User talk:MerlinCharon

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

Melo broderipii[edit]

Hallo MerlinCharon! Could you please tell me upon which charcters is based your determination of Melo broderipii? I'm not quite shure, but I think it's rather Melo aethiopica. Greetings --Llez (talk) 11:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Llez, there is a common misunderstanding about M. aethiopica and M. broderipii; both look alike, but M. broderipii can grow to 35-36 cm, whereas M. aethiopica stays below 25 cm. If you have a shell that is 23 cm plus, you can be quite certain it is M. broderipii. see also and The shell I have on photo, is quite an odd one. Still I believe it is a well known species. I haven't come across such a shell in encyclopedia, the 25 years I have collected them. I am busy unpacking the hundreds of species I have. Terrible those packing materials...I am digging like a mole down here. By the way, do you use a macro objective for a greater field depth (sharpness on backside of the shell)? Is the 100mm lens recommended? Or just the AV modus on the camera? Love your photos. Just got a good camera at my disposal, the EOS1000, much better than the fujipix8000 that can only do large shells. Great fun. Still I am not used to discussion pages...where and how to reach others...MerlinCharon (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hallo MerlinCharon! Thank you for your message. In think, the size is not a good character in differentiating species.
1.) There are many species (both plants and animals) in which "giant forms" can occur. So, who says, that it's definitively not a "giant aethiopica"?
2) "If you have a shell that is 23 cm plus, you can be quite certain it is M. broderipii." And if you have a shell up to 23 cm, to which species belongs it? You must have additinonal characters for discerning.
According to literature, such a character exists, it is the apex. In Melo broderipii the apex is very high, it surmounts the top of the spines in a considerable way (See [1]), whereas in Melo aethiopica [2] it is about equal with the spines. If you compare it with the pages of, you cited above, you will see, that also here in Melo broderipii the apex is very high (with the exception of the last one, but there I'm not shure, if it is really broderipii - BTW no all specimens figured in the www are correctly determined!), and in Melo aethiopica it is not visible. This character enables you to differentiate between the two species despite the size. As I saw your picture, I had the impression, that the apex does not surmount the row of spines clearly, and so I supposed a giant aethiopica ad I asked you. But this is only the impression I got from the photo, one should verify it in the original, and that's why I asked you. I also saw, that you originally uploaded the picture as Melo aethiopica (was it labelled as aethiopica? - possibly the correct determination), and then you changed to broderipii. What was the reason? Only the size?
I made my photos with either a simple Lumix (Panasonic DMC-LZ1), which has an astonishing depth of field, or with a Canon EOS 500D, Objective 18 - 55 Zoom, and Macro lenses.
As you are not familiar with discussion pages: You must not repeat the questions in answering. Just go to the discussion page of the person you want to talk to, and add your text at the bottom /end (not top) of the page (I transferred your text on my page to the end). Greetings --Llez (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Guildfordia yoka 7a.jpg now QI[edit]

Just so you know. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Better categorization[edit]

Hello MerlinCharon, thank you for contributing Wikimedia Commons with excellent photos of shells of gastropods! For more better categorization "always place an image in the most specific categories, and not in the levels above those" per Commons:Categories. For example your photo of Conus planorbis is the best categorized in the Category:Conus planorbis only and so on. I have recategorized your photos this way. Also note, that there is a comma between authority and year (not between scientific name and authority). Have a nice day. I am looking for your other great photos. --Snek01 (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello MerlinCharon, it is always good to follow standards, such as International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. (By the way, readers know, that authority is written with first big letter.) For example writing scientific zoological names in italics will also help for readers, and so on. There are always many ways to improve image description, but when authority and year of the description is written, there is comma necessary. I would recommend add word "Locality" if you like, but you can use any other meaningful wording.

You can improve description if you like from this:

  • Livonia mammilla Sowerby, 1844, New South Wales Australia, in fish nets.

to for example adding a word "locality" like this:

  • Livonia mammilla Sowerby, 1844. Locality: New South Wales Australia, in fish nets.

What does brackets mean:

  • Latiaxis teramachii Kuroda, 1959 means, that this species has been described in 1959 in the genus Latiaxis.
  • Hirtomurex teramachii (Kuroda, 1959) means, that this species has been originally placed in different genus than Hirtomurex. Later it has been moved to genus Hirtomurex.

Feel free to ask me anything related to gastropods. If my simple English does not make sense, you can ask for example Invertzoo (I have asked her for help if needed already) on English Wikipedia or any other editor. Regards, --Snek01 (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for calm[edit]

MerlinCharon, your notes on Snek01's page could possibly be improved by a bit of mellowness. Please consider taking a softer, gentler approach to interacting with Snek01, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 15:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)