Talk:Vittadinia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recent species list additions[edit]

I've reverted the recent changes ot his article because they are mostly unreferenced, and I have some concerns about the accuracy. For example, they list Vittadinia triloba as coming only from New Zealand, when it is also an Australian native. It lists Vittadinia chamissonis as a species, when it seems to be a synonym, ditto for Vittadinia remyi. I don't have the time right now to go through the edits with a fine tooth comb, but when 3 out of 3 changes that I did check are questionable, I think it worth being a bit cautious. The taxonomy of the Asters generally, and this tribe especially, is notoriously controversial, so we need to discuss this a bit more and make sure we have a consistent source for all these changes. Mark Marathon (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Everything was duly referenced at the head of the list. All the info came from reputable sources, i.e. Global Compositae Checklist and Atlas of Living Australia. There may be a few errors, but these can be fixed without negating the entire half hour I spent improving this page.Joseph Laferriere (talk) 10:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark Marathon: like Joseph Laferriere, I don't understand why you claim that the changes were "mostly unreferenced" when a full list of references was provided for the species list. Given the varying sources it would probably be better to reference some of the species individually, but the changes were not unreferenced, and the Global Compositae Checklist seems a good starting point for accepted names. You cite GRIN for names being synonyms. Did you look at the revision date? For Vittadinia chamissonis as a synonym the revision date is given as 1994. GRIN is notoriously out of date in many areas and is not a reliable source, particularly outside the US. Your reversion should be undone and then some individual species can be worked on a bit more. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have indeed seen errors in the GCC, so I double-check anything that looks suspicious. In the case of Vittadinia chamissonis, it was indeed on the GCC but I had to scrounge around search for some other reference to it. I did indeed find something. I forget just where, but I can retrace my steps if need be.Joseph Laferriere (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark Marathon:Peter coxheadI must also express my chagrin that I received a threatening letter accusing me of edit warring. I did one reversion, but you did two, so which one of us is violating policy?Joseph Laferriere (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of any reasoned explanation as to why the changes by User:Joseph Laferriere were not, overall, an improvement, I will restore them. We can then discuss whether any individual changes should be undone or further changes made. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I shall revisit the site and add a few more citations. I am, as always, open to suggestions.Joseph Laferriere (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I double-checked the three species Mark mentioned earlier. He is right about V. triloba. As for V. chamissonis and V. remyi, the same story for both. Tropicos does not list either one. GCC lists them as accepted, but gives no range information. IPNI lists both as native to "Ins. Sandvic." I tried googling "Sandvic" but according to Google, this is the name of a Swedish construction company. I figure they meant "Sandwich Islands," which is an old name for Hawaii. I finally found Asa Gray's original publication on the two species, confirming that they are indeed both described from Hawaiian material.Joseph Laferriere (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph Laferriere: The Smithsonian Flora of the Hawaiian Islands lists all Asa Gray's Vittadinia species as Tetramolopium, I think. See here. So I suspect that the genus is probably now not considered to occur in Hawaii. I propose to add these to the list of "former species":
Peter coxhead (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Peter coxheadThank you very kindly. Very good of you, old chap, to offer helpful and productive suggestions. Joseph Laferriere (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology[edit]

I always like to know the etymology of scientific names. Unfortunately Richard doesn't explain it at the source given by IPNI for the genus name (see [1]). Vittatus means "striped, particularly longitudinally" according to Stearn's Botanical Latin, so it could have something to do with stripes. Anyone have any information on this? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that Stearn is about as good as you are likely to get, unless you can find a reference to a "George Vittadine."Joseph Laferriere (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good hint! A Google search shows that "Vittadini" is a not uncommon Italian name, so probably the name is in honour of someone. Perhaps Carlo Vittadini – see here. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Dates check out. It might help to have some evidence that Richard knew Vittadini, perhaps went to school with him or married his sister or something.Joseph Laferriere (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discovered that the CRC World Dictionary of Plant Names believes that the genus was named after this person; see here. However, I'm always a bit suspicious of these identifications where the author of the scientific name doesn't explain. There's no obvious reason why Richard should have named a composite genus after an Italian mycologist – Umberto Quattrocchi (the author of the plant names book) may just have been speculating. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen people speculate on this sort of thing, and been dead wrong. So I would urge caution.Joseph Laferriere (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 0 external links on Vittadinia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vittadinia&oldid=1209709746"