User talk:Pethan

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


Hello Pethan, just a short and of course late ;-) welcome to the commons and thanx for your beautiful photos. Good work, go on in this way. :-) --:Bdk: 08:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oui, merci pour les superbes photos :) —FoeNyx 09:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


btw I just saw you uploaded some photo from Kulak where they claim : "The photographs cannot be used for commercial purposes." Have you some comment about that ? —FoeNyx 09:23, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is wrong, we're not using it for commercial purposes, are we? This site was mentioned on the Dutch Wikipedia as usable. Pethan 17:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Pethan op de nl wiki mag het opgeladen worden mits je die melding van die website erbij vermeld. Hier op commons mag je alleen zaken opladen die die echt totaal rechtenvrij zijn. Waerth 19:10, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK, I will upload it on the Dutch Wikipedia. It can be removed here Pethan 19:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lathyrus pratensis[edit]

Hallo Pethan! Ich hoffe, es macht dir nichts aus, wenn ich Deutsch schreibe. Es ist halt einfacher für mich. Du kannst aber aber ruhig auf Englisch antworten. (Eventuell auch auf Niederländisch - da versteh ich dann aber möglicherweise nicht alles.)
Bei deinem Argument in der Versionsgeschichte von Lathyrus pratensis (Please note: on nl:, en:, fr: Faboideae is NOT used. So the category Fabaceae is necessary) versteh ich nicht, was du damit meinst. Der Artikel ist doch von Category:Fabaceae aus genau so gut zugänglich, wenn er ausschließlich in Category:Faboideae steht. Da braucht man dann eben nur einen Schritt weiter in die Unterkategorie zu gehen und man hat auch diesen Artikel. Wenn alle Inhalte, die den Unterkategorien (Faboideae, Caesalpinioideae, Mimosoideae) zugeordnet sind, zugleich auch der übergeordneten Kategorie zugeordnet werden, dann kommt man dann bald einmal über die Grenze von 200 Artikeln/Subkategorien. Und das sollte nach Möglichkeit vermieden werden.
Meine ursprüngliche Absicht war ja eigentlich, möglichst lange ohne die Unterkategorie Category:Faboideae auszukommen, aber ein anderer User hat sie dann doch angelegt. Da es hier in Commons offenbar schwierig ist, etwas gelöscht zu bekommen, hab ich mich dann doch entschieden, die Unterkategorie zu verwenden und alle Art-Artikel in die Category:Faboideae verschoben. Ich sehe aber eigentlich keinen Grund, wieso man für ein paar Arten eine Ausnahme machen sollte und diese auch noch zusätzlich in Category:Fabaceae einordnen sollte. Grüße --Franz Xaver 23:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Pethan! You probably know Category:Plantae by family. It is unhandy to have a lot of families (Pandanaceae to Zygophyllaceae) on a second page. I think this should be avoided where possible.
I checked nl.wikipedia and fr.wikipedia. There is some difference between both. In the French wikipedia actually they use subfamilies in fr:Fabaceae but they do not use them e.g. in fr:Malvaceae, where they stick to families traditionally distinguished from Malvaceae, i.e. fr:Tiliaceae, fr:Sterculiaceae, fr:Bombacaceae. This last case is a divergence from the APG classification which I do not want to criticise. On the other hand, Nederlandse wikipedia in both cases uses familial classification of APG - see nl:Fabales and nl:Malvales. But in nl.wikipedia subfamilial taxa from APG classification are not used at all. (I saw there were subfamilies in an older version.) So in nl now there is no possibility to refer to traditionally used taxa like Caesalpiniaceae (now Caesalpinioideae), Mimosoideae (now Mimosoideae) or Tiliaceae (now Tilioideae and Grewioideae). Probably the solution met in nl.wikipedia is more confusing for a visitor, which is not aware of modern APG classification, than is fr.wikipedia or de.wikipedia respectively. Probably sometimes in future also nl.wikipedia will use subfamilies? Maybe your problem with subfamilies in Fabaceae is, that Caesalpinioideae anyway are paraphyletic? OK, I think we need not be more Catholic than the Pope. Also Angiosperm Phylogeny Website is still using some paraphyletic taxa, e.g. Caesalpinioideae. When finally the phylogeny of basal Fabaceae will have strong support, it probably will be necessary to cut Caesalpinioideae into pieces - five or more. At the moment this seems to be too early for me.
For a visitor who comes to Commons Category:Fabaceae probably it is self-explaining that all material is divided between subcategories/subfamilies and that genera traditionally placed in Fabaceae (sensu stricto) can be found in Category:Faboideae whereas traditional Mimosaceae and Caesalpiniaceae are placed in Category:Mimosoideae and Category:Caesalpinioideae respectively. So I think this is a rather obvious structure. Having addtionally all content of subcategories also in Category:Fabaceae, in my opinion only would lead to some confusion of this structure. Best wishes from Vienna. --Franz Xaver 10:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Your question concerning Subclassis is legitimate. In de.wikipedia we felt there is some deficit with APG: Hierarchies higher than Orders are missing at all. Following APG you even could not argue to use taxa like Magnoliophyta. We filled the gap by adopting subclassis and classis from "Strasburger" (Sitte P., Ziegler H., Ehrendorfer F., Bresinsky A., 1998, Strasburger - Lehrbuch der Botanik für Hochschulen. Begründet von E. Strasburger ..., 34. Auflage. - Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart, Jena, Lübeck, Ulm. 1007 S.) Ehrendorfer who is responsible for the taxonomy chapters has oriented his classification largly on APG I. His Rosidae, Asteridae, Commelinidae, and Magnoliidae are identical in their circumscription with Rosids, Asterids, Commelinids, and Magnoliids from APG I/II respectively. Others like Caryophyllidae or Ranunculidae have survived from older classificiations and are not in disagreement with the APG II phylogeny. So in my opinion it is justified to use higher hierarchies from Strasburger. Regrettably this classification (from a textbook in German language) generally is not well known outside German speaking countries. So it is not used in any other wikipedia. However, I think it is unsatisfying to use only informal entities to build up some classification levels between Orders and Classis. For example in nl:Tweezaadlobbigen it is not obvious that "Rosids" etc. are part of "Core eudicots". If one did not know this before, one could think that "Eudicots", "Core eudicots", "Rosids", or "Eurosids I" might be taxonomic entities at the same level and not the latter being part of the former. (In nl:Angiosperm Phylogeny Group there is some typographic differentiation, but this also is not very obvious. "Inhoud" could have been switched off.)
I could also discuss Magnoliopsida sensu lato vs. Magnoliopsida sensu stricto + Rosopsida. Anyway, Magnoliopsida are paraphyletic both in broad and in narrow sense, but Rosopsida (=eudicots) really are monophyletic. So in accordance with "Strasburger", I think it is preferable to restrict circumscription of Magnoliopsida to basal Dicots ("root groups" + Magnoliids). Also this is done only in de.wikipedia. However, I think this is the better solution. Best wishes --Franz Xaver 16:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Possible misidentification[edit]

Hi Pethan,

I have some doubts about the identity of your image Image:Geranium_sanguineum01.jpg because it reminds me more of Geranium palustre than of Geranium sanguineum. Have you got an additional image of this plant? Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC).

On the page Geranium sanguineum you will find three other images. Pethan
Thank you! These look like typical specimens of Geranium sanguineum. Are all of these photographs from the same place? I removed my note in the image talk anyway. May be you just took a photograph of a rather atypical Geranium sanguineum flower. Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC).


Congratulations Pethan! Your image Image:Solidago gigantea01.jpg was the Random Picture of the Day! Go to User:Presidentman/potd/4 January 2010 on Wikipedia to see what it looked like! - Presidentman (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Misidentification of File:Scabiosa columbaria11.jpg and possibly of File:Scabiosa_columbaria02.jpg[edit]

Hi Pethan,

I have the opinion that your image File:Scabiosa columbaria11.jpg shows a Knautia species, not Scabiosa columbaria. I believe that the marginal flowers have four (very long and thin) lobes as in Knautia, not five wide lobes as in Scabiosa columbaria (see e.g. File:Widderchen.jpg). In addition the marginal flowers are somewhat but not so obviously bigger than the rest of the flowers as in Scabiosa columbaria. The flower head in the background, which has lost all of the corollas already, also looks very much like Knautia and not like Scabiosa columbaria (see e.g. File:Scabiosa_columbaraia.jpg). I am not so sure about File:Scabiosa_columbaria02.jpg, though, but I recommend moving both of these images to Category:Unidentified Dipsacaceae. Best regards -- Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Because of the answer I got at en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/Archive46#ID_for_possibly_misidentified_images_requested I changed the ID of the two images as well as their category. -- Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 09:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)