User talk:Rkitko

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


Hello Rkitko,
I am really intrigued by your modification on Category:Donatiaceae:

  • You suppressed [[Category:No more recognized taxon]]<!-- for APGIII & APWebsite classification -->
    • I suppose you agree with the fact that APGIII & APWebsite don't recognize Donatiaceae (Remark: I did provide the links to page where the info can be verified)
    • I suppose you know that APG and APWebsite are wikicommons source
  • You suppressed the category Donatiaceae for Cronquist classification
    • It seems strange as you kept the Cronquist Taxonavigation
  • At the end you kept the APGII category Asterales with the "for Cronquist classification" comment
    • I suppose that this really is an error
  • You comment your modification with "expert on this taxon disagrees strongly with APG, note and category unnecessary"
    • I don't mind providing other classifications than APG & APWebsite. But could you provide in the category:
      • the experts names
      • a way to verify that assertion: I would prefer an url. That way, everyone will have access to the controversy.

I did corrections so that category contains both my informations and yours. Could you provide information on your expert?
Regards Liné1 (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Liné1. You're correct that APGIII doesn't recognize Donatiaceae. APGII, I believe, allowed for the optional recognition of the family. The expert I was referring to is en:Juliet Wege who is writing the treatment of the Stylidiaceae for the Flora of Australia series. She wrote the 2007 sections on Stylidiaceae and Donatiaceae in Heywood et al., 2007 - Flowering Plant Families of the World. I can't provide a link as Google Books doesn't have the full version, but you can find the book on and use the "Look inside" feature to find Donatiaceae. Wege writes, "Reuniting these 2 families as recently suggested would unnecessarily deprive Stylidiaceae of its defining synapomorphies."
I wondered about your categorization scheme. Is Category:No more recognized taxon only for taxa that APGIII doesn't recognize? If so, I would suggest renaming the category to include that point. Maybe something like Category:Unrecognized taxa (APG III)? Since this family is frequently recognized, having a category that just says "No more recognized taxon" seems a bit absurd and doesn't reflect the real truth. I updated the category from Campanulales to Asterales to reflect the current taxonomy. Readers looking for photos of these species in Donatiaceae may come searching here and know that Donatiaceae is considered to be in the Asterales. When they see Campanulales instead (unless they edit the page, they will not see the note that this category is meant for the Cronquist navigation), they may think we are outdated or daft. Since Cronquist is seen as so outdated, perhaps those categories should be changed to Category:Campanulales (Cronquist), but that's a bigger suggestion that would need more input. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
One further point, when you edited the Category:Donatiaceae page, you used a $ symbol to denote it differs from the APG III classification, but when you view the Category:Asterales page where this category sorts under that symbol, we find no description of what that is meant to indicate. I'm sure there's a better solution than using different symbols, like the different categories I suggested above. Perhaps that discussion can be taken to the Tree of Life project for more input? Rkitko (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
You are right about the category name. I still need to think about the name because if I use the name you propose, I will need another cat Category:Unrecognized taxa (APWebsite).
As for duplicating the categories to contain the classification name, it is also a good idea, I suggested a long time ago. But it is a hell of a work to implement + it would duplicate all botanic cat !?!
As for the cat comment, this time I disagree: There was only one taxonavigation for Cronquist + a note saying that APGIII and APWebsite don't recognize the category.
For the $ epithet, do you really want me to put a comment in Asterales to say that commons follows 2 classifications: Juliet Wege's classification + APGIII (a group of top expert botanist representing their university and Kew Garden) ?
Another thing: your expert has written her book in 2007, but the APGIII has been released in 2009. How can should disagree with a future classification ?
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there must be a better way to display the categories so that it's understood only some systems don't recognize the taxon. The APWebsite doesn't profess to be a classification system, so I'm not sure it would need its own categories.
When Donatiaceae is now recognized, it's placed in the Asterales. It seems silly to me to include just the outdated category. Category:Asterales doesn't need to be restricted to a single classification system, unless it's appended with a parenthetical that explains which system it is.
If you use the $ symbol, it seems that an explanation of why the category is sorted under it is necessary, else it leaves the viewer scratching their head wondering why it's sorted that way.
Wege's comment in that 2007 book (and the editors of the larger piece obviously agreed as they recognized the family) does not specifically refer to the APG III system, of course, but it argues for the recognition of the family. I really do think the APG made a mistake here by saying this: "Expansion of Stylidiaceae to include the monogeneric Donatiaceae is supported by morphology and geography." Geography, maybe, but not morphology (e.g. Wege's comment I quoted). Only one phylogenetic study, which didn't reach a very strong conclusion, suggested the inclusion of Donatia in Stylidiaceae. Two others, if I recall correctly, show that Donatiaceae is the sister taxon to all Stylidiaceae. In summary, it's not just Wege's classification, it's the combined opinion of Wege, Heywood et al. (editors of the 2007 book), and those who did the phylogenetic studies. Personally, I trust the expert on the specific taxa more than a group of impressively qualified botanists and taxonomists who have such a large task before them that they may have overlooked the phylogenetics and morphology arguments against inclusion of Donatia in Stylidiaceae. What's the solution here? Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Dipodium varigatum fruit.jpg[edit]

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Dipodium varigatum fruit.jpg|base=Image license}}

Steinsplitter (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep. As you identified, there was a bug when I uploaded this image. It prevented me from editing the file to add the summary and license. See my note requesting help with this at Commons:Upload_help#Revision.230_does_not_exist_error. I've provided the detail now that you have corrected the error by creating revision#0 for that file. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


I have undone your edits on Wikispecies with respect to Dipodium (oops). My sources show Dipodium punctatum (Sm.) R.Br., Prodr. Fl. Nov. Holl.: 331 (1810) as a synonym of Dipodium squamatum (G.Forst.) R.Br., Prodr. Fl. Nov. Holl.: 311 (1810) -see reference section. If you wish to make changes can you offer legitimate citations - I am not aware of any that suggest your changes? Thanks and regards. Andy.

The only source that says this is the Kew Checklist and it's clearly wrong. Every single Australian source uses the name Dipodium punctatum and they're correct -- that species is endemic to Australia. Dipodium squamatum is only known from New Caledonia and a few other islands. The Kew Checklist has been made aware of the mistake but they haven't corrected it yet. Rkitko (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I have just added a rider on Wikispecies also referring to Pridgeon et al - this is the preferred methodology on WS so I have been told! We await Kew but do not hold our breath! However, I guess it is worth noting that common is not the same as correct usage, but there is no way that I am going over to the herbarium to cross check the original holdings! All the best - Andy
I'm confused by Wikispecies' deference to Govaerts. This is the only place that interpretation of synonymy is presented. I'm working on this genus for my dissertation and the herbarium specimens are clearly different. All other literature disagrees with Govaerts on this. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, here's the publication where R.Br. was supposed to have generated the name Dipodium squamatum [1], but as you can see he never made the combination. I know back then proper mention of the basionym wasn't necessary, but he only noted Cymbidium squamatum (G.Forst.) Sw. and not the basionym Ophrys squamata G.Forst. At best, the combination was implied or suggestd, but never made by Brown. It wasn't until Sm. made the combination in 1819 that it was correctly done. Rkitko (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I use Kew (Govaerts and Plant List) as a pragmatic basic tool for WS. The former tends to be right far more than wrong and I have actually got them to change where it is obviously needed. However, where possible triangulation is needed, of course. I bow to your expert knowledge of Diplodium and will keep my hands off this attractive genus well just undo any edits that are inaccurate or that you not like! Just another point I was always taught that it is the first legitimate description that holds precedence not the first published account of the accepted name. Good luck with the PhD Andy (no account on Media, but you can use my WS talk page.

I have added Tank, D.C. & Donoghue, M.J. (2010) Phylogeny and Phylogenetic Nomenclature of the Campanulidae Based on an Expanded Sample of Genes and Taxa, Systematic Botany 35(2): 425-441. Available on line [2] to WS Stylidiaceae as it appears to strengthen the evidence for the inclusion of Donatia to this family. Andy Have you thought about contacting somebody like André Schuiteman (, Alec Pridgeon or Rafael Govaerts ( directly at Kew? If you are correct they should be happy to correct their databases. Govaerts has been quick to act in my experience. Just a thought given your experience and knowledge and you could even get a paper out of it! Also Kew is best trusted unless proven wrong otherwise every local group will go off in their own direction and international plant classification will become a mess. Andy

File:Cymbidium hookerianum labellum.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Cymbidium hookerianum labellum.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Túrelio (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Túrelio: Whoops. I didn't ever consider that someone would upload copyrighted material to Flickr and claim it as their own, then release it under a creative commons license. From my end, it looked legitimate. Ah well -- thanks for taking care of that. I'll find better images already uploaded to illustrate features of the en:labellum. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Rkitko,
wasn't your fault. It's like this: when we catch Flickr-accounts who offer not-own copyrighted material as their own, they enter our bad-list. This happened in this case. Only then I searched for further evidence whether this image might not be own work by the Flickr-user. --Túrelio (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)