User talk:Orchi/archive 2016

Archive: ⇒ 2005 ⇒ 2006 ⇒ 2007 ⇒ 2008 ⇒ 2009 ⇒ 2010 ⇒ 2011 ⇒ 2012 ⇒ 2013 ⇒ 2014 ⇒ 2015

Orchid question

As you are well aware of, I have uploaded quite a lot of photos of orchids from the Gothenburg Botanical Garden. As you have helped me before when there have been mistakes with the naming I hope you can help me again. I have uploaded a few pictures of Cyrtochilum serratum. The plant was standing just next to Vitekorchis excavata (named as Oncidium excavatum). As the two plants were very similar and that the plant Cyrtochilum serratum is not as similar to the other pictures in that category. Do you think they have made a real mistake this time (not just misspelled or used obsolete synonyms)? I will ask the staff when I get there next time, but I don't know when that'll be so I hope you can give me a hint before that. Thanks in advance. --Averater (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

....your pictures of Cyrtochilum serratum seem to be Vitekorchis excavata also. Here you see photos of Cyrtochilum serratum, presents on a trusted source: [1]. Thanks for your great photos and best greetings. Orchi (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Subcategories (botanical illustrations)?

Dear Orchi,

i just wondered.. Is it effective to banish botanical professional artwork to a separate subcategory - as seems to be tradition here? If finished (not just studies), these images can show a plant with flowers, seeds butterflies etc. much better than a photograph ever can do (focus depth, not all characteristics shown, colour, etc.). This way, botanical artworks often are the best images extant of a species, so these should be shown in the main category. Sometimes coloured drawings even functioned as the type definition. By the way, we don't have subcategories "(botanical photographs)" ;-). Best regards, Hansmuller (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Hansmuller,

I think, the botanical drawings have a good home in "botanical illustrations" and find the scientific attention. By the way, I love the old hand-colored drawings and the books of the 18th century, (especially if the images are well edited ;-) ). Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello! I do appreciate that you keep order among the orchids here on commons. I just letting you know that I will go through all my uploads but it will take a few days. I am not as fast as you... --Averater (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

PS. I found something that you might be able to help me with. This file (not one of mine) is used both for Dendrobium triflorum and Dendrobium elongatum. I would like it so the Wikipedia pages for Dendrobium triflorum, Dendrobium elongatum and Epigeneium triflorum could be sorted out with correct interwiki links. Regards Averater (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Averater, first thanks again for your photos of orchids!!! You know, that I try to follow the taxonomy of KEW here (to avoid the total taxonomy chaos).

The genus Epigeneium is a synonym of Dendrobium now. [2]

Here you see he current status of species [3] and varietates [4] & [5]of Epigeneium triflorum. I try to arrange this species and these varieties new. (It will certainly not be the last state of science ;-) ). Greetings. Orchi (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. And I noticed that you have already sorted it out here on commons regarding that image. Just left to fix these Wikipedia pages on Epigeneium triflorum. Will do that tomorrow. --Averater (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

images to categories ...

Hallo Orchi,
ich wende mich an Dich, weil Du hier auf Commons offenbar im Bereich der Kategorisierung von Orchideen aktiv bist. Falls es eine Redaktion o.ä. gibt, an die ich mich wenden sollte, wäre ich für ein Link dankbar.
Zu meiner Frage: Vor ein paar Tagen habe ich bei der Internationalen Orchideen- und Tillandsienschau in den Blumengärten Hirschstetten in Wien fotografiert. Jetzt bereite ich die Bilder zum Upload vor und bin nicht sicher wo ich sie am besten einsortieren soll. Die Namen der Pflanzen habe ich von den Beschriftungen vor Ort übernommen. Da habe ich z.B. Dendrobium polysema. Die gibt es in der Liste Dendrobium species list#p als rotes Link. Eine Kategorie dafür möchte ich selbst eher nicht anlegen, weil ich nicht sicher bin, ob ich die Taxonomie korrekt hinbekomme. Wohin also mit den Bildern? Einfach nach Category:Dendrobium p?
Noch komplizierter ist es (für mich) mit solchen wie Paphiopedilum Lippewunder x Sorcerer's Stone oder Paphiopedilum Makuli x Tadao Takahashi x masterianum. Die finde ich in keiner Liste und keiner Kategorie - und auch nirgendwo sonst im Web. Ich würde sie in die Category:Unidentified Paphiopedilum stellen. Oder gibt es bessere Kategorien für noch genauer einzusortierende Bilder? lg, Tsui (talk) 18:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Tsui,

ich bin schon gespannt auf die Orchideenbilder, die Du bei der Ausstellung in Wien gemacht hast. Sehr hilfreich ist Deine Methode, die Pflanzenlabel der Pflanzen zu fotografieren (mache ich so) oder aufzuschreiben. Das ist sehr hilfreich. Wenngleich bei Ausstellungen und auch botanischen Gärten die Namen nicht immer korrekt sind.

Doch nun zu Deinen Fragen: Dendrobium polysema ist eine gültige Art, von der in Commons noch kein Bild vorhanden ist. Bei den Paphiopedilum - Namen handelt es sich um künstliche Kultivarpflanen, die hier in der Kategorie´: Category:Paphiopedilum cultivars hinterlegt sind.

Was hälst Du von dem Vorschlag, dass Du die Bilder in der Kategorie: Blumengärten Hirschstetten und in der Kategorie (sonst frei von Bildern): Category:Orchidaceae einstellst. Ich würde mich dann um eine mögligst genaue Sortierung nach aktueller Taxonomie bemühen? Grüße. Orchi (talk) 20:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Die Labels zu fotografieren habe ich mir bei div. Museumsbesuchen u.ä. angewöhnt, nicht zuletzt, weil wir bei Wikipedia - und Commons - ja möglichst genau sein wollen.

Deinen abschließenden Vorschlag greife ich gerne auf. Ich hatte ohnehin vor, die Bilder gesammelt in einer Kategorie wie Internationale Orchideen- und Tillandsienschau (Blumegärten Hirschstetten 2016) abzulegen. Um Dir oder auch anderen in dem Bereich Aktiven die Arbeit zu erleichtern hatte ich überlegt, wie ich sie selbst am besten kategorisieren könnte. Aber es ist wohl einfacher, sie in einer allgemeinen Überkategorie durchzusehen, als sie im Nachhinein zu suchen und ggf. neu zu kategorisieren.

Pflanzenfotografie ist zwar ein neues Metier für mich (Biologen, Botaniker und Pflanzenfreunde würden wahrscheinlich Details beachten, die mir garnicht auffallen), aber ich glaube, es sind ein paar ganz nette Bilder dabei. Das Auf- und Nachbearbeiten dauert noch ein wenig, d.h. die Fotos kommen voraussichtlich morgen oder übermorgen. Ich sage Dir dann hier Bescheid. lg, Tsui (talk) 20:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

....ich freue mich auf Deine Nachricht. Gruß. Orchi (talk) 20:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Orchi, die Bilder sind jetzt online, zu finden in der Category:Internationale Orchideen- und Tillandsienschau (Hirschstetten Wien 2016). Wie gesagt habe ich die Benennungen für Filenamen und Bildbeschreibungen von den Labels vor Ort übernommen. Hoffe die Züchter wussten was sie taten und wir müssen da nicht viell. noch etwas verschieben. Gattungs- und Artenkategorien habe ich bislang nur für die Nicht-Orchideen eingetragen. lg, Tsui (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Tsui, vielen Dank für Deine Bilder und Deine Nachricht. Ich habe die Orchideenbilder den entsprechenden Kategorien zugeordnet. Bei den weitaus meisten Bilder handelt es sich um gärtnerische Züchtungen. Die Naturformen habe ich entweder den vorhandenen Kategorien beigefügt oder neue Kategorien erstellt. Bei einem Bild File:Dendrobium christenbergianum - Internationale Orchideen- und Tillandsienschau Blumengärten Hirschstetten 2016.jpg bin ich mir noch nicht sicher, ob es sich um eine Naturform oder eine Hybride handelt. Der Name "Dendrobium christenbergianum" ist nicht existent. Es könnte ein Dendrobium cariniferum sein. Aber viele der über 1500 Demdrobium-Arten sind sich sehr ähnlich. Grüße. Orchi (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hypecoum: procumbens o imberbe

Hola Orchi, buenos dias. Existen dos categorias en Commons que, por lo que he podido averiguar, son sinónimas: Category:Hypecoum procumbens y Category:Hypecoum imberbe. Tu eres experto en botánica, por lo que te ruego lo compruebes. En caso afirmativo, una de las dos categorias sobra o deberia direccionarse a la otra. Dejo en tus manos la resolución del tema. Yo no sabria cómo hacerlo y temo causar un estropicio. Un cordial saludo.--Isidre blanc (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hola Isidre blanc, no puedo responder a su pregunta, por desgracia. Les pido un experto. Contesto, si recibo el mensaje. Saludos cordiales. Orchi (talk) 10:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Isidre blanc: Hola Isidre blanc,

El botánico Franz Xaver ha respondido a mí aquí a su pregunta: [6]

Resultados: más reciente fuentes dicen Hypecoum procumbens y Hypecoum imberbe son dos diferentes y válidas especies.

Las dos categorías deben permanecer en Commons.

Algunas fuentes: doi:10.1007/BF00936517, Flora Iberica, Euro+Med Plantbase

Saludos. Orchi (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Esta respuesta me ha creado en "simples español" con la ayuda de Google. ;-)

Gracias, Orchi. La ayuda de Google ha sido buena, pero la de Franz Xaver, excelente.--Isidre blanc (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Orchid

Hello, I heard you were some kind of orchid specialist :) I was wondering if you were able to identify this orchid found in the mist forest of Malaysia (Cameron Highlands). Someone suggest maybe some Coelogyne? Thanks! Triton (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Triton, thanks for your question. I have a little problem with your picture. I would like to say, this plant is Coelogyne flaccida; but this species is not native in Malaysia [7]. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank YOU for the answer! Could the website need an update?This was in a forest, I doubt it was imported there (but not totally impossible, it's a touristic area). I see more yellow on "mine" than on the pictures...simply related to the intra-species variation? Triton (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

....the color can vary; the lip is here the main characteristic for determining. I think in the "touristic area" was helping the nature by men ;-). My proposal: placing your picture as Coelogyne flaccida. Orchi (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Done! Thanks! Triton (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Botanical illustrations

OK, saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Kreutz

Dear colleque

On wiki I saw your pictures of Epipogium aphyllum taken in Luxemburg. I would like to get in contact with you to use your pictures in high res. For my book of thr Orchids of the Benelux. My emailaddress is c.kreutz@hccnet.nl

Thanks and best wishes. C. Kreutz — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.25.211.47 (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear C.A.J. Kreutz,

I contact you in the next days. Regards. Orchi (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Orchids from the Dolomites

Dear Orchi,

We are back from a 10-day vacation in the Dolomites. In the mountain pasture zone, I have met Dactylorhiza fuchsii, Gymnadenia conopsea, Gymnadenia rhellicani and Platanthera bifolia. In the dryer alpine zone, there were lots of Gymnadenia odoratissima and Gymnadenia rubra, some being obviously hybrids (Gymnadenia × heufleri). In this zone, I have also met Pseudorchis albida, Traunsteinera globosa and Dacylorhiza viridis.

I just have uploaded the pictures of the plants, which I have photographied. Could you have a look on them?
I am not sure that all plants, which I have identified as "Gymnadenia rubra" are correctly identified. Perhaps some are hybrids with other Gymnadenia species. See below:

• 
  Gymnadenia rubra?
• 
  Gymnadenia × chanousiana
• 
  Gymnadenia × chanousiana

Thanks in advance for your advice. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Réginald,

thanks for your fine pictures! Give me some time to identify your photos please. I think, I need help. Regards. Orchi (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Réginald, I think your identification is ok. Picture 03 G. rubra ok, but an ? also. Picture 04 and 05 Gymnadenia × chanousiana ok. Regards. Orchi (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Orchi, thanks for your expert advice. I have moved Gymnadenia rubra 03 & 04 to Gymnadenia × chanousiana.

Another request: I have identified these two other pictures as Gymnadenia × heufleri.

• 
  Gymnadenia rubra
  or
  Gymnadenia × heufleri?
• 
  Gymnadenia rubra
  or
  Gymnadenia × heufleri?

Am I wrong? Please advise.--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 08:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

.....some days ago I wrote: "I think, you are right" and forgot to save the message. Regards. Orchi (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your (late) advice! --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Tofieldia and Rhododendron

Dear Orchi,

I have in the meantime uploaded my fotos of the other plants, with, i.a., the beautiful Lilium bulbiferum and the endemic Paederota bonarota and Potentilla nitida.

I am not absolutely sure of my identification of two plants:

• Is this plant really a Rhododendron × intermedium (Rhododendron ciliatum × Rhododendron ferrugineum)?

• 
• 
• 
• 

• Is this odd Tofieldia really a Tofieldia pusilla subsp. austriaca?

• 
• 
• 

Can you please advise or let me know who could do it? Thanks, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 17:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Réginald,

My neighbor is very familiar with the flora of the Dolomites. We suppose, that the Rhododendron should be Rhododendron hirsutum (Rhododendron × intermedium with less hairs on the leaves).

Your Tofieldia pusilla subsp. austriaca should be a withered plant of Tofieldia calyculata.

These informations are not a sure identification, but an opinion. ;-)

The real expert is: User:Franz Xaver

Greetings. Orchi (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, the four photos are still within the range of variation of Rhododendron hirsutum. The Tofieldia photos are blurred in the essential parts. Anyway, they most likely show a form Tofieldia calyculata. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Orchi and Franz Xaver! I will correct it. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 19:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Code issues in User:Orchi/common.js

Hi Orchi, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

1. You edited User:Orchi/common.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
2. Though, that change appears to introduce 3 new jshint issues — the page's status is now having ERRORS. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
3. To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!

1. ISSUE: line 17 character 91: Script URL. - Evidence: mw.util.addPortletLink('p-tb', 'javascript:importScript("MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js");', 'Perform batch task', 't-AjaxQuickDeleteOnDemand');
2. ISSUE: line 124 character 3: Unbegun comment. - Evidence: **/
3. ISSUE: line 124 character 2: Expected an identifier and instead saw '*'. - Evidence: **/
4. ISSUE: line 124 character 3: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: **/

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 11:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC).

Code issues in User:Orchi/common.js

Hi Orchi, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

1. You edited User:Orchi/common.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
2. Though, that change appears to introduce 1 new esprima issue — the page's status is now having ERRORS. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
3. To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!

1. ERROR: Cannot parse line 124 column 2: Unexpected token *

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 11:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC).

Unidentified Campanula from the Dolomites

Hi Orchi,

Thank you again for your help in identifying the plants, which I had photographied in the Dolomites.

I have a Campanula, which I still cannot identify:

• 
  Unidentified Campanula from the Dolomites

Can you help me for identifying it? Many tanks in advance, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Réginald, I'm sorry that I can not help you. Unfortunately I have no literature of Campanula. I think, if anyone can help, it's Franz Xaver. Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Moving Scaevola images

I notice that you recently moved a lot of Scaevola images to the "Unidentified Scaevola" category. You have done this for numerous images where the image was perfectly identified to species or even subspecies level. That is bad form and rather insulting to the contributors who took the effort to photograph and identify the specimens. If you feel that the Scaevola category is becoming cluttered, then by all means create the appropriate species category for these images. But please don't dump them into the unidentified category when they are perfectly identified. Thank you. Mark Marathon (talk) 07:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

On looking at your recent contributions, I notice that you have done this in multiple categories. For example, File:Arachis hypogaea L. (3870805747).jpg is perfectly identified, with an authority, and external links, and the common name in about 20 different dialects. It would be literally impossible for an image to be any more identified. Yet you still chose to move it to an unidentified category. That is fairly rude. Can I please ask you to cease doing this? Additionally can I please ask that you reinstate any images that other contributors have made the effort to provide to the project, that you have hidden in the uncategorised dustbin? I have done this myself for your work in the Scaevola category, but I have not the time to do this for all your mistakes. Mark Marathon (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind message. Photos of plants and animals in the categories of family and genus are not yet properly sorted; but unsorted or unidentified species. I will re-sort the Category:Scaevola as I see it correctly. Feel free to change it.

By the way, you might want to use the uploaders e..g. by Flickr - pictures only the really required category. (not familia and genus and species.)

For me it seems better to sort by "Unidentified genus" than by "genus". Orchi (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Flora of Haut-Rhin

Hello, I do not understand why you remove the category, for exemple. Sub-category Category:Flower of Haut-Rhin would be better ? Gzen92 ^[discuter] 07:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Flora of ... should be a category of native plants of the mentioned region. (not every tropical cultivar on windowsill ;-) ) Cultivars in Haut-Rhin??? Orchi (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello both of you. Sorry to interfere but I have a related concern. I certainly understand Orchis standpoint and generally agree. However there might be a need for categories of cultivated specimens. Have any of you seen such categories here on commons? The categories in Category:Dionysia by country are in one instance of native specimens (the ones in Iran) and in the other (in Sweden) of cultivated specimens. Best regards Averater (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I understand, thank you. Gzen92 ^[discuter] 07:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Averater, I will answer you soon. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Sobralia sessilis

Hello Orchi. I hope you can help me. Sobralia sessilis is noted as a synonym to Sobralia decora in TPL. However at Category:Sobralia it is listed in both Kew gardens and Tropicos. I have noted that it is a bit complicated due to different authors (and I dont know which one for my photos). Do you believe it should have its own category or be redirected? Best regards Averater (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Averater,
just I wanted (I saw you again ;-) ) to answer your question above. I'm not a friend of to many cats and subcats. The most tropical plants are not photographed in the wild or can not be photographed in the wild.
Sobralia sessilis is now accepted (not of all). On my last visit in KEW Sobralia sessilis was a synonym. Unfortunately KEW does not say, when the taxonomy is changed by date. I think, I will change your and the other pictures in both categories. In the moment a many names of orchids are changed to synonyms or other genera. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Rotated 2 of your photos

Hi there. I just wanted to tell you why I requested rotations for 2 of your photos of Argiope bruennichi. This one https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Argiope_bruennichi_Orchi_8132.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Argiope_bruennichi_Orchi_8131.jpg These spiders normally hang head-down in their webs. In these photos, I can tell from where the legs attach to the web that this spider was facing down, so I requested that the photos be rotated to be correct. It looks much more natural and normal this way. --The Spider Chick (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

...all clear and thanks for your expert knowlegde ;-) Orchi (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Photo-phylles 2017

Hi Orchi,

I noticed many remarkable photos of botanics on your gallery.

The International Salon Photo-phylles should interest you ! Please have a look here : http://www.jjmilan.sitew.fr/#accueil.A

This is both a competition and a pedagogical exhibition. Each year the selected pictures are exhibited in various places for more than 3 months and they receive some 4 - 5,000 visitors, among them about 3,000 young people coming with their teachers.

The entry is completely free of charges. We would be honoured to receive some of your best pictures in Bordeaux.

Best regards, Jean-Jacques MILAN (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC), administrator of the french Wikibooks

....thanks for your info. Best regards. Orchi (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Grüße

Hallo Orchi, vielen Dank für deine netten Weihnachtsgrüße! Auch ich wünsche dir einen frohen Start ins neue Jahr und für 2017 beste Gesundheit und viel Freude. Herzliche Grüße von --Thiotrix (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)