User talk:Uleli

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

User:uleli/archive

File:Monte (Funchal) - Azalea (Rhododendron) IMG 2051.JPG[edit]

Hello Uleli, I thank you for ident. --Hedwig Storch (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome... I can, however, not define down to cultivar level Uleli (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Do not worry. After all, is something. Thanks again --Hedwig Storch (talk) 08:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Elymus repens or Elytrigia repens?[edit]

Hi Uleli,

According to the Wikispecies and Wikicommons Elymus repens and Elytrigia repens are the same/one species. But according to The Plant List, the two are two different species: Elymus repens (L.) Gould and Elytrigia repens Desv. I wonder who got it wrong? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Unfortunatey the Plant List is a mess and ca not be trusted. The administration of the Plant List is aware of the problem and are working on a solution.
Elymus repens and Elytrigia repens are the same species as both names are based on the same type and have the same basionym (Triticum repens L.).
I have updated the Wikispecies data and choosen to use Elytrigia repens as the present accepted name, as most sources I have looked in prefers to accept Elytrigia repens and only a few uses Elytrigia repens.
A good source for names of grass species (and many others) is The World Checklist. Uleli (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

OK, than. Thank you for your answer! Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 07:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

plant question[edit]

Hi Uleli,

Are this File:1 Plant sp. - Madeira 12.jpg Aloe ferox, this two File:1 Plant sp. - Madeira 6.jpg, File:1 Plant sp. - Madeira 7.jpg Aloe plicatilis, and File:1 Plant sp. - Madeira 8.jpg Yucca gigantea? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 07:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And this two too File:1 Plant sp. - Kew 118.jpg, File:1 Plant sp. - Kew 119.jpg are Yucca gigantea? DenesFeri (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And another question: according to The World Checklist of Selected Plant Families [1] the Oncidium flexuosum is a synonym of this two Cyrtochilum flexuosum [2] and Gomesa flexuosa [3]. I want to know which one is it. Do you know? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi!

  • The identification of the Aloe species seem correct.
  • The first Yucca agrees better with Yucca aloifolia 'Variegata'.
  • The second Yucca is probably Yucca filamentosa.
    • On the orchids.... the name Oncidium flexuosum has been used two times for different plants. It is unfortunate, but it happens that botanist use a name that has been used before. This was by far more common long back in history... long before databases and internet time. So.... Loddiges used the name first, in 1820, for a plant now classified as Gomesa flexuosa. Later Lindley used the name again in 1841, probably unaware that Loddiges already published the name. Lindleys plant is now called Cyrtochilum flexuosum.

Uleli (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you very much for your answers! Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Clematis aristata[edit]

HI you change the categories on some photographs I took to Clematis aristata accord to The Western Australian Herbarium this taxa is no longer current, the correct taxa is Clematis pubescens can you please explain on what basis you changed this? Gnangarra 11:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This name of this plant is problematic as there is little agreement among botanical sources. For exampel Flora of Australia Online makes it synonymous with C. aristata while Australian Plant Census (APC) accept it as a species, Clematis on the Web list it as Clematis gilbertiana etc. I choosed to follow T.W.Wang 2004 (A revision of Clematis sect . Aspidanthera s.l. Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica 42(2): 113.) as it is the most recent taxonomic treatment of the group. Wang accept it as Clematis aristata var. occidentalis. I have no problem to accept it as C. pubescens here if you think that is a better idea Uleli (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
      • they should be at C. pubescens, reason is that FloraBase the recognised authority on Western Australian flora describes it as that, as that was photographed in WA we have to follow the description most likely used if someone was looking for it. Gnangarra 06:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll move them. ¨¨¨¨

Oncidium problem[edit]

According to The World Checklist of Selected Plant Families not every Oncidium sp. in the Commons is really an Oncidium. This might cause problems to those who want to use Oncidium pictures in they articles. Same problem I had in the Oncidium flexuosum Hungaryan article, which now I renamed it Cyrtochilum flexuosum; thanks to you. DenesFeri (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Plants change name all the time of various reasons and there is no global list of which names are in current use. The view differ from botanist to botanist. Though, The World Checklist is one of the good sources and I belive Commons should follow it. Uleli (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Cultivar names, trade name vs others[edit]

Saw you undid some of my cultivar cat renames. There should be discussion. With Rosa cultivars there is a consensus of using trade names pro code names because the plants are more often recognised with trade names (being indeed the names used for trade) and also more memorable than the very similar code names. What is your reasoning behind preferring the codes, beyond that they are the "real" names? --Pitke (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a tricky subject. The cultivar names are global, fixed to certain plant and solid beyond the "trade games"... but sometimes not generally known. There can be several tradenames to one cultivar and also, the same tradename can be used for different cultivars, all in the purpose of selling. What to do? If choosing the tradenames here, what to do with that has different names in different countries? Should we choose a "standard country"?
However, if there is a consensus among roses, I belive Clematis should follow the same praxis for concistensy.... as long as we do note that the name is a tradename and not the cultivar name Uleli (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
{{Cultivar}} and other info could be used to define the cultivar name vs commercial names. In any case redirects from synonymous names should be made. --Pitke (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

File:2010 07 17150 5814 Beinan Township, Taiwan, Jhihben National Forest Recreation Area, Walking paths, Trees.JPG[edit]

Hi Uleli,
as a civil engineer I'm not very good in plants categorization. Can it be that I fluked correctly? --Lord Koxinga (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're asking about the Cycas, I can not tell what species that is in the image. There are about 95 different Cycas and I'm no expert on those, sorry. Uleli (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I've asked User:玄史生 to check the text on the plate, it's Cycas taitungensis --Lord Koxinga (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Pteridopsida[edit]

Hi,

I discovered today that The World Checklist of Selected Plant Families does not contain Pteridopsida species. How come a site like this, doesn't have them? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

WCL is a work in progress and it does not contain all plants. To my knowledge, there is no global list of these plants. But you can consult different floras and specialized sites as for example:
Uleli (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! DenesFeri (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Rosa 'Lions Rose'[edit]

Hello Uleli,
I'm looking for help to correctly identify this QI-candidate. As the botanical garden proclaimed it to be a rose cultivar (which I'm sure isn't correct), I suggested that it is a ranunculus cultivar based on the similarity to this picture. Though that seems to fit really well, I'd like to have that confirmed by somebody with more knowledge of plants before Poco a poco renames the picture... Can you help?
best regards, Anna reg (talk) 10:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a cultivar of Ranunculus asiaticus. To my knowledge few of them received cultivar names. Uleli (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Anna reg (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. Uleli (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Tulips miscellaneous group[edit]

Hello Uleli, please could you take a look at this discussion: [4]. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Danke[edit]

für die Bestimmung - aber bist Du Dir hier mit "purpurea" sicher? Irgendwie sieht der Fingerhut für mich "weiß" aus. Gruß, --4028mdk09 (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Danke - wieder etwas gelernt! --4028mdk09 (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Penstemon Rocky Mountain NP.jpg[edit]

Hallo Uleli. Ich nehme an, bei der Bestimmung bist du sicher, oder? Dann sollte auch die Beschreibung angepasst werden. --Leyo 21:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Es gibt keine andere Art mit dieser Farbe in der Gegend ~~
OK. Ich hatte drum mal angefragt (de:Wikipedia:Redaktion Biologie/Bestimmung/Archiv027#Unbestimmtes aus dem Rocky Mountain National Park), aber weiter als zur Gattung ging's nicht. --Leyo 23:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Ich werde versuchen, eine zweite Meinung von einem Penstemon Experten bekommen. Uleli (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Und, warst du schon erfolgreich? --Leyo 11:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Noch keine Antworten. Uleli (talk) 00:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Und nun, nochmals vier Monate später? --Leyo 14:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Blüte von Hylotelephium 'Herbstfreude' mit zwei Bienen IMG 9737c.jpg[edit]

Hey Uleli, Why you named the File Hylotelephium 'Herbstfreude' and not Hylotelephium telephium subsp. telephium or Hylotelephium spectabile? What's in your opinion the difference?

Greetings --Belladonna2 (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Your plant has no stamens. H. spectabile is similar but has stamens longer than the petals. H. telephium also has stamens, and much smaller inflorescenses than both the hybrid and H. spectabile. Compare:
Uleli (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Senecio erucifolius vs. Jacobaea erucifolia[edit]

Hi Uleli,

According to the The Global Compositae Checklist [5] Senecio erucifolius [6] and Jacobaea erucifolia [7] are two different plant species, with two different homeranges S. erucifolius [http://compositae.landcareresearch.co.nz/default.aspx? Page=NameDetails&TabNum=0&NameId=1903cc9a-7c43-490c-8d00-2eea044155bf] and J. erucifolia [8]. Could you tell me your opinion about this, please? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 09:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

  • There is no doubt that these two names represent the same plant. In the publication of Jacobaea erucifolia (L.) G.Gaertn. , B.Mey. & Scherb. there is a clear reference to Senecio erucifolius L. See , B.Mey. & Scherb., Oekon. Fl. Wetterau 3(1): 208. 1801, the refrence is onpage 209. Uleli (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for your answer! But this problem is already solved, look here: [9]. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Editor @ ar.wiki[edit]

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!Uleli (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Christmas and New Year[edit]

Hi,

I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! DenesFeri (talk) 11:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! DenesFeri (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Agave sp.[edit]

Hi Uleli,

Do you agree with the anonymous? File:Asparagales - Agave colorata 1.jpg Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Agave colorata and the name is accepted. Uleli (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks! DenesFeri (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Nymphaea lotus1XMATT.jpg[edit]

Hallo Uleli,
hab gerade gerade gesehen, dass du dieses Bild zurück als Nymphaea lotus kategorisiert hast (MPF hatte die Kategorie und die Beschreibung auf 'nicht N. lotus' geändert). Nachdem momentan Bildbeschreibung, Name und Kategorie nicht zusammenpassen, wollte ich dich fragen, ob du dir sicher bist oder nur in der Kategorie unidentifizierte Nymphaea aufgeräumen wolltest...
Liebe Grüße, Anna reg (talk) 11:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anna & Uleli - I got an automatic notification about this post - just to add, Uleli is correct, it is Nymphaea lotus. My old edit was just to move it out of the disambiguation category Category:Lotus (where it had been wrongly categorised); I put it in Category:Unidentified Nymphaea as I was not then familiar with how to tell N. lotus from other Nymphaea species. Hope this helps! (and I see there are some more images miscategorised in that disambing cat, off to deal with them now . . . ;-) MPF (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Great! I just saw that it was ambiguous and I don't know enough about plants to clear it up on my own... ;-> Anna reg (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
'Fraid I've just been having second thoughts - I discovered from the Flickr original that the photo was taken in Singapore Botanical Gardens. Can the closely related Asian species Nymphaea pubescens be excluded? (same problem applies to several other photos in Category:Nymphaea lotus, also photographed in Asia!) - MPF (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The asian origin point toward N. pubescens, not N. lotus. These species are sometimes united, but most floras keep the apart due to the geographical gap in the distribution. The asian N. pubescens has ovate leaves and densely pubecent (hairy) leaves beneath, while the, for most parts, african N. lotus has almost circular leaves which usually lack hairs or just a few. This being a cultivated plant can be either, hard to tell from a photo. Uleli (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Needless to say, the stem hairs are not visible (!!), but the leaves do appear to be somewhat ovate. Should it go back in Cat:Unidentified Nymphaea, or do you feel confident enough to move it across to N. pubescens? - MPF (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I have arranged a Category:Unidentified Nymphaea subg. Lotos for photos that could be either N. lotus or N. pubescens. Uleli (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Good idea! I'll move some into it (basically anything cultivated!) over the next day or two. Shows as ever the vastly greater value of known wild origin material ;-) GRIN adds a couple more species in this subgenus. - MPF (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Colchicum bornmuelleri 002.JPG[edit]

Dear Ueli,

I have reversed you change. As I wrote in a comment (below the summary) on 4 May 2010, it is obviously not a Colchicum bornmuelleri but another Colchicum sp., possibly a C. cilicicum (as indeed suggested in the summary: "Syrian Colchicum").

C. bornmuelleri has always a broad white throat as you can see e.g. on File:Colchicum bornmuelleri - flower3.jpg. If someone can confirm that it is actually a C. cilicicum, it should then be renamed accordingly.

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting. Uleli (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Eriophyes triradiatus[edit]

Hi Uleli,

If you have time and want to, than please create this category: Eriophyes triradiatus. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the accepted name for this species seems to be Stenacis triradiatus, so I created that name instead, with a redirect from the name Eriophyes triradiatus. Uleli (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you! but according to the enwiki the Eriophyes is the valid name. DenesFeri (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Look: [10] DenesFeri (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Please ask a zoologist about the correct and current name. A brief internet sulf indicate that the current status is Stenacis triradiatus, but I can't value these. I am into plants.
Uleli (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I will ask one; and thank you! DenesFeri (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

You had right. :) DenesFeri (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Please fix, don't remove[edit]

Rather than remove a mis-id'd "Close-ups" category please replace with a correct one. --Pitke (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Good point, I'll do so in the future. Uleli (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Rose cultivar identifications[edit]

Hello Uleli,
I noticed that you identified some rose cultivars during the last months and I'd like to know how you were able to do that...
I noticed Rosa 'Leggiero' (IMO quite a new cultivar to be found on a mountain in France - how do you know it wasn't e.g. Rosa 'Cocktail' or Rosa 'Bicolor'?) and Rosa 'Morgenrot' (which is perhaps an identifiable cultivar as it was found in a botanical garden)
Looking forward to your explanation (perhaps I can learn something... ;->), Anna reg (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  • The name can up with some rose enthusiastics and experienced gardeners and fitted well. But you are right, the identification is too vague and I have changed it back to only a suggestion. Thank you for pointing this out. It is however not 'Bicolor'. Uleli (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick answer (and the explanation in the file discussion page). Somehow the category identification without comment (the uploader wasn't even sure which flower was shown) and my surprise in learning that Leggioero is a Japanese cultivar introduced just a few years ago made me a bit uncertain if I could trust the identification (though generally you are one of the users I'd ask to identify something). All the best, Anna reg (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Primula 'Kelly'.jpg[edit]

Hello. Thanks for recategorising File:Primula 'Kelly'.jpg. Am I right in understanding that you're saying it's a Streptocarpus rather than a Primula? If so, I'll rename the file. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It is a Streptocarpus, probably a cultivar but I can not tell cultivar name (if even excisiting) Uleli (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC).
Thanks. :-) I've renamed the file and updated the description. The label on the plant at the flower show just said 'Kelly', which didn't provide much information. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Aha, but then we have a name Streptocarpus 'Franken Kelly'. I'll prepare a cathegory page for this one. Uleli (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Cool, thank you! Mike Peel (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Paeonia officinalis Anemoniflora Bot. Mag. 59. 3175. 1832.jpg[edit]

Hi, Uleli! I've found this file File:Paeonia officinalis Anemoniflora Bot. Mag. 59. 3175. 1832.jpg, which was uploaded by you in 2010. I don't know, which description is good: the name of the file (Paeonia officinalis 'Anemoniflora') or the description (Paeonia suffruticosa). I've found a webpage with this illustration [17], which has a description "Paeonia officinalis L. var. anemoniflora". Can you help me with this problem? Thanks in advance, --Sphenodon (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I have corrected the entry. I canät explain why P. suffruticosa appeared on the page. Uleli (talk) 05:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! --Sphenodon (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Musa problem[edit]

Hi Uleli,

Please look at this : Category talk:Musa uranoscopos. Can you fix it? regards. DenesFeri (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Done! Uleli (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! DenesFeri (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)