Nomenclature of fungi
Hey there. I recently stumbled across an issue of Nova Hedwigia Beheift titled "the genera of fungi" (or was it agaricaceae?). It's filled to the brink with mind-numbing nomenclatural discussions of all the genera ever described (I think, anyway). Would it be any use if I looked up the specific ref or any specific genera? Circeus 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- That would be friggin' trés bién. The first one that would be absolutely great to get a clarification on is Agaricus which was called Psalliota in many texts fro many years and I've been mystified as to why. Other articles I intend cleaning up are Amanita muscaria, which is the one I intended taking to FA first but it just didn't come together well, Gyromitra esculenta as a future FA, Agaricus bisporus as a future FA, and cleaning up the destroying angels - Amanita virosa, Amanita bisporiga and Amanita verna. Boletus edulis would be a good one to check too. let me know if anything interesting pops up. I'll see ifd I can think of any other taxonomic quagmires later today. Work just got real busy :( cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Generally, that's pretty arcane and only relevant to genus articles, or species that were tightly involving in defining them (for example, there seems to be an odd debate over the multiple type species for Amanita). I'll look up Agaricus, Amanita (since A. muscaria's the current type) and Psalliota. I'll also dig up the ref so you can look it up yourself, with any chance. Circeus 04:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Cool, keen to see what pops up. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- I only quickly thumbed through it and noted the full ref (Donk, M.A. (1962). "The generic names proposed for Agaricaceae". Beiheifte zur Nova Hedwigia 5: 1–320. ISSN 0078-2238. ) because I forgot about it until the last minute. Psalliota looks like a classic synonym case. It shares the same type with Agaricus, and might be older. Circeus 01:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Weird! I thought Linnaeus was calling all sorts of things Agaricus so I wonder how it could predate that really....anyway I am curious.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, First thing I have to say is... Damn, 18th-19th century taxonomy and nomenclature of fungi is a right mess. Whose bright idea was it to give fungi 3 starting dates in the ICBN???
LOTS of "per" in citation here. See [1]
- On Agaricus
- Etym.: Possibly "from Agarica of Sarmatica, a district of Russia" (!). Note also Greek ἀγαρικ[1]όν "a sort of tree fungus" (There's been an Agaricon Adans. genus, treated by Donk in Persoonia 1:180)
- Donk says Linnaeus' name is devalidated (so that the proper author citation apparently is "L. per Fr., 1821") because Agaricus was not linked to Tournefort's name (Linnaeus places both Agaricus Dill. and Amanita Dill. in synonymy), but truely a replacement for Amanita Dill., which would require that A. quercinus, not A. campestris be the type. This question compounded by the fact that Fries himself used Agaricus roughly in Linnaeus' sense (which leads to issues with Amanita), and that A. campestris was eventually excluded from Agaricus by Karsten and was apparently in Lepiota at the time Donk wrote this, commenting that a type conservation might become necessary.
- All proposals to conserve Agaricus against Psalliota or vice versa have so far been considered superfluous.
References
- ^ Letter is script and looks like a Russian и.
- On Lepiota
- Etym. Probably greek λεπις, "scale"
- Basionym is Agaricus sect. Lepiota Pers. 1797, devalidated by later starting date, so the citation is (Pers.) per S.F.Gray. It was only described, without species, and covered an earlier mentioned, but unnamed group of ringed, non-volvate species, regardless of spore color. Fries restricted the genus to white-spored species, and made into a tribe, which was, like Amanita repeatedly raised to genus rank.
- The type is unclear. L. procera is considered the type (by Earle, 1909). Agaricus columbrinus (L. clypeolarus) was also suggested (by Singer, 1946) to avoid the many combination involved otherwise in splitting Macrolepiota, which include L. procera. Since both species had been placed into different genera prior to their selection (in Leucocoprinus and Mastocephalus respectively), Donk observes that a conservation will probably be needed, expressing support for Singer's emendation.
- On Psalliota
- Etym.: ψάλιον, "ring"
- Psalliota was first published by Fries (1821) as trib. Psalliota. The type is Agaricus campestris (widely accepted, except by Earle, who proposed A. cretaceus). Kummer (not Quélet, who merely excluded Stropharia) was the first to elevate the tribe to a genus. Basically, Psalliota was the tribe containing the type of Agaricus, so when separated, it should have caused the rest of the genus to be renamed, not what happened. It seems to be currently not considered valid, or a junior homotypic synonym, anyway the explanation is that it was raised by (in retrospect) erroneously maintaining the tribe name.
- On Amanita
- Etym.: Possibly from Amanon,a mountain in Cilicia.
A first incarnation from Tentamen dispositionis methodicae Fungorum 65. 1797 is cited as devalidated: "Introduced to cover three groups already previously distinguished by Persoon (in [...] Tent. 18. 1797) under Agaricus L., but at that time not named. It is worth stressing that [The species now known as Amanita caesarea] was not mentioned."
- With Agaricus L. in use, Amanita was a nomen nudum per modern standard, so Persoon gave it a new life unrelated to its previous incarnations, and that is finally published after a starting date by Hooker (the citation is Pers. per Hook., 1821). He reuses Withering's 1801 definition (A botanical arrangement of British plants, 4th ed.). "The name Amnita has been considered validly published on different occasions, depending on various considerations." Proposed types include (given as Amanita. Sometimes they were selected as Agarici):
- A. livida Pers. (By Earle, in 1909). Had been excluded in Vaginata or Amanitopsis and could not be chosen.
- A. muscaria Pers. (By Clemens & Shear, 1931) for the genus (1801) from Synopsis fungorum, was generally transferred to the one from Hooker's Flora of Scotland, which is currently considered the valid publication of Amanita (or was in the 50s).
- A. phalloides (by Singer, 1936) for the 1801 genus.
- A.bulbosa (by Singer & Smith, 1946) for Gray's republication. This is incorrect as Gray's A. bulbosa is a synonym of A. citrina. Some authors consider Gray to be the first valid republisher.
- A. caeserea (by Gilbert, 1940). Troublesome because not known personally to Persoon or Fries.
Donk concludes the earliest valid type is A. muscaria, the species in Hooker, adding that he'd personally favor A. citrina.
- The name has been republished three times in 1821: in Hooker, Roques and Gray (in that order). Roques maintained Persoon's circumscription, including Amanitopsis and Volvaria. Gray excluded Amanitopsis and Volvariella into Vaginata. Right after, Fries reset the name by reducing the genus to a tribe of Agaricus, minus pink-spored Volvariella. This tribe became a subgenus, than genus via various authors, Quélet, altough not the first, often being attributed the change. Sometimes it was used in a Persoonian sense (whether that is a correct use according to ICBN is not clear to me).
- Homonyms of Amanita Pers. are Amanita adans. (1763, devalidated) and Amanita (Dill) Rafin. (1830)
- On Boletus
- Not including (Not in Agaricaceae, sorry).
Phew! Circeus 18:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I hope you intend to clean that prose ASAP? It's definitely not article-worthy as is. Circeus 01:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm working on it. Got distracted this morning...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
LOL, I love your sense of humour. Maimonedes is a good reference. The reality is that Islam takes food restrictions from Judaism; and Christianity doesn't have any restriction (courtesy of three references in the New Testament). The reason why pork should be restricted (along with many other things) is not given explicitly in the Hebrew Bible, hence Bible commentators have been offering guesses since ancient times. My own favourite, however, is Mary Douglas, wife of Louis Leakey, daughter of a Lutheran pastor. Her theory is excellent, based on her cultural anthropological observations, with a decent feel for how Biblical text works. It's rather an abstract theory though. Anyway, I'll see if I can manage a literature review of dietry restrictions in the ANE, especially if there's anything explicit about pork. Don't think I'll find a reference for "why" the pork taboo is in place, though, if it's documented, I'd have read about that in commentaries. Perhaps a clay tablet with the answer has been destroyed in only the last few years during the "troubles" in Iraq. :( Alastair Haines (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- This is the great thing about uncertainty. Lacking an answer, the reports of Maimonides, Mary Douglas and the other guy mentioned are fascinating.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Scotish pork taboo is a remarkable article! Thanks for that, lol. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Spotted this. I'll look for a ref to the Maimonides comment. The normal teaching is that pork is no more or less offensive to Jews than any other forbidden meat (dog, horse etc) or forbidden part of kosher animal (blood, Gid Hanasheh etc). The pig (NB pig, not pork - an important distinction which is relevant for the Maimonides comment too, I note) is "singled out" because it alone of the animals that have one of the two "signs" (it has split hooves but doesn't chew the cud) lies down with its legs sticking out. Most quarapeds have their legs folded under them. There's a midrashic lesson to be learned there, apparently, that the pig is immodestly and falsely proclaiming its religious cleanliness, when it is not. Anyway, that said, I'll look into the M comment - he was quite ahead of his time in terms of medical knowledge (check his biog). And NB my OR/POV antennae buzzed when I read that little section. --Dweller (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Someone has tagged the Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork for OR, though the talk page seems to indicate it is for a different reason....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Hmm... makes me more dubious, but I'll check. btw... I'm not Alastair! --Dweller (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Have found good stuff, including online version of Maimonides text. I'll dump it here for you to use as you wish.
I maintain that the food which is forbidden by the Law is unwholesome. There is nothing among the forbidden kinds of food whose injurious character is doubted, except pork (Lev. xi. 7), and fat (ibid. vii. 23). But also in these cases the doubt is not justified. For pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter. The principal reason why the Law forbids swine's flesh is to be found in the circumstance that its habits and its food are very dirty and loathsome. It has already been pointed out how emphatically the Law enjoins the removal of the sight of loathsome objects, even in the field and in the camp; how much more objectionable is such a sight in towns. But if it were allowed to eat swine's flesh, the streets and houses would be more dirty than any cesspool, as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks.[1]
So, Maimonides argues "pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter", whatever that means! More importantly, the "principal reason" is that if you keep pigs, you end up with a dirty and unhealthy environment. Important note: Maimonides was writing from Islamic Egypt at the time, which is why he mentions "as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks." (ie France)
The comments about the pig's habit of lying with its legs outstretched come from Midrash Vayikra Rabba (ch 13) where it is mentioned as part of an elaborate metaphor, but not in connection with any reason for particularly abhorring the creature.
Hope that helps. --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I have unfortunately had to revert much of the changes you have made to the Alpha Centauri page - mainly to the structure revisions that you have done. While I agree it is best to standardise between bright star pages (i.e. Sirius), there is significant problems doing so to the Alpha Centauri page. The problem in previous edits is the confusion with Alpha Centauri the star and Alpha Centauri as a system. There was much about alpha centauri, especially its brightness compared to Arcturus as well as the relationship with Proxima Centauri. (See the Discussion with the associated page to this article.) It was thought best to avoid complexity by giving the basic information, and add complexity in sections so information could be understood at various levels of knowledge. Also as there is much interest in Alpha Centauri from children to amateur astronomers, it was best to give the introduction as brief as possible and explain the complexities as we go. As to modifications of articles as drastically as you have done to complex article, it might be better to do so with some discussion in the discussion section before doing so. Although I note that you have much experience in doing wiki edits, much better than me, it is better to make small changes in complex articles paragraph by paragraph than carte blanche changes. (I am very happy to discuss any issues on the article with you in the alpha centauri discussion to improve the article.)
As to the introduction, much of the additions you have made are actually speculative, and are not necessary on fact. I.e. "This makes it a logical choice as "first port of call" in speculative fiction about interstellar travel, which assumes eventual human exploration, and even the discovery and colonization of imagined planetary systems. These themes are common to many video games and works of science fiction." has little to do with the basic facts on alpha centauri. I.e. Nearest star, third brightest star, binary star, etc. As for "Kinematics" as a title, this is irrelevant (Sirius article also has it wrong). (Also see Discussion page for Alpha Centauri with SpacePotato) Note: I have contributed much to this page - 713 edits according to the statistics. (27th April 2008 to today) Arianewiki1 18:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- O-kay...taken it to the talk page.Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Bract pattern
You know what I don't get? On page 245 of George (1981), and again on page 40 of Collins (2007), George gives a diagram showing the arrangement of unit inflorescences on a Banksia flower spike. Both diagrams clearly show a hexagonal layout; i.e. every common bract is surrounded by six equidistant common bracts, thus forming little hexagons. In support of this, George (1981) states "The unit inflorescences are so arranged on the axis that there are three pattern lines—vertical, and both dextral and sinistral spiral."
I haven't dissected an inflorescence, but in some species the pattern persists right through flowering and can be seen on the infructescence. You won't get a better example than this B. menziesii cone. Look at that pattern. There's no way you could call it hexagonal. It is a rectangular (or rather diamond, since the lines are diagonal) grid. Depending on how you define a neighbourhood, you could argue that each common bract has 4 or 8 neighbours, but there's no way you could argue for 6. Similarly, you could argue for two pattern lines (dextral and sinistral spiral) or four (dextral, sinistral, vertical and horizontal), but there is no way you could argue for 3, because there is no reason to include vertical whilst excluding horizontal). On top of that there is a beautiful symmetry in the way each common bract is surrounded by its own floral bracts and those of its neighbours. But George's diagrams destroy that symmetry.
I thought maybe B. menziesii was an exception to a general rule, but you can see the same diamond grid, though not as clearly, in File:Banksia serrata4.jpg, and I reckon (but am not certain) I can see it in my B. attenuata cone. And in File:Banksia prionotes mature cone.jpg too. What the heck is going on?
(I'm not just being a pretentious wanker here. I thought the diagram was interesting and informative enough for me to whip up an SVG version for Wikipedia. But since copying George's diagram isn't really on, and it is much better to go straight from nature if possible, I was basing my version on this B. menziesii cone. But it isn't going to work if the diagram shows a rectangular grid and the text has to say it is hexagonal.)
Hesperian 13:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for reminding me on this one - I think it was Alex (or Kevin??) who told me that every bract pattern was unique to a species and hence diagnostic, but as far as I know not much if anything has been published on this area. The similarity between archaeocarpa and attenuata was noted (the bract pattern remaining in the fossils). I seem to recall feeling bamboozled as well by the description when I read it some time ago. I will have to refresh myself with some bedtime reading....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Update: I had a look at the pages in question in the banksia book(s), there is a little bit more in the 1981 monograph but not much. I meant to ring Alex George about this and should do so in the next few days...I guess the photos look sort of like hexagons stretched vertically :P Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Dipsacus fullonum Just passing through. I am not an expert with flora but I do take photos now and again. Does this image from my personal collection help or hinder your discussion? I see diamonds --Senra (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Haha yeah. Not a bad comparison at all. a diamond pattern it is there as well. You sorta let your eyes go a little out of focus and see two diagonal lines....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Question
If this is what developing flower pairs look like...
then what are these brown and white furry things?
I note that the last six images to be posted on your talk page were posted by me. I'm not sure whether to apologise....
What is going on in the lower image? Clearly this is an inflorescence in very early bud, but those furry white things are apparently not developing flower pairs. Are they some kind of protective bract or something?
Hesperian 01:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- You certainly see those thingies on the developing buds of alot of banksias. I'd be intrigued what the Nikulinsky book, which is essentially a series of plates of a developing menziesii inflorescence, says (not sure, I don't recall whether it had commentary...). Another thing to look up. Was about to look up the patterns just now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Now I have looked at the books and bract architecture, question is are they common bracts or are they something which falls off (don't think so but..). Something else to ask Alex. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
-
- Having found nothing in George, I've been reading Douglas's stuff on ontogeny of Proteaceae flowers, and found nothing there either.
If you snap a spike axis in half, they are just that brown colour, and essentially made of closely packed fuzz. I wonder if there is initially no gap in the axis for the flower to grow, so the developing flower literally has to shove some of the axis out in front of it as it extends. This would explain everything except for the white tip. Hesperian 10:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I have today taken a long lunch and gone bushwalking with Gnangarra. While he took happy-snaps, I did some OR on this question. My diagnosis is: these are peduncles that have developed common bracts, but have not yet developed floral bracts or flowers.
In very young spikes like the one pictured here, they are not yet very densely packed together, so they can be perceived as individual peduncles. Given time, they will continue to grow, and as they do so they will become more and more densely packed together, until eventually they are jammed together so tightly that their dense coverings of hairs form the fibrous brown material that comprises a typical flower spike, and the common bracts at their apex will form the bract pattern on the surface of the spike. At that point, they will no longer be distinguishable as individual peduncles, but will simply be part of the spike.
When the flowers start to develop, they get squeezed together even more. At this point, sometimes, a peduncle may break off the axis and be squeezed right out of the spike as the flowers around it develop. Thus you may see one or two of these furry things sitting at random positions on the surface of a developed flower spike.
As evidence for this hypothesis I offer the following observations:
- Wherever one of those "furry things" is found loose on the surface of a spike, you will also find a gap in the bract pattern beneath it, where the common bract is absent;
- "Furry things" may occasionally be found partly out of the spike, but partly in, in which cases the white tip is quite obviously the common bract. In such cases removal of the "furry thing" leaves behind a visible hole in the spike where a common bract ought to be.
Hesperian 05:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
-
- Interesting - Gah! Forgot to ring Alex - evening is a crazy time with little availability for me, but will see what I can do. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Not OR any more. Look at the picture of "Banksia flower bud seen in profile" here: clear evidence of the common and floral bracts forming one of those little furry upside-down pyramids, with the flower arising from it. Hesperian 03:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- On a tangential point, the first image would most likely pass FPC if it ever finds a home that is appropriate. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm, okay, hopefully Hesperian will see this thread. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Gosh, would it really?! I was quite proud of it but a bit unsure whether it had enough depth of field. But if I'll take anyone's word that it would probably pass, I'll take Noodle snacks. :-) Hesperian 23:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Parrot stuff
doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2009.08.021
is not finalized, but the preprint is ready and formatted. It may well be one of the most comprehensive and beautiful papers on the topic of Psittaciformes evolution. Only gripe: it still does not consider the fossil record fully. Is doi:10.1080/08912960600641224
really so hard to get? 2 cites in 3 years for what is essentially the baseline review is far too little... even Mayr does not cite it - granted, most is not Paleogene, but still...).
But that does not affect the new paper much, since they remain refreshingly noncommitted on the things they cannot reliably assess from their data. And data they have a lot. Also always nice to see geography mapped on phylogenetic trees. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- PDFs sent... let me know if need anything else. Sasata (talk) 08:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thx :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Banksia menziesii with persistent florets
While I was out a-walking in the bush one day last week, I spied a banksia with an unfamiliar jizz. Even on closer inspection I was bamboozled for half a minute until the pieces fell together and I realised I was looking at a B. menziesii with persistent florets. Not just a bit late to fall: there were old cones from previous seasons with the florets still bolted on. In fact, there wasn't a single bald cone on the whole tree. I've never seen anything like it. Have you? Hesperian 04:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm..interesting. I have not ever noticed a menziesii like this, but not to say it can't happen. Might it be a menziesii/prionotes hybrid - how far is the tree from you? I'd compare the newgrowth/leaf dimensions/trunk all for comparison. Did it have any new flowers? Some of these old cones have an aura of prionotes about them...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
-
- prionotes crossed my mind at first, but the bark is that of menziesii, and nothing like the distinctive prionotes bark. And the flower spikes lack the woolliness of old prionotes florets.
It's quite near my place; about ten minutes drive. Even closer to where Alex lives (assuming he still lives at the address he has been publishing under lately): only five minutes drive from there I would guess. If it's prionotes (which it isn't), then we've extended the known range of that species 10km south. Likewise, a hybrid means there's a prionotes population nearby, so it amounts to the same thing. Hesperian 05:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I finally made it to the library and got a hold of the article you had asked about a couple of weeks ago. There's enough info there to make DYK-worthy stubs on the genus, and three of the species (macrocarpus, katerinae, toomanis), or, alternatively, maybe enough for a GA on the genus. What are the chances of images? Apparently these fungi make small but visible apothecia on the seed capsules. Berkeley and Broome first wrote about the fungus in 1887, so maybe there's a sketch from the protologue that's useable. Anyway, I'll start adding text in a day or two and maybe we can have the first Banksia/Fungi wikiproject collaboration? Sasata (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
-
-
- Berkeley & Broome (1887) is online at http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/13683 — see page 217. There is a picture at Plate 29 figure 18. Hesperian 02:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- That's a nice image on plate 29 there. They call it Tympanis toomanis on page 224 decription of plate. How do we capture that image and replicate it on commons? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Like this. Hesperian 03:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
-
-
-
- On page 222, they talk about finding it on a banksia cone near the Tooma River in southern NSW, which leaves me thinking it is a cone of Banksia marginata although they do not state this (OR alert ++++). Funny looking marginata cone but marginata is a hugely variable species....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Check your email; I've sent you a copy of Beaton (1982), where they do state that the cone is B. marginata. (You guys should have asked me first; I could have saved Sasata a walk to the library.) Hesperian 03:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
-
-
-
- @Sasata - I'll leave it up to you whether a solid GA and one DYK for the whole shebang, or 4 species articles - you've got the material and I am happy either way. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Am working on the article behind-the-scenes now... that picture you uploaded is excellent, and thanks Hesp for finding the protologue. Too bad the scan resolution is so crappy; I can upload a screen capture/crop to Commons, but will first investigate to see if there's a copy of the original around here so I might rescan at higher resolution. Four DYKs and 1 GA doesn't sound unreasonable for the lot, but I'll see what I can come up with. Sasata (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- The resolution is good. I guess you were looking at it at 25%. Try zooming in. Hesperian 03:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, it'll do the trick. I gave the article a good push towards GA. Hesp, do you have easy access to Beaton 1984, or maybe Fuhrer, B,; May, T. (1993). "Host specificity of disc-fungi in the genus Banksiamyces on Banksia." Victorian Naturalist (South Yarra) 110 (2):73-75? I think once those two are located and added, that'll be it from journals (but you may find stuff to add from your Banksia books?). I could start stubs for the species, but it would be a shame to have to leave out B. maccannii. Sasata (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I can probably get Vic Naturalist at UNSW Library next tuesday or friday (slim chance on weekend). Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- When you get to Victorian Naturalist, you'll also want to grab Sommerville, K.; May, T. (2006). "Some taxonomic and ecological observations on Banksiamyces". The Victorian Naturalist 123: 366–375. Hesperian 08:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding that, wonder why it didn't show up in my database search. Cas, if it's too mush hassle for you to get these, let me know and I can order them, would take 1-2 weeks to get here.
- I'll have easy access to Beaton (1984) on Monday. No access to Victorian Naturalist. Hesperian 08:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, forgot again. I've just scanned it now. Cas: I'll forward shortly; if you have Sasata's email address, can you forward it on please? Otherwise, Sasata: send me an email so I know where to send this scan. Hesperian 04:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see any email link on your user page... I can wait until Cas forward a copy. Thanks kindly Sasata (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
-
-
- I guess you've never noticed the "Email this user" link in the sidebar toolbox.... Hesperian 23:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- ! Wouldya look at that... That's embarrassing! Now excuse me while I go give eyewitness testimony in a murder trial. Sasata (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hang on a sec, will send. Also, will be near the library again for Vic Naturalist. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hahaha. Fantastic. I just realised I never uplaoded a funny photo I took in WA a few years ago. I need to double check.
This old cone of
Banksia violacea had these dark objects on it which might be a fungus as they certainly weren't on any other cones I saw about the place.
Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
As OZtrylia has a notoriously under described rang of and field of mycology study - any signs of further fungi or algae work is to be encouraged at all points SatuSuro 01:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Taking pity on poor Cas, whose Banksia books are still packed up in boxes:
From Collins, Collins and George (2008), page 47, first paragraph of a section entitled "Fungi and lichens":
"Many kinds of fungi are associated with Banksias. There is even a genus of fungi named for their association with these plants—Banksiamyces. The first species of these was recognised in the 1880s and placed in the genus Tympanis, then in the 1950s transferred to the genus Encoelia. Further collections and research led to the description of the genus Banksiamyces by Beaton and Weste in 1982, with two further species. Six taxa are now recognised, so far known from 13 species of Banksia (Sommerville & May, 2006). Commonly known as banksia discs, they have all been found on eastern Australian Banksias and one is also known in Western Australia. They are discomycete fungi, growing on the fruit and appearing as small, shallow dark cups on the follicles (Fuhrer, 2005). When dry they fold inwards and look like narrow slits. Their effect is unk[n]own but it seems unlikely that they are responsible for degradation of the seeds."
At the bottom of the page there is a photo of Banksiamyces on B. lemanniana. They look like little light grey maggots on the follicles. Based on the photo and textual description, I would suggest that the B. violacea photo doesn't show this genus. Hesperian 11:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm, that's what I initially thought when I read the description and sketches in Beaton 1982, but after seeing B&B's 1872 sketches, I was pretty sure Cas's pic was a Banksiamyces. I guess I should reserve judgment until I get more info. Sasata (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- From the abstract of Somerville and May 2006: "Apothecia of these crops are of different macroscopic appearance, with lighter apothecia being mostly immature, and darker apothecia producing spores." ... so who knows? Sasata (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Anything else to add to this article? Shall we put it up for GAN? Sasata (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah put it up, there might be some bits and pieces. I'll take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Any Banksia experts you're chums with that might be able to give a confirmation on your putative Banksiamyces photo? Sasata (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- damn, I meant to contact Tom May about it (who has been helpful before). Will dig up his email and see what he says. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
More bedtime reading
[2]—the most recent phylogeny and dating of Proteaceae. Easy to miss with such an obscure title. Hesperian 12:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
You may want to have a look there as well. Appears to have been improved by a Szasz fan. I've read diagonally this article, but even that doesn't seem to support the light in which the Halpern-Szasz issue is presented in Wikipedia. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Just go back from a weekend break with no innernet..now where was I.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Figs
Okay, I'm giving my impression on F. maxima, since I'm not clear what you are actually asking. The description, I must say, is a particularly lacking part of the article under any evaluation criterion. Even as one who appreciates the topic, I'm finding the taxonomy section very confusing. As in Entoloma sinuatum, I'll gladly have a look into rewriting it if you want me to. The huge list of synonym suggest there is significant variation in the plant, possibly infraspecific taxa? I agree the Reproduction section is possibly too detailed. It can probably be reduced to a 2-paragraph primer and merged into "Ecology", though I have a hard time identifying what is species (or could be!) species-specific and what is not, as I have no familiarity with the plants in question (not to mention I am not an actual plant scientist even compared to you).
One of the greater-scale problem I see, which you might want to work on if you're going to take aim at several of these articles, is that information on the peculiar reproduction suystem in figs as a whole is spread across multiple articles (the genus article, Common fig and other species, syconium) and poorly focused, leaving no good article to aim {{main}}
links at. I suspect using syconium as he main article and linking to it from others (including Ficus) might be, in the long run, the best course of action. Circéus (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Don't worry about rewriting anything yet. I was looking at overall meta-article structure WRT reproduction, which you've given me a good idea to work with. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
You'll probably find this worth watching
[3] He's a pretty good speaker. I created a stub about the book, which is probably worth getting to DYK, although I'm not sure I have the time to expand it enough this weekend. Cheers, Tijfo098 (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting will look later when I can have the sound up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
FYI
All of the following species are worth 2x points; let me know if you'd be interested in collaborating in one or more for bonus points in a later round. Sasata (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Hahaha - thank heavens for European mushrooms :))) - yeah, I'd like to buff Clitocybe nuda (which was one of the yummiest mushrooms I've eaten), and we really should be improving the other mass-eaten edibles. Also I buffed the sickener for DYK so would be good to finish the job....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll move Clitocybe nuda and Russula emetica closer to the top of "the list". I agree the popular edibles would be good to do as well, but they're hard ... we'll see how free time & motivation plays out over the next few months. Sasata (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Constellation task force assessment
Certainly Assessment boxes like the one for the cardiology task force are made by User:WP 1.0 bot. Just post to talk there and it can make your box easily. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for that! I've not used bots in my time here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you have this book?
Shepherd CJ, Totterdell CJ. 1988. Mushrooms and Toadstools of Australia. Melbourne: Inkata Press. Would appreciate you checking something for me if you do. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I know the book but don't have it. This was written by Queensland authors so different view which is good. I can get it from library either today or thursday (next door to work on these days). Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
-
- I was hoping you'd be able to tell me what it says about Mycena chlorophanos for an article about a similar (bioluminescent) species M. chlorophos. Don't go out of your way to get it, there's no rush, and many other articles to work on in the meantime ... thanks! Sasata (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ah ok. Today was tricky for a number of reasons so was unable to get there. Thursday will be doable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Problem
GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) - User destroys the new infoboxes for the pharaoh, see as example at Khufu. There was a clear agreement within the Egypt´s project to use the new boxes. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sigh - that discussion is a wall of text, but I see the supportive tone. Need to revisit this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
-
- Thank you. At least some help. I reported the edit-warrior (who had already received blockings for his behavior), but I received only could shoulders by admnistrators. As if I could know where to beg for help and report such behavior elsewhere! The problem is that GOP knows about the project´s discussion but continues his actions... Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Aboriginal Astronomy
Hi Casliber - thanks for your note. Yes there's quite a bit more out there which Duane Hamacher and I are slowly trying to get written up. You can find some more stuff on www.emudreaming.com and you may find some papers you havent come across on http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rnorris/papers/papers.htm
Have fun! RayNorris (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Great! I'll have a look and if I find anything specific to nag you on...I will :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Casliber,
I wanted to know if you could reply to my comment on the talk page to merge the Behavior modification article into the Applied behavior analysis article, as ABA is the new term for Behavior mod.
See here: Talk:Applied behavior analysis#Merging_the_articles_Applied_behavior_analysis_and_Behavior_modification.
Thanks!
ATC . Talk 14:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- I replied to your comment and have two sources (that I showed you) which verify what I am saying. Thanks. ATC . Talk 22:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Resolved the issue. I found a journal explaining the controversy over the terms. See here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2223172/. It states as follows: "A New Science? [section] Perhaps there is a tendency to draw pejorative contrasts between PBS and ABA in order to bolster claims about the status of PBS as a new and distinct science or discipline (e.g., Bambara et al., 1994; E. Carr, 1997; E. Carr et al., 2002; Knoster et al., 2003; Sisson, 1992). There may be disagreement among PBS leaders on this point. On the one hand, for example, Horner (2000) stated that 'Positive behavior support is not a new approach. … [It is] the application of behavior analysis to the social problems created by such behaviors as self-injury' (p. 97). He further stated, 'There is no difference in theory or science between positive behavior support and behavior modification. These are the same approach with different names. If any difference exists, it is in the acceptance [by PBS] of much larger outcomes and the need to deliver the global technology that will deliver these outcomes' (p. 99). Other writers have referred to PBS as an 'extension' of applied behavior analysis (e.g., Turnbull et al., 2002, p. 377). ATC . Talk 22:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi did you ask? I still haven't got any feedback on on WP:MED, WP:Psychology, or WP:Education yet about merging the articles. Thanks. ATC . Talk 04:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I asked one psychologist who thought ABA was a form of BM - will ask some others to get a more global view. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Some books say that. I do not why. Ask about the Positive Behavior Support (PBS) thing as well. ATC . Talk 23:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Have you asked others yet? ATC . Talk 19:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Xmas/summer holidays mean there are tumbleweeds blowing through work at the moment (i.e. very quiet...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- I see...Actually I spoke to someone I know who has a Ph.D. in Behavior Analysis and Clinical Psychology. He is also an author and works with autistic children as well as people with sexual disorders and to help some people organize themselves in business (See here: Organizational behavior management (OBM)), and has spoken at various press conferences. He said anyone who still uses the term "behavior modification" is using "outdated termonoligy" and that no one has called ABA "behavior modification" in years if they kept up with the literature. In addition, he said Cognitive Behavior Therapy commonly used ABA in the old days which is why they use to call it "Cognitive-Behavior Modification". He said some forms of CBT still incorporate ABA which is known as Functional analytic psychotherapy and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. But it is primarily two different forms of Behavior therapy. ATC . Talk 08:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- ATC I don't doubt you and am appreciative of the steps you've taken to investigate. Thanks for the update. Still waiting for folks to get back to work....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply and enjoy the holidays! ATC . Talk 22:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hey don't mean to be a nudge but am wondering if you've gotten any updates. Take care. ATC . Talk 04:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- The senior psychologist on our ward thought it was only to do with specific therapy for autism, but she conceded she wasn't hugely familiar with the area. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Okay. I spoke to a psychology college professor about it and his wife is a behaviorist. He said, ABA, Behavior Mod., and PBS are all the same thing. And some people still use the word "behavior mod.", as I saw in some scientific journals (from about a year ago). Most of the time PBS, a form of ABA, is used in schools (SchoolWide Positive Behavior Intervention Support or SWPBIS) or for autism treatment (Early intensive behavioral intervention). Although they are all the same thing, ABA/PBS usually refer to education; although, technically speaking they are all the same thing. The Behavior Analyst Certification Board website only uses the terms "ABA" (including PBS) and "Experimental Analysis of Behavior" (for research studies), the two are subtypes of Behavior Analysis. If you search the website, they don't even use the word "behavior modification". The only other popular ABA sub terms - excluding education - are "Organizational Behavior Management" (OBM, to stay organized at a work site) and Clinical behavior analysis (CBA). *(Note this is just an update of what I learned, heard about, and discovered. I don't think most people understand it. In everyday conversation though, people using the term "ABA" are referring to the early intervention used for autism including "Discrete Trial Teaching" (DTT)) ATC . Talk 21:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
WP:MEDGA2013
I started WP:MEDGA2013 and I included what you said about delirium. I've clarified my intent at that page and I wondered if you intended to try to get the article up to GA status or not. Best! Biosthmors (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes I do. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Gene migration research, India --> Australia
This http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21569688-genetic-evidence-suggests-four-millennia-ago-group-adventurous-indians points to a gene study you may be interested in.... Likely people from the Indian sub-continent mixed with Australian aboriginies 4xxxx years ago. An maybe brought dingos. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Will read anon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Could use some work if you're interested. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- ok - will take a look soonish....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to the Tyop Contest!
Hi there! This is just a friendly reminder that the first ever Tyop Contest starts tomorrow at 0:00 UTC! The contest will be run from February 1 to March 1, 2014. Please note that there have been some changes to the scoring process to allow a system that involves almost no effort on your part submitting your typo corrections. This allows for moar time spent fixing typos,
less time submitting your fixes!
Your judges, Jeffrd10 and Newyorkadam
DYK for Dipodium variegatum
The DYK project (
nominate) 08:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Upsilon Orionis at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
WikiCup 2014 January newsletter
The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer Godot13 (submissions), whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:
Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.
Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Sydney Meetup on Monday evening
There's a Meetup in Sydney on Monday (tomorrow) evening from 5:30pm at the Paragon Hotel Circular Quay. We even have an international guest. See the meetup page for more details and to sign up. Sorry for the late notice - I hope you can make it. --99of9 (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Aargh - not hopeful but will see....extremely awkward timing.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, poorly advertised on my part, sorry. --99of9 (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Cas Liber, the issues you raised in your review of this DYK nomination appear to have been addressed. Can you stop by and take another look, or should I put out a call for a new reviewer? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Theta Tucanae
Hello! Your submission of Theta Tucanae at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Listing Typos
Hi there, you don't need to list typos :) I have a semi-automatic way to do that!! -Newyorkadam (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
P.S. Please add something like 'typo' or 'fix typo' or something else to your edit summaries when you correct typos, because I use a search tool that finds every time you wrote 'typo' (or something else) in your edit summary. Everything you've done so far counts, but in the future please add something to your edit summary, it makes my and the other judge's job easier :) Thanks!
Core contest - blog post?
Hi there. I wanted to drop you a line to thank you for being a part of the team working on the core contest this year. The contest is something that it would be excellent to publicise on the Wikimedia UK blog. Would you be interested in helping to put something together for publication there? Please do let me know. Thank you Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ok. Have a look at te top of the Wikipedia:The Core Contest page as you could cut and paste some info from there straightaway to get something concise and zippy. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Very helpful, I shall do that. Will drop you a note when something is published next week. Many thanks! Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Upsilon Orionis
Hello! Your submission of Upsilon Orionis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Please see new note on DYK nomination page. Yoninah (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Sir Ralph
After my most stimulating and comprehensive PR ever, I have Ralph Richardson up at FAC. If you have time and inclination to look in, it will be esteemed a favour. – Tim riley (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
DYK for Upsilon Orionis
Materialscientist (
talk) 10:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
You semiprotected the page, but to be honest, I don't think it's needed at the moment or at the time. If you look at the edit history, I warned the main newcomer editors at around 13.00 6 Feb, and blocked for 24 hours one IP editor who persisted, and a single BLP edit at 17.41, and the edit war pretty much totally died down around then, there were only constructive edits between then and now, a change of user conduct by all participants, given the previous editing.
It could flare up again and protection be needed, but right now I'm not sure that's the situation. Can you consider whether to let protection lapse unless the edit war resumes? Leave it to you. Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I think I'd rather everyone got accounts and was accountable. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of brightest stars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Agena (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) 08:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Your opinion on it would be appreciated. It's at AfD + ANI drama. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- By the way, if you know anything about, or are willing to research this, please create Donald Dutton, his most cited book has 752 citations in GS, so I think he qualified per WP:PROF. Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Overcoming/replacing the Duluth model seems to be his main line of research. Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Wow, never heard of all these before. Interesting....Woozle effect is a good name - funny as I was musing on this phenomenon about misrepresenting sources just as these recently but had not seen the name. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
GTG
Cas, I take it you meant to put a tick here but forgot? Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 04:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- yes indeed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Re: report about the Stub Contest
Re: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-01-29/WikiProject_report. I expect that you have already seen this report in the Signpost. I read it with interest. I would think that some of the comments in the "Quality or quantity?" section needs a serious response. As the organiser of the contest were you asked to contribute to the report? I personally am not aware of re-rating anything that did not need re-rating. Do you think that this report has a tenancy to belittle the Stub contest, including the judges and the competitors? What about publishing the judges view of the Stub contest in "Signpost" and explain the judging and what benefits the contest brought to the Wiki including the benefits of re-rating articles? I personally did not find the contest stressful and enjoyed finding novel ways of getting the tasks done more quickly. I think that the judges could have been more decisive about applying some of the basic rules when it came to doing the scoring after the end of the competition, and that I think that the judges could have had more of a presences when the competitors were discussing the scores amongst themselves, perhaps by actively asking for a consensus about the grey areas of the scoring. I now have some scripts (or tools) that I developed for the competition that I can develop further and put to a variety of uses. This is only a brief summary of my impression of the contest, so please let my know if you are puzzled by anything. Snowman (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- I had not seen that report before you alerted me to it (thankyou for doing that!). I do not think the article in and of itself is critical, and I was aware of Sven Manguard's criticism of how the stub contest evolved beforehand. I agree with the points you've made about rerating. Think that well over 99.9% of the rerating was perfectly valid and that it was/is helpful to define the scope of wikipedia article quality if we can review and rerate that many articles. I will reply there and at the Stub contest page soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- If I was writing about the Contest, I would have asked all the judges and at least one person that won a prize for their views, and attempted to write a balanced report. For me, the Contest prompted me to stumble upon and develop some "black-box" techniques that I almost certainly would not have discovered or been motivated to develop if it was not for the contest. The script that I wrote for writing the IUCN citations on bird species articles is about 10 times more complicated than anything I wrote for the Contest, but the contest opened up a new horizon. In partial explanation, I sometimes seem to write riddles about black-box scripts, probably because most people would not easily understand regexes, hash arrays, and so on. If you plan to quote any of my views about the contest, please let me see a preview, so that I can ensure that there have not been any misunderstandings. Snowman (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. Snowman you are welcome to post over there in the 'comments' section too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have read the article a few times and I see it in a better light now. I have made two comments over there. Snowman (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, I am not a fan of probably the most well known contest, the WikiCup, partly because I have noticed that some of the most highly praised and top-scoring GA articles last year explained some technical issues very poorly with multiple mistakes, which could have been ironed out by a proper peer review or by inquiries at relevant WikiProjects prior to GA rather then been found too late at FA. As a courtesy, I also think that the WikiCup should recognise some of the other people involved in creating GAs and FAs and not just the contestants in the WikiCup; however, most editors and reviewers are probably only motivated by contributing to the creation of decent articles or the organisation of the Wiki. I have made relevant comments on the WikiCup talk page. Having said that, I have a fascination for the WikiCup and tend to follow it. Snowman (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
-
- But the GA issue you mention is more of an issue with GA itself and the fact that it has a single reviewer - I doubt it was any worse for the wikicup than GA in general. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
spider
Out of curiosity, do you plan on working on individual spider species or Mygalomorphae? LittleJerry (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- I will be looking at books for mygalomorphs when I get a chance to go to the library. I can also re-borrow a book for the Sydney funnel-web from my hospital library but that is only for three weeks at a time and I want to clear some stuff so I can devote some time to focussing on it. Still not sure which I will do first but will keep you posted. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
AG Pegasi
Certainly a unique object. You definitely need to search out the most recent papers on this, because it no longer shows a WR spectrum and understanding of the system has improved dramatically in the last 20 years. It is now considered an extreme symbiotic system, aka slow nova. The WR phase is an expected spectral appearance for shrinking and heating degenerate objects, quite common in planetary nebula central stars. The AG Pegasi hot component is now treated as a white dwarf although an extremely hot one at this point, and the spectrum has gone beyond WR into hot sub-dwarf stage. The WR appearance (copious high ionisation emission) was due in large part to the expanding shock fronts rather than the star itself, although the distinction between an intense hot wind and an expanding nebular shock is a fine one. The Wolf Rayet page probably should say more about planetary nebulae central stars (there may be more of them than the big flashy WR stars), but I don't know a lot about them. Lithopsian (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes - cool aren't they? Will update and see what is best to put in spectral type....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Main Page appearance: Persoonia lanceolata
This is a note to let the main editors of Persoonia lanceolata know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 7, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 7, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:
Persoonia lanceolata, commonly known as lance-leaf geebung, is a shrub native to New South Wales in eastern Australia. It reaches 3 m (9.8 ft) in height and has smooth grey bark and bright green foliage. Its small yellow flowers grow on racemes and appear in the austral summer and autumn (January to April), followed by green fleshy fruit (known as drupes) which ripen the following spring (September to October). Within the genus Persoonia, Persoonia lanceolata belongs to the lanceolata group of 58 closely related species. It interbreeds with several other species found in its range. The species is usually found in dry sclerophyll forest on sandstone-based nutrient-deficient soil. It has adapted to a fire-prone environment; plants lost in bushfires can regenerate through a ground-stored seed bank. Seedlings mostly germinate within two years of fires. Several species of native bee of the genus Leioproctus pollinate the flowers. Swamp wallabies are a main consumer of its fruit, and the seeds are spread in wallaby scat. Its lifespan ranges from 25 to 60 years, though difficulties in propagation have seen low cultivation rates. (Full article...)
UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 13 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Musca
The article Musca you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Musca for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Spinning Around FA Nomination
Hi Casliber. I just wanted to notify that the issues you pointed out on the FA nomination page of "Spinning Around" have been addressed. Could you please take another look and comment whether you are satisfied with the changes? Thanks. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- ok - there soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
DYK for AG Pegasi
The DYK project (
nominate) 16:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
DYK for RZ Gruis
The DYK project (
nominate) 08:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Orange-bellied Parrot
Neophema99 (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Hi. I would like to open for discussion the format of the entry for 'Orange-bellied Parrot'. As news occurs in the recovery program for this species, the limitations of the current format of the Wikipedia entry become more obvious. The heading, 'Conservation Status' should, I believe, be reserved for the actual conservation status in Australia, and in the three states, SA, Tasmania and Victoria. What follows after that, but still under that heading, at present, is a running commentary of events since about 2010. This is not acceptable. I propose another heading be inserted, 'Recovery Program' or similar. In it, a short history of the OBP recovery program could be given - since 1980 or so - and then, new events could be smoothly inserted as they happen. What do others think? The Wikipedia entry is an important first port of call for many people interested in this bird. We owe it to them, and to history, to provide a better entry.
Neophema99 (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed.
Will take a look. sounds good - helps with seamless updating and no doubt there is a lot of info that could be added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
DYK for Theta Tucanae
Thanks for your contribution
Victuallers (
talk) 16:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Grus (constellation) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Stigmatella aurantiaca -- Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Australian birds
Thanks to an industrious Flickr photographer, the Wiki has its first images of the Southern Whiteface and Banded Whiteface. Is there anything about it these species that would make interesting DYKs? Snowman (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hmmm, will look into it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Southern Whiteface is difficult as I can't immediately see anything interesting. I will be looking for interesting facts for White-fronted Chat, Spotted Pardalote (might be a bit ambitious), Red-browed Pardalote, Australian Crake, Green-tailed Sunbird, Mrs. Gould's Sunbird, Striated Thornbill or Australasian Darter Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
DYK for RR Caeli
The DYK project (
nominate) 00:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
The article Grus (constellation) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Grus (constellation) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Stigmatella aurantiaca -- Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
DYK for Musca
The DYK project (
nominate) 08:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Main Page appearance: Aleeta curvicosta
This is a note to let the main editors of Aleeta curvicosta know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 10, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 10, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:
Aleeta curvicosta, commonly called the floury baker or floury miller, is a species of cicada native to the eastern coastline of Australia. Described in 1834 by Ernst Friedrich Germar, it is currently the only described species in the genus Aleeta. The floury baker's distinctive appearance and loud call make it popular with children. Both the common and genus name are derived from the white, flour-like filaments covering the adult body. Its body and eyes are generally brown with pale patterns. Its forewings have dark brown patches at the base of two of their apical cells. The female is larger than the male, and both grow larger in regions of higher rainfall. The male has a loud and complex call generated by the frequent buckling of ribbed tymbals and amplified by abdominal air sacs. The floury baker is solitary and occurs in low densities. Individuals emerge from the soil between November and February, and can be seen until May. They inhabit a variety of trees, with a preference for paperbark. The floury baker, which is a relatively poor flier, is preyed upon by cicada killer wasps and a wide variety of birds, and can succumb to a cicada-specific fungal disease. (Full article...)
UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
DYK for Magnolia x thompsoniana
—
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 08:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
DYK for Banded Whiteface
The DYK project (
nominate) 00:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Bacon peer review
Hi there Cas, I saw you're listed under the 'Everyday life' section of peer review volunteers. Would you mind taking a look at Bacon's peer review? Thanks bud :) -Newyorkadam (talk) 06:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
Might be of some interest to you. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)