User talk:JonRichfield

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, JonRichfield!

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Hello, JonRichfield!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:


2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Copal Madagascar.jpg[edit]

I have not identified the large insect(hymenoptera?), but I defer to you if you have a suggestion, at leastfor the family name. I will change the file name too. Thank you for your interest. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi ADS, I am no taxonomist, so the remarks I can make with confidence are very limited:
Nice objects!
Nice pic!
That "large" (how large in real life?) insect is in the Order Isoptera, not Hymenoptera; i.e. it is a termite and not an ant or wasp. The Isoptera label you can rely on.
It is a winged reproductive, whose line stopped in that copal bead anywhere between centuries and millions of years ago (I also know very little about copal beads). It is sharing the bead with half a brother, sister or potential mate, plus the shed wings of a few fellow-hopefuls (and of course tiny midges, wasps and so on). Given direct access to the bead together with a decent dissection microscope I could give you a family fairly easily, and a real Isopterist probably could give you a genus from a glance at the picture, but in my ignorance of the field I apologise, but I am a bit stuck, to put it conservatively. I cannot from the picture tell the wing venation, the number of tarsal segments, the presence of ocelli, and all that jazz.
However, If I had to guess at a family, then from the fact that I cannot make out any anal lobes or reticulation in the wings, I would guess at the family Termitidae. But don't use that as an actual label without a question mark unless you can find someone qualified to call me a liar! ;-) JonRichfield (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
For now I am correcting with Isoptera. And I will submit the matter to the responsible for of entomology at the Museum of Toulouse. He returned from a mission to Gabon and it is ... at the hospital. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Ouch! Poor chap. Hope he gets well enough to help you. Let me know if he bursts out laughing at my Termitidae idea.  ;-) All the best, JonRichfield (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
RESULTAT: Congratulation, this is not just a termite, but a king ... Like you. Meeting starts at I take pictures of the collection to the Museum of Toulouse in entomology, there are only 400,000 pieces here should not take me long. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh... Gentianaceae is out of fashion maybe?[edit]

Just asking, but you removed the category Gentianaceae from a few of my uploaded pics for Orphium and Chironia. And I think you inserted the tribe name Chironieae instead. I could understand inserting the tribe as a category, but then why remove the family? Personally if I had been doing a search I would have expected family names to be more heavily used than tribes. Not that I'd go to war on this point, but is there some sort of guideline I have missed? Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jon.
To help understand the problem, you should have given me the pictures link.
So let me try to give you the global picture:
  1. picture should be in their species category
  2. when the species is unknow, they should be in the category:Unidentified Xxxx when Xxx should be of the lower rank possible (genus if possible, then tribe, then familly)
  3. a picture/article/category can be in many categories except if these categories are included in each other => in taxonomy they can/should be in the lowest rank category
So in your case:
I hope I did give you reasonnable explaination.
Don't hesitate to give me pictures urls for more specific explainations.
Thank you for your beautiful pictures and best regards Liné1 (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Liné, Thanks for your patient and friendly response. I am sure that you have long known that in an endeavour with ramifications as complex as Wikipedia and Commons, it is difficult for the outsider to realise how many complications arise that dictate particular strategies. I had not thought for example, of the size of the family as a factor. (Of course, that would be a bigger problem with Gentianaceae or Euphorbiaceae than with say, Stangeriaceae!  ;-) ) I am afraid that I had not (do not?) understand the category structure; I had thought that a file could have a number of categories, so that anyone searching for a picture could look under several headings, which could be very helpful in various contexts. So, for example I have been entering known species under both family and genus and genus+species. For example in the file File:Crassula capensis Cape snowdrop 9815.jpg I have as categories: Aspalathus | Crassula capensis | Crassula | Crassulaceae.

Should I rather just have made the category Crassula capensis and put all the other categorical words in the description and summary to support searches? Thank you for your kind remarks on the pictures; I am embarrassed to insist that my lack of aesthetic, technical, and compositional skills and experience cause me both to miss many opportunities and spoil many more. As you might guess from the material present, I am from (and in) South Africa, where in spite of appalling impoverishment of the biome in the last century or two, there still are many wonderful things to find if one looks hard enough. I am no botanist, and I keep finding plants where I have no idea even of the family. (And at the rate taxonomy is advancing today, things get worse; I used to know a Sutera when I saw one; now I have no idea what a Sutera is!)

Al the best and I hope not to interrupt your long-term work too badly, JonRichfield (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jon.
About friendlyness, you perhaps know that discussions in forums or discussion pages have a tendency to frustrate participants. This because they fill difficulties in expressing themselves and convincing others. So they tend to fight very quickly.
That why I try to be over friendly from the beginning, to use smileys and sign with "cheers". That way, our conversation will be more productive ;-)
Give me 2 minutes and I will try to respond to your question.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
First of all, sadly, not many of our contributors are botanists (I am not one).
Also, we all begin contributing as beginners ;-)
Yes, you should try to create the species category. In this case Category:Crassula capensis already exists. But the difficulty, for us non-botanist, is to be sure that the species really exists: We could have miscopied the name, or the name we copied could be an old deprecated synonym.
Then as you said, you could provide many information in this category to help others find it:
  • interwiki, like [[en:hello]]
  • you could modify the english page to have a like to your commons one (will increase google hits to your category)
  • {{VN}} to provide at least the english name of the plant (will increase google hits to your category)
  • some links to famous website to prove the existance of this species. For that you could use one of the templates of Category:Biology external link templates (like {{ITIS}} or {{NCBI}}...)
To do all that I created a free software WikiBioReferences. You type the taxonName, click search => it returns wikisyntax to paste in the commons page. Try it.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Crab_Spider_(Thomisus)_on_Rosemary (three photos in series)[edit]

Hello John, thanks for contributing some really good photos of the white-coloured female crab spider. Here's just a suggestion that the description and name of your photo Crab_Spider_(Thomisus)_on_Rosemary_5634.jpg "Thomisidae female on rosemary" be changed to "on lavender" in order to correctly identify this flower. The plant is improperly named in several crab spider photos submitted to wikicommons (also: Crab Spider (Thomisus) on Rosemary 5637.jpg & Crab Spider (Thomisus) on Rosemary 5626.jpg). Cheers. meta4

Oh, Good Grieffff!!! Terribly sorry! Thanks a lot! Those plants were growing in a mixed hedge a long with a lot of rosemary, and my brain, for want of a better word, slipped a cog! I'll go back and edit the lot! Shheeeesh! Old age...JonRichfield (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Hemiptera Heteroptera Tingidae Lace bug 8672.jpg[edit]

català | čeština | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | Հայերեն | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | Nederlands | polski | português | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images and other files on Commons must be under a free license and should be useful to the Wikimedia projects. To allow others to use your files, some additional information must be given on the description page. Most importantly:
  • Describe what it is about in a short sentence. (What does the image show?)
  • State the author and the date of creation. If you made it yourself, say so explicitly. If it is from another Wikimedia user, link to the person's local user page. Best to use CommonsHelper.
  • If you did not create the file yourself, state the source you got it from.
  • Add a copyright tag - images without an appropriate license tag will be deleted.
  • Add the image to one or more gallery pages and/or appropriate categories, so it can be found by others. To find out where an image belongs, you can use CommonsSense.

If you copied the file from another wiki, please copy all information given there and say who uploaded it to that wiki. Use CommonsHelper.

It is recommended to use Template:Information to put that information on the description page. Have a look at Template talk:Information for details of the use of this template.

You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file.

Please add as much information as possible. If there is not sufficient information, the file may have to be deleted. For more information, follow the Commons:First steps guide. If you need help or have questions, please ask at the Help desk.

Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, please read the text above again and follow the links in it,if you still need help ask at the ? ->Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 18:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


In short: no. There's probably a million biological pictures on here - quite literally - and no systematic checking. Some people have certain domains - I keep a tight leash on anything to do with the Boston transit system and with railroads in Massachusetts and Rhode Island - butthat's relatively uncommon. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

In a word... <siiigh!> Oh well, maybe we will get round to that sort of thing someday. It would be one heeellll of a project though! Thanks again, JonRichfield (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for Unidentified Agamidae at Bassein fort rename[edit]

You're welcome, JonRichfield. Ralgis 15:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


The series of Cape reed warbler is in fact of Bradypterus baboecala. The latter likes the bulrush and the former the reeds. Maybe you could check if I have the right genera for the fungus gnat and robberfly (Mycetophila sp and Synolcus sp) that I've just uploaded. JMK (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

the Mycetophilidae photo is certainly the right family, and IMO only a specialist in the family could argue that it is not in the genus Mycetophila. That would be my guess too. But there are many genera in that family and half of them look like half the others, so I would be hesitant to narrow it down more closely than to the family level. But frankly, biological identification in WM is extremely vague, to put it kindly. I have personally boobed (and put through corrections!!!) half a dozen times, and have corrected literally dozens of names that were in the wrong family; one or two were even in the wrong sub-class!
Again, I am no taxonomist, least of all among the Diptera, and I have not lived near Pretoria for decades; Synolcus certainly looks very persuasive to me, the jizz and the mouthparts and abdomen. The colouring is right too, but "brown with a dark central stripe down the notum" fits a loooot of Asilidae!  ;-)
Now, as for that blasted little bird! Warblers, Cisticolas and the like were special creations just intended to drive Jon Richfield up the wall! I am sceptical about the relevance of the reeds/rushes thing, for several spp of Cyperaceae, Poaceae et al grow freely around those particular dams together with Typha, which we tend to keep fairly well under control. (Un?)fortunately both species of warbler are said to co-occur around the very same dams in our "estate" where I live; the location is smack in the range of both species of bird. Lately one little cock has been singing of an early morning from the same perch (on a Typha stem nogal!) and I was struck by such a small bird having such a throaty song. However, I last heard him about a week ago and I have a poor ear and anyway cannot be sure that the one I heard is the same as the one I photographed some months ago. I played recordings of the two species and I really can't be sure which suited my specimen better. I have now carefully checked the description in my copy of Roberts, and as far as I can tell, the colouration pretty consistently matches Acrocephalus gracilirostris. What I think I'll do is to check some of the pictures with local ornithologists and see whether more than one plumps for the same one. In a matter of this type Google pics are useless at best. I'll also go photographing warblers assiduously and see whether I can find definitive pictures of both spp. Meanwhile, if you feel really authoritative about it, you can change the title and move the pictures to the alternative WP article, but with the pictures being so inclusive as they stand, I'll not do anything to rash yet. If you would want a few more photos of the same bird, I could send you some, but you might first try clicking here: [1] Cheers for now, JonRichfield (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Oops! It seems to be a Cape reed warbler after all. Dark legs and pale bill, rather than the opposite way round for B. baboecala - the plumage, setting and posture tricked me completely. The pale plumage of this southern population of baboecala seems pretty close to the Acrocephalus, video here to show what I was imagining.[2]
Phew! I fully understand, the more so now that I have done a lot of homework that I should have done in advance! Of course, now that I am all fired up to get representative photos of both species, I walked past the same dam this morning and never even saw one of the little blighters! Oh well, that is routine in natural history, right?
Thanks so much for the insect comments, will add a few caveat notes to the descriptions. Have a stack of unidentified insect photos to upload, and will add them to Category:Biota of Gauteng which I created now, if I photographed them outside a conservation area. JMK (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
You are welcome for what that was worth. Feel welcome to rattle my cage if I can help with any. I had a quick look at some of your uploads and enjoyed them. What is your main line of interest, if any? Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 07:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Know least about reptiles and frogs so far, slowly learning about scorpions, working hard on plants, but only birds where I can avoid most id mistakes or correct them early. My eyes are open for them all. JMK (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good so far! You have some very nice photos. I notice that you have pics of Gymnosporia around Pretoria; The leaves and branches certainly look like Gymnosporia, but I don't believe the buxifolia bit. If you have a look at [3] near the bottom you can see a probable G. buxifolia. The leaves are about alike, but the thorns!!! There are about 100 spp. so I think one of us at least might be wrong here. Sorry I can't help you further than that with Gymnosporia though. In case you want to email me less tediously, you can find me at JonRichfield (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your e-mail. Was with the Dendro club when we saw the Gymnosporia, and will ask their opinion again. Uploaded some hemipterids about which I'm quite unsure, some scanned and consequently grainy. Any comments would be appreciated. JMK (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Fasciolopsis buski Giant intestinal fluke.JPG[edit]

Hello! I've corrected the file description. Please be carefull on indicating authors of old works. The caption in The practice of medicine declares that Tyson is not the author of the drawing. I'm not really sure that Tyson's borrowing makes this work {{PD-US}}. It's possibly should be considered as work published either in Germany by Braun – {{PD-old-80}}+{{PD-1923}} – or in Sweden by Odhner if Braun just made a precise copy of Odhner's drawing. In the last case it is not in public domain (!!!) since died in 1973 (less than 70 years ago). Mithril (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am not sure this makes a lot of sense to me; The earliest edition that I can trace of my source is 1903 (3rd ed). By what criterion do we decide whether Tyson borrowed-or-copied the material illegitimately? He said "after", which I normally understand to be a non-exact copy, or he should have said something like "courtesy" or the like. Tyson does not achieve modern precision in his citation, so I don't even know where he got his material from, nor who Odhner and Braun were; they were not unique bearers of their patronymics. The student of trematodes (not molluscs!) was Nils Johan Teodor Odhner, and HE died in 1928! More than 80 years ago. If HE was the artist, that makes it public domain right there. The only plausible Braun I can find is Heinrich Friedrich Wilhelm Braun, a surgeon who died in 1934. That is not compelling, but where do I find further material? That guy sounds rather young to be the source. Thanks for the update, but I am sceptical about the invalidity of the public domain status. Cheers. JonRichfield (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Oops.. You're right about Odhner, I was inannentive while checking him. However Maximilian Gustav Christian Carl Braun (1850–1930) was well known trematodogist who published a few works on Fasciolopsis buski, that's mentioned in Trematodes of animals and human by Skrjabin. I'll try to find Braun's and Odhner's original texts, but seems to me it's precise copy (at least of Braun's one). Thank you and good luck! Mithril (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Phew! That's OK then. Odhner & Braun seem to me to deserve pages in WP. I am not the appropriate person obviously, but if you do not intend establishing them, would you like me to create a pair of stubs? Hmmm... I have just done a bit of fossicking and have translated articles from the Swedish WP. The following are the results. I think they would do for stubs for two of the Odhners. Pls crit. Nils Johan Teodor Odhner was born on the 25th of February 1879 in Stockholm. He died on the 29th of October 1928. His father was Claes Theodor Odhner. Odhner was a Swedish zoologist and explorer in the arctic and Africa, prominent in particular for his work on trematodes and decapod crustaceans.

During his short life, Odhner had an influential and active career; he was associate professor of zoology at the University of Uppsala in 1905, professor of zoology at the University of Kristiania in 1914, professor and curator of invertebrates at the Natural History Museum in Stockholm in 1918 and director of the Stockholm Institute in 1922.

In 1900 Odhner participated in a zoological expedition to Svalbard and East Greenland and in 1901 he joined an expedition on the White Nile. He also conducted zoological research in Trieste and Naples. He contributed to the literature on the anatomy and systematics of the Trematoda and was elected as Member of the Academy of Sciences in 1925. He also was deputy secretary of the academy from 1923 to 1928.

Teodor Odhner was the father of Clas-Erik Odhner.

Next stub:

Clas-Erik T. Odhner, born May 7, 1921 in Stockholm, died in 1999, was a Swedish agronomist and research worker. He was the son of zoologist Nils Johan Teodor Odhner. He graduated in agronomy in 1947 and began his career in the Ministry of Agriculture during 1947-1949. He became research secretary in the Swedish Agricultural Organisation (LO) in 1950, and gained his licentiate in agronomy 1953. In 1966 he became head of the research department of the agricultural organisation.

He was one of the authors of the EFO model, a national economic model used to study the relationship between wages and inflation in Sweden in the 1960s and 1970s.

Then I followed up on Max Braun in German:

Maximilian Gustav Christian Carl Braun ("Max Braun"), born September 30, 1850 in Myslowitz (Upper Silesia), died 19 February 1930 in Königsberg, Prussia) was a German zoologist.

After attending high school in Brieg (Silesia) Brown served in 1870 to 1871 in the Franco-Prussian War. From 1871 to 1874 he studied science and medicine at Greifswald and Würzburg. In 1874, he worked towards a PhD in Würzburg. After a brief stint as an assistant at the Zoological Museum in Würzburg, he gained his PhD. In 1878 to 1880 he lectured in zoology, after which he joined the Institute of Comparative Anatomy of the Imperial University of Dorpat. In 1883 he was appointed professor of zoology at Dorpat. In 1885, he was elected a member of the Leopoldina Academy (Gelehrtenakademie Leopoldina). In 1886 Braun attained a full professorhip of zoology at the University of Rostock. In 1891, he became professor of zoology and comparative anatomy at the University of Königsberg, and Director of the Zoological Museum in Kaliningrad, where he was recognised for his exceptional contribution to the establishment of the zoo. In 1901 to 1902 he became Chancellor of the University of Königsberg, and in 1921 he became professor emeritus in Königsberg.

As a zoologist Braun is remembered primarily for his works on parasitology, some of which were translated into English.

Max Braun was married to Toni Leisterer in 1880. Her sons were the geographer Gustav Braun (1881-1940) and the professor of philosophy Otto Braun (1885-1922).

OK, Feel welcome to use them to start (or veto) articles, or return my serve and tell me to do it. Cheers, JonRichfield

PS: you can find at least one book presumably translated partly from Braun's work at: (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

*File:Satyrium carneum detail Ground orchid Rooikappie Near Ceres, Western Cape 0414.jpg[edit]

Hi John, I think this (and your other images there)is Satyrium erectum. If you look here, and compare ispot's images with S. carneum, the difference is obvious. However, I am not a botanist, but rather a beginner-enthusiast, so I may well be wrong. If you agree, perhaps you could create a page for Satyrium erectum and let "Orchi" know. Kind regards Andrew massyn (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. Many thanks. You have just dispelled a more than fifty-year misconception. I first was introduced to this species in the same location in my teens, and wrongly informed as to the name. It stuck and when I passed there recently and saw the plants I hopped out and captured them digitally. I have changed the categories (hurriedly! I'll check later). Do you have a recommended common name? I can't go on calling it rooitrewwa! Cheers, Jon JonRichfield (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
/i see on i-spot that the common name is "pienktrewwa", so close enough :) Regards Andrew massyn (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
OK. Wish me luck! JonRichfield (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Coordinates on files[edit]

Hi, JohnRichfield, curious as I am, trying to figure out the coordinates you added to some of your uploads (nice photos btw): {{Coord|33.777|N|23.087|W|display=title}} and guess what I get on the en:wikipedia?... Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions., or this.... Just wanted to let you inow. Face-smile.svg Lotje (talk) 06:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Midge on a mantis on a bee[edit]

I love your photo of the midge sucking green mantis blood (which I can't seem to link to internally without it being embedding full size and inline). I have to wonder -- was it one of those happy accidents where you were really taking a picture of the mantis and the bee, and then found the unexpected bonus when you went to edit the shot? Happens to me all the time with pictures of insects! Also, I'm sure you have plenty of your own preferred sources and destinations for nature info and photos, but I would like to put in a plug for It's an amazing community of amateurs and professionals coming from all sorts of directions, and making photographic (or sound-recording) observations of all sorts of life. It provides equal opportunities to dispense useful wisdom about other peoples' observations and to get info on your own. Seems like the kind of thing you might enjoy, if you haven't already! — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) 16:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry @Jdrum00: I missed replying to this entry and just bumped into it again.I have just joined INaturalist as you suggested, but have my hands full with some uploads just now, so I might be a while looking in seriously.

Yes, I did spot the opportunist bloodsucker after taking the shot; I am no photographer, but a biologist with a camera. I was specially pleased because I am greatly interested at the interactions where there is a kill scenes; they tend to be very multidimensional, with plenty of sex, violence, food and philosophy. But the bottom line is that with digital cameras one should always carry a camera and take lots and lots of shots, even of common spp because firstly, a surprising number of common spp hardly ever get recorded because no one bothers, and secondly you sometimes get a beautiful (or horrifying!)surprise. If you are interested in corresponding, I am at Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 08:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)