimony in the same way as cladistics or at all, require an explicit model of evolution, and do not emphasize polarity. Cladistics is a subset of phylogenetics. Please reestablish my edits.--Trouveur de faits (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. While it is certainly true that cladistics and phylogenetics are not synonymous, the sentence "Phenetics has largely been superseded by cladistics for research into evolutionary relationships among species." is not improved by saying "Phenetics has largely been superseded by phylogenetics for research into evolutionary relationships among species." Phenetics and cladistics are methods. Phylogenetics is a study area, the study of evolutionary relationships among species. Phenetics was at one time presented as a method to arrive at an approximation to a phylogeny, although nowadays it is seen as less than perfect for that purpose. I agree entirely that the other use of the term cladistics was inappropriate, and have changed that to "phylogenetics".

I don't understand your point about the time at which Neighbour Joining was invented. It uses pairwise distances. It hasn't as you phrased it "found its way into pairwise distance methods". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Common Wood Pigeon

Since a source is needed for the cooing description, how about having one which simply says.. <ref>The pigeon itself.</ref> ..? Couldn't resist. ;-) Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's tempting to do that, but wikipedia disapproves. The modern human is expected to not know a pigeon from a pelican. :( Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)