654:, then just search for "tristis bird" either in Google or Knowledge. Since a dab page of this kind cannot be guaranteed to be complete, it is (mildly) harmful in that it could mislead a searcher into stopping a search when they should have continued. I'm in favour of its being deleted. Also, when there are major articles which badly need editing, why waste editors' time on creating pages and pages of disambiguation of species epithets?
711:
species to keep up with the latest research, that editor would need to remember to edit the epithet list as well. It's not a question of demeaning an editor's contribution, but if an editor creates an article which then requires other editors to keep updating it, I think this is an issue which I'm entitled to comment on. If the process can be automated in some way (as per the discussion below), that's a different matter.
623:"... which, like vulgaris, is apparently similarly disambiguated LOL. If it is decided that it be kept though, I would just suggest that a disclaimer 'this list may be incomplete bla bla bla' be placed prominently just before listing all the possible binomina with the specific epithet. Still don't like it, though I would make an exception where it has clearly been used enough in lay speech (which is not the case here) --
684:
away at any time, no questions asked. Volunteers are entirely free to choose what subject matter they work on, and no other editor has the right to demean other editors' contributions by suggesting that they're not tackling high-enough priority tasks. That just risks putting off potentially valuable editors, and making us look like a standoffish bureaucratic elite. Don't do it, please.
77:
49:
21:
761:
749:
867:
The very same thought occurred to me, while I was away from my PC doing real life stuff. I need to refresh my memory on guidelines around lists, but I'm pretty sure there are some criteria we'll fall foul of if we try to make this a list. It feels like this is a third category of page. If this were a
669:
Several years ago, we noted these epithet disambiguations were being created (yes, they've been around for a few years. Have you used them? I haven't!). The resulting motion was to allow whoever was making them to continue creating them, since they aren't really hurting anything. I'm not certain they
340:
was being referred to, and was too embarrassed to ask, would this disambiguation page help me to work it out after we'd parted company? To give another example, suppose someone emails me a PDF scan of a page from a book about moths, but it's not the page where the full scientific name is given, so it
117:
I've created this page as something of an experiment. I've not seen a disambiguation page of this kind before and wondered if other editors felt it was at all useful? I'm anticipating a range of opinions from "Wow! Why had no-one ever thought of this before" to "Yuk! That's horrible". If the majority
1340:
is not exclusive to scientific nomenclature, which might be confusing in some instances. Maybe a soft redirect to
Wiktionary might be better, although we are dealing with a large number of words here (technically the entire Modern Latin/Latinized Greek vocabulary, since the only qualification is the
241:
Calling a species "Tristis" is like calling New York City just "New" or like calling Los
Angeles, "Los". It doesn't make sense as an isolated word, it is intrinsically part of a name. A lesser but related point is that "tristis" would never be capitalized as "Tristis" even if somehow it found itself
1051:
Such well-intentioned lists, even if they may be pleasing to the eye, are completely useless and impossible to maintain with the right scientific names for all the species. As mentioned above another 150-200 botanical names could be added. I could add 49 names of sea snails (there only two in the
1035:
you should get all fish with a word "tristis" included. This is true only for those articles, that already exist on wikipedia. I do not consider this list useful as it is. This list could be either automatically generated from already existed data. Or - more likely - we can get results of this list
710:
them. So by wasting editors' time I mean the following, and only the following. Lists of things that change need to be constantly maintained or they lose their value. Suppose there were a list for every species epithet. Then whenever any editor created a new species article or changed the name of a
1435:
I'd prefer deletion of epithets, with redirecting to
Wiktionary as the next best option. Redirecting to the list of Latin and Greek words is my least preferred option. I worry that not deleting epithets could lead to the creations of thousands of redirects (how "commonly used" are we talking about
683:
Peter, there are very very few arguments that should never ever be used in a content discussion on
Knowledge, but "when there are major articles which badly need editing, why waste editors' time on creating X" is one of them. Knowledge relies on volunteer input, and volunteers can take their input
981:
species epithets would be useful. Indexes are much less useful, if useful at all, in electronically searchable sources. The fact that indexes can be automatically generated surely just shows that the information can be found by searching. (Though it would be nice to be able to limit a search to
944:
Thereby saving editors the initial work of identitying the taxa to include on these pages? If so, that sounds like a great idea. If I've misunderstood and you were actually saying that this makes the idea of these pages redundant, could you post some brief thoughts on how users might do this?
812:
I would say that I am rather luke-warm on this idea. Mild oppose, but I am open to convincing. Wouldn't what you are trying to achieve be done just as well by searching for 'tristis' in
Knowledge anyway? Without this page all of the species you have listed here would be returned by a search?
268:
There are some "dab" pages of the form "G. epithet" surviving, but they weren't exactly greeted with open arms. People do use epithets in isolation in conversation where the context is clear, and at least one instance escaped into usage as a vernacular name (japonica for
Japanese quince,
222:
Hello SP-KP, I saw your note on the gastropods page. While I admire your enthusiasm and the amount of work you put into this disambig page, I strongly disagree with the principle of making disambiguation pages for specific epithets or including specific epithets on disambig
976:
No-one has answered my question which was: what does a page mapping species epithets to genera provide to a user of
Knowledge that searching can't provide more effectively? Indexes are essential in paper sources; if Knowledge were a paper encyclopedia, then an index of
298:
situations where specific epithets are used without their genus, where it will be obvious which taxon is being referred to. If I was approached by someone with binoculars on a coastal headland in
Britain on an autumn day and was told that s/he had just seen a
959:
I'm not expert on wiki programming, but on first sight it seems that a first stab could be achieved by modifying the taxobox script to incorporate category specifications. But the question as to what purpose an index would serve still needs answering.
164:
I also don't think it's very practical to disambiguate specific names unless they are actually used widely to refer to the organism. If we did, we'd probably get thousands of articles listed under dab pages of more common specific names like
118:
opinion is something like the latter, I'll just delete it. Alternatively, if it's generally quite well-liked, it could be used as a template for other specific epithets (but good luck to whoever decides to do "vulgaris"!)
731:
I'm not sure this is very useful, but it's vaguely interesting and deleting it would just be a waste of time. If SP-KP is willing to do the work, and it's not actively harming anything, then I say just let it stay.
1304:
I'm neutral on this. I would be happier if (a) the article were properly referenced – as it is now it should be tagged all over to say reference needed (b) the redirect went to the particular term not generally.
415:... etc. You get the drift. Due to full binomial names being cumbersome, a compromise is made by turning the genus name into an initial, but even this does little to help the less specialized the field gets.
1282:
1452:(I know there are some redirects for eponymous epithets that already target scientists, but can't find any examples at the moment). Maybe there should be a redirect category template for these;
837:
Reading this article (which is a nice compilation, whatever its other merits) it feels like a list. So while I don't think it's really a dab page, would it be worthwhile to turn it into a list?
901:
Some people might make that argument, but given that the specific epithet has a meaning, that would be a weaker argument than "words beginning with V" or "baseball players with glasses". It is
474:). The addition of a single letter can narrow down the search enough as to make it less insane. Even then I don't really know... Creating a dab page for a relatively rare specific name like
1036:
when we will improve searching (or when we will use searching more effectively). For example can we search only in articles that have taxoboxes? (As also suggested Peter coxhead above.) --
493:
Also again related to
Lavateraguy's comment, out here in the Philippines, we have at least two instances of generic and specific names that have entered into common vocabulary. They are
1200:
318:
How do you know that the chap with binoculars is not a field botanist rather than an ornithologist? I use binoculars, for example, to identify ferns growing on the other side of canals.
59:
1110:
and not items that should be listed for disambiguation. It would be like having a list for "Japanese" that listed everything that could be preceded by the adjective "Japanese". --
362:
In instances like that, it obviously heavily depends on context and, imo, can not be used in any practical encyclopedic manner. Related to
Lavateraguy's comment above: if a group of
275:, but "dab" pages could only be justified under extreme inclusionism. However they would be a pain to maintain - vulgar/e/is occurs in over 1000 names, and alb/a/um/us is commoner.
226:
Specific epithets such as "tristis" are never used by themselves as a single word in biology. They are always used as part of a binomial name, like this one for the human species:
294:
in a scientific paper without context. Remember though that scientific papers are just one type of publication; and publications are just one way of communicating. There
1214:: recreate as a redirect; which was accepted. It was suggested that I ping all contributors to the deletion discussion, in case they might wish to comment; so, pinging
1441:
468:
one is, but that might be the sort of thing you are looking for (a collection of such dab pages are then collected into a dab page for the specific epithet here:
1028:
1024:
1052:
list), half of which have already become synonyms. In my opinion, such a list can be speedy deleted under G6 as an unnecessary disambiguation page (see :
385:
If it were a group of marine biologists discussing something over lunch, it becomes far more confusing. They could be referring to the breadcrumb sponge,
345:". Would this disambiguation page help me to narrow down the possible candidates? These are the sorts of situation I had in mind when I created the page.
484:
dab page seems useful enough, but only because it was split off into several smaller dab pages. There's still that nagging feeling like you missed one.
1074:- As a list, this would be no more viable than as a disambiguation page. There's the real possibility that an organism with the masc./fem. epithet
245:
You may also want to ask User:JoJan about this. He is an admin and has deleted disambiguation pages that were lists of specific epithets previously.
31:
1129:
Do we have a consensus here yet on delete or leave or rework? Maybe I am prejudiced but it seems that the WP guidelines would support a delete.
1106:. There are so many potential variations on this theme, that even a "complete" list (unlikely to have) would not be helpful. All of these are
1053:
1027:. We should try to follow these guideline and we should try to follow the spirit of these guidelines. For example I think that the section
151:
Ugh, don't like this. None of these things are known specifically as "Tristis", so this is not a disambiguation page at all. This violates
1415:
over etymology will be aware that explaining the meaning of scientific names is not uncontroversial, so it definitely needs sourcing.
1004:
532:
While it's rare for an epithet to enter the vernacular vocabulary, it's not uncommon for a generic name to do so - e.g. geranium (for
1012:
478:
might seem like a breeze, but imagine it might be biting more than you can chew when it comes to other specific names. But yeah, the
102:
303:, I'd know to be looking out for a small brown warbler making a sad-sounding 'peep' noise (rather than a sad-looking snail, say).
1411:
should really list Wiktionary, Wikispecies, etc. as well as other language wikipedias.) Anyone who has followed discussions with
1016:
1481:
819:
790:
I'm with Bob on this one. I can't see any harm in having this sort of article, and it is "vaguely interesting". Now I know
1286:
1031:
is also relevant. / Results of this list can be easily get via searching, for example when you will search "tristis fish"
1498:
Well if it did, every entry would need to be sourced; there are other people called "Darwin", including Erasmus Darwin.
1144:
There's probably a majority in favour of delete; not sure that there's a consensus even though I'm in favour of delete.
1082:, which wouldn't be listed on the page at all, since it's spelled differently. The same could be said of epithets like
1456:
799:
137:
a page like this as a navigation aid, instead of for browsing, but then contents aren't determined by usefulness. --
814:
336:
Sorry, what I should have said was "approached by a birdwatcher". My point, though, was - if I didn't know which
55:
27:
1020:
1008:
775:
Very interesting. So my idea was far from new after all. Sounds like we need a centralised discussion on this.
1503:
1420:
1358:
1310:
1211:
1149:
987:
765:
716:
671:
659:
458:). You might be interested to know that such cases seem to be indeed disambiguated (latter example is here:
387:
1115:
795:
442:
602:
For japonica, I would think that the word is clearly used as a common name for at least the camellia and
430:
393:
1489:
1394:
1294:
965:
935:
887:), somewhat like "Words that begin with V" or "Baseball players who wear glasses" but for zoologists. --
553:
436:
326:
280:
411:
405:
1003:
We have tools for similar thing on Knowledge: we can search all pages that start with the same prefix
271:
48:
20:
1467:
1324:
1257:
1245:
1162:
I think Peter sums it up accurately; a slight majority favour delete, but there's not a consensus.
1134:
920:
908:
842:
448:
253:
156:
83:
1033:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ASearch&search=tristis+fish&fulltext=Search
290:
Thanks for the responses; some helpful points made. I agree that you'd never come across the term
1499:
1416:
1343:
1337:
1306:
1249:
1221:
1207:
1145:
983:
712:
655:
626:
607:
588:
573:
518:
399:
208:
242:
at the beginning of a sentence; instead you would have to say: "The specific epithet "tristis"".
1403:
Just to note that bringing Wiktionary into it doesn't answer my point about referencing, since
1404:
1265:
1229:
1111:
857:
737:
454:
372:
87:
1485:
1390:
1374:
I'm okay with redirecting it to the target link or retargetting it their wiktionary entry --
1290:
1185:
1041:
961:
931:
892:
549:
322:
276:
142:
1167:
1061:
950:
912:
873:
780:
689:
350:
308:
123:
91:
238:(but the latter only if the full name has been spelled out previously in the same paper.)
1444:, but currently goes to the "commonly used" list (where it is defined). If not deleted,
1463:
1449:
1408:
1320:
1269:
1253:
1233:
1217:
1130:
916:
838:
702:
Ok, so I didn't word my comment as carefully as I should have. The problem is not with
505:
249:
1375:
1241:
1177:
930:
If you want an "index of taxa" such could be automatically generated from taxoboxes.
884:
617:
Not for non-tea drinking countries. :P Though yeah similar thing when talking about "
569:
152:
1274:
I suggest that any debate should take place here, as an essentially new discussion.
1206:
After closure of that discussion as delete, I made a proposal to the closing admin,
1437:
1261:
883:
It would probably be considered an indiscriminate collection of information (under
853:
733:
428:
he could be referring to five very different things - 3 flies of different genera (
228:
95:
1412:
1181:
1037:
888:
460:
138:
1163:
1057:
946:
869:
776:
685:
346:
304:
234:
133:
It's an interesting format. I'm not sure about usefulness. I can't see myself
119:
1237:
1225:
1445:
1078:
will be reassigned to a genus of neuter gender, resulting in the epithet
754:
582:
480:
470:
1436:
for the purposes of the list?). There are other potential targets too;
1389:
The left-hand column in the list article contains links to Wiktionary.
1278:
619:
495:
511:
370:, you can safely conclude he is talking about the Japanese camellia,
1283:
List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names
1507:
1493:
1471:
1424:
1398:
1380:
1369:
1328:
1314:
1298:
1189:
1171:
1153:
1138:
1119:
1065:
1045:
991:
969:
954:
939:
924:
896:
877:
861:
846:
824:
803:
784:
770:
741:
720:
693:
676:
663:
635:
612:
597:
576:
557:
527:
366:
specialists are in conversation and one of them uses the word
363:
354:
330:
312:
284:
257:
217:
159:
146:
127:
71:
43:
15:
1029:
Knowledge:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists)#Lists of words
101:
If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on
509:, which... I should probably redirect). Then there's also
650:
If you want to know what birds have the specific epithet
424:
In a biological conference or something, if someone says
1285:
has already been floated, but with few participants, at
1201:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Tristis (2nd nomination)
1032:
94:, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under
868:
paper encyclopedia, I guess we'd call it an "index" ?
1011:. But We have no the the same search tool for suffix
1180:
for going about this formally. I'll do the listing.
540:), chrysanthemum, hibiscus, lobelia, alyssum (for
98:as it has been asserted to be useful to Knowledge.
670:have much use, but I personally don't like them.
1442:List of Latin place names used as specific names
1025:Knowledge:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists)
8:
568:I agree with Hesperian above. These are all
1021:Knowledge:Disambiguation#Set_index_articles
1019:. We also have guideline for such articles
581:Ooh. That makes more sense. Does that mean
548:crop varieties), dahlia, cotoneaster, ...
321:You left out another 150-200 plant names.
1482:List of taxa named after Charles Darwin
1054:Knowledge:Criteria for speedy deletion
758:
746:
7:
794:is the same in Latin and Norwegian!
1287:WT:Disambiguation#Specific epithets
905:- it has a limited, discrete scope.
572:, which don't belong on dab pages.
544:), brassica (as a generic term for
1005:Knowledge talk:Special:PrefixIndex
14:
1341:rather vague "commonly used").--
103:Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion
1448:should perhaps by a redirect to
759:
747:
452:), or the Japanese honeysuckle (
397:, the north pacific right whale
75:
47:
19:
1212:User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus#Tristis
1017:Category:All set index articles
1015:. / We have a related category
585:should be deleted though? :P --
76:
54:This article was nominated for
26:This article was nominated for
1:
1508:22:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
1494:21:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
1480:I was surprised to find that
1472:17:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
1425:10:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
1399:10:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
1381:04:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
1370:03:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
1329:23:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
1315:22:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
1299:22:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
907:As for the "index" idea, see
58:on 2020-02-19. The result of
30:on 2011-05-18. The result of
1319:I'm fine with the redirect.
181:or for colors/patterns like
1528:
1046:23:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
992:21:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
970:22:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
955:19:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
940:18:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
925:18:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
897:18:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
878:18:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
862:17:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
847:16:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
785:18:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
771:15:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
742:15:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
721:21:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
694:18:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
677:14:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
664:14:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
636:16:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
613:14:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
598:13:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
577:12:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
528:13:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
464:). Not sure how practical
355:12:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
331:11:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
313:11:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
285:11:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
258:11:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
218:11:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
160:11:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
147:10:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
128:10:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
1457:R from taxonomic epithet
1277:The idea of redirecting
1190:22:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
1172:21:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
1154:20:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
1139:12:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
1013:Special:SuffixIndex/John
1009:Special:PrefixIndex/John
825:12:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
1440:should probably target
1120:01:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
1066:15:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
804:11:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
558:22:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
885:What Knowledge is not
570:partial title matches
388:Halichondria japonica
816:Antarctic-adventurer
706:such articles, it's
443:Lonchoptera japonica
272:Chaenomeles japonica
1176:It seems we have a
536:), nasturtium (for
449:Luehdorfia japonica
431:Limnophila japonica
394:Labidocera japonica
1338:Contemporary Latin
1072:Not useful; delete
767:Bob the WikipediaN
673:Bob the WikipediaN
542:Lobularia maritima
437:Lipoptena japonica
403:, the small squid
400:Eubalaena japonica
1368:
1353:
852:That might work.
455:Lonicera japonica
412:Bellamya japonica
406:Sepiella japonica
373:Camellia japonica
110:
109:
106:
70:
69:
42:
41:
1519:
1461:
1455:
1378:
1366:
1363:
1357:
1356:
1351:
1348:
1342:
1281:and the like to
1273:
822:
817:
768:
764:
763:
762:
752:
751:
750:
674:
633:
630:
595:
592:
538:Tropaeolum majus
525:
522:
446:), a butterfly (
341:just refers to "
215:
212:
100:
79:
78:
72:
51:
44:
23:
16:
1527:
1526:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1484:doesn't exist.
1459:
1453:
1376:
1364:
1359:
1354:
1349:
1344:
1215:
1204:
1127:
1007:, for example
835:
820:
815:
766:
760:
748:
672:
628:
625:
590:
587:
520:
517:
210:
207:
115:
12:
11:
5:
1525:
1523:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1475:
1474:
1450:Charles Darwin
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1384:
1383:
1372:
1331:
1317:
1258:Metropolitan90
1246:Carlossuarez46
1203:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1157:
1156:
1126:
1123:
1069:
1068:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
974:
973:
972:
865:
864:
834:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
807:
806:
796:Petter Bøckman
726:
725:
724:
723:
697:
696:
680:
679:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
506:Acacia mangium
488:
487:
486:
485:
419:
418:
417:
416:
391:, the copepod
380:
379:
378:
377:
334:
333:
319:
288:
287:
266:
265:
264:
263:
262:
261:
260:
246:
243:
239:
224:
205:, etc. etc. --
114:
113:Useful or not?
111:
108:
107:
99:
82:This orphaned
80:
68:
67:
60:the discussion
52:
40:
39:
32:the discussion
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1524:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1500:Peter coxhead
1497:
1496:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1458:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1434:
1433:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1417:Peter coxhead
1414:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1382:
1379:
1373:
1371:
1367:
1362:
1352:
1347:
1339:
1335:
1332:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1307:Peter coxhead
1303:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1250:Obsidian Soul
1247:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1222:Peter coxhead
1219:
1213:
1209:
1208:Jo-Jo Eumerus
1202:
1199:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1146:Peter coxhead
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1124:
1122:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
993:
989:
985:
984:Peter coxhead
980:
975:
971:
967:
963:
958:
957:
956:
952:
948:
943:
942:
941:
937:
933:
929:
928:
927:
926:
922:
918:
914:
910:
904:
900:
899:
898:
894:
890:
886:
882:
881:
880:
879:
875:
871:
863:
859:
855:
851:
850:
849:
848:
844:
840:
832:
826:
823:
818:
811:
810:
809:
808:
805:
801:
797:
793:
789:
788:
787:
786:
782:
778:
773:
772:
769:
757:
756:
744:
743:
739:
735:
730:
722:
718:
714:
713:Peter coxhead
709:
705:
701:
700:
699:
698:
695:
691:
687:
682:
681:
678:
675:
668:
667:
666:
665:
661:
657:
656:Peter coxhead
653:
649:
637:
634:
632:
622:
621:
616:
615:
614:
611:
610:
605:
601:
600:
599:
596:
594:
584:
580:
579:
578:
575:
571:
567:
566:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
530:
529:
526:
524:
514:
513:
508:
507:
502:
498:
497:
492:
491:
490:
489:
483:
482:
477:
473:
472:
467:
463:
462:
457:
456:
451:
450:
445:
444:
439:
438:
433:
432:
427:
423:
422:
421:
420:
414:
413:
408:
407:
402:
401:
396:
395:
390:
389:
384:
383:
382:
381:
375:
374:
369:
365:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
352:
348:
344:
339:
332:
328:
324:
320:
317:
316:
315:
314:
310:
306:
302:
297:
293:
286:
282:
278:
274:
273:
267:
259:
255:
251:
248:Many thanks,
247:
244:
240:
237:
236:
231:
230:
225:
221:
220:
219:
216:
214:
204:
200:
196:
192:
188:
184:
180:
176:
172:
168:
163:
162:
161:
158:
154:
150:
149:
148:
144:
140:
136:
132:
131:
130:
129:
125:
121:
112:
104:
97:
93:
89:
85:
81:
74:
73:
65:
61:
57:
53:
50:
46:
45:
37:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
1438:sarawakensis
1360:
1345:
1333:
1276:
1266:Ultraexactzz
1230:EncycloPetey
1205:
1128:
1112:EncycloPetey
1107:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1070:
1002:
982:taxoboxes.)
978:
909:WP:WPINDEXES
906:
903:discriminate
902:
866:
836:
791:
774:
753:
745:
728:
727:
707:
703:
651:
647:
646:
624:
618:
608:
603:
586:
545:
541:
537:
533:
516:
515:of course.--
510:
504:
500:
494:
479:
475:
469:
465:
459:
453:
447:
441:
435:
429:
425:
410:
409:, the snail
404:
398:
392:
386:
371:
367:
342:
337:
335:
300:
295:
291:
289:
270:
233:
229:Homo sapiens
227:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
166:
134:
116:
63:
36:no consensus
35:
1486:Narky Blert
1391:Narky Blert
1291:Narky Blert
962:Lavateraguy
932:Lavateraguy
708:maintaining
604:Chaenomeles
550:Lavateraguy
534:Pelargonium
461:L. japonica
426:L. japonica
323:Lavateraguy
277:Lavateraguy
1407:applies. (
1405:WP:SELFPUB
1125:Consensus?
1108:adjectives
648:Not useful
235:H. sapiens
203:variegatus
92:image page
1464:Plantdrew
1321:Guettarda
1270:Plantdrew
1254:Guettarda
1234:Hesperian
1218:Sandstein
1131:Invertzoo
1104:japonicum
1096:japonicus
917:Guettarda
839:Guettarda
729:Meh, keep
250:Invertzoo
199:punctatus
157:Hesperian
84:talk page
1446:darwinii
1377:Lenticel
1242:Lenticel
1100:japonica
913:WP:WPOOK
755:vulgaris
704:creating
609:innotata
583:japonica
546:Brassica
481:japonica
471:japonica
368:japonica
179:vulgaris
56:deletion
28:deletion
1409:WP:CIRC
1350:BSIDIAN
1334:Neutral
1279:tristis
1268:, and
1262:Uanfala
1076:tristis
854:Abyssal
734:Abyssal
652:tristis
620:arabica
501:mangium
496:Gmelina
476:tristis
343:tristis
338:tristis
301:tristis
292:tristis
187:viridis
175:sativum
88:subpage
1413:Wimpus
1182:Danger
1092:rubrum
1084:rubrus
1080:triste
1038:Snek01
889:Danger
821:(talk)
627:Obsidi
589:Obsidi
574:Rkitko
519:Obsidi
512:Citrus
223:pages.
209:Obsidi
195:flavus
153:WP:PTM
139:Danger
96:CSD G8
64:delete
1210:, at
1178:place
1164:SP-KP
1088:rubra
1058:JoJan
947:SP-KP
870:SP-KP
833:List?
777:SP-KP
686:SP-KP
503:(for
347:SP-KP
305:SP-KP
183:rubra
171:minor
167:major
135:using
120:SP-KP
1504:talk
1490:talk
1468:talk
1421:talk
1395:talk
1325:talk
1311:talk
1295:talk
1238:Whpq
1226:Deor
1186:talk
1168:talk
1150:talk
1135:talk
1116:talk
1062:talk
1042:talk
1023:and
988:talk
966:talk
951:talk
936:talk
921:talk
911:and
893:talk
874:talk
858:talk
843:talk
800:talk
781:talk
738:talk
717:talk
690:talk
660:talk
554:talk
499:and
466:that
351:talk
327:talk
309:talk
281:talk
254:talk
191:alba
143:talk
124:talk
62:was
34:was
1365:OUL
1094:or
1056:).
979:all
792:sad
606:. —
364:tea
296:are
232:or
1506:)
1492:)
1470:)
1462:?
1460:}}
1454:{{
1423:)
1397:)
1336:-
1327:)
1313:)
1297:)
1289:.
1264:,
1260:,
1256:,
1252:,
1248:,
1244:,
1240:,
1236:,
1232:,
1228:,
1224:,
1220:,
1188:)
1170:)
1152:)
1137:)
1118:)
1102:,
1098:,
1090:,
1086:,
1064:)
1044:)
990:)
968:)
953:)
938:)
923:)
915:.
895:)
876:)
860:)
845:)
802:)
783:)
740:)
719:)
692:)
662:)
556:)
440:,
434:,
353:)
329:)
311:)
283:)
256:)
201:,
197:,
193:,
189:,
185:,
177:,
173:,
169:,
155:.
145:)
126:)
90:,
86:,
1502:(
1488:(
1466:(
1419:(
1393:(
1361:S
1355:†
1346:O
1323:(
1309:(
1293:(
1272::
1216:@
1184:(
1166:(
1148:(
1133:(
1114:(
1060:(
1040:(
986:(
964:(
949:(
934:(
919:(
891:(
872:(
856:(
841:(
798:(
779:(
736:(
715:(
688:(
658:(
631:n
629:♠
593:n
591:♠
552:(
523:n
521:♠
376:.
349:(
325:(
307:(
279:(
252:(
213:n
211:♠
141:(
122:(
105:.
66:.
38:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
