User talk:Shellnut/Archive 3

978:

published by many other authors, with a strong correlation in their data. They focused on morphology and radular characteristics (which they found to be tightly tied into DNA testing as have others) because they wanted to be able to include fossil species and data in their analysis and classification system. Back to paleontology again! I will put together a list of citations where needed, and beef up others. I also located communications I had with Dr. Kohn, apparently from 2008 (predating T&T's work), on molecular phylogeny work done by Christopher Meyer while he was a post doc of Kohn's. Is "personal communications" appropriate on Knowledge (XXG)? It is used all the time in "peer reviewed" publications, including Bouchet et al. (2011) "A New Operational Classification of the Conoidea" (see p. 275 ... "A molecular phylogeny of the Conoidea is currently in preparation (C. Meyer, personal communication)".) Finally, not to sound like we are "taking sides" or making a "point of view" known, but would it not be more fair (and thus not making a POV) to avoid using argumentative labels such as "alternative representation", and instead use "Linnean system" and "Tucker & Tenorio system" on the header(s) and then use the coined phrase "alternative representation" when referring to how WoRMS designates it? From what I can see, even on WoRMS (if you look at the T&T genera articles on WoRMS), almost all newly described species in the Conidae are being placed into one of the "genera" in the T&T system rather than lumped into Conus. JoJan seems to be overloaded right now, so I am posing these REALLY TOUGH taxonomic questions to you as they appear to be more appropriately "Wiki playground rules" questions. Thanks in advance for your help and mentoring!!!

780:

so. I am merely trying to respect the system. My first "alternative representation" genus article was merely to test the waters there. Second, I think that the revised links to the species articles are good, but somehow we lost the individual links to WoRMS which gave additional information and showed the alternative genus and species name with a WoRMS species ID number. I believe that added value, especially if the issue is later resolved in favor of the alternative genera. I like the idea of having a reference to the WoRMS page for each species as well as a link to its species specific page on Knowledge (XXG). Don't you? Also, some of those species have been "blessed" or approved under the alternative genus by P. Bouchet himself, as reflected by his name and edit dates on WoRMS. Let me know when you and JoJan are OK with the format of these genus articles. Thanks for all you help!!!! I am really not trying to be controversial with this, just accurate and complete.

1903:. All specimens were photographed today/tonight under bright lights using a 100mm macro lens and 125mm of extension tubes at 1/200th of a second. I cropped and darkened the images as much as possible without losing focus. Some are a bit out of focus due to the nature of the shell (some are really small approx. 0.5 to 1.2 mm) and the manual focusing required to shoot the images. All images are categorized to family, then to their genus and species, so you should be able to search for them. I did not check their taxonomy in WoRMS before uploading the images to see if it is up to date; for fun I checked a few of them later (see notes above). I tried to give you 2056:

last year, when, during my stay over there, my previous camera suddenly went on the blink. This is a rather cheap camera, but an excellent one. Using the macro mode, I've been able to make sharp photos without a tripod of small insects while they were moving. But, of course, these little molluscs are in another category, being so much smaller. Anyway, I've tried to improve the sharpness and contrast of your photos, while cropping them. But when the image is somewhat blurred, it is difficult to make it look sharper. I'll look at the rest tomorrow. It is bedtime now.

757:

need more refs to support the various pieces of info. I wanted to get the whole approach a little bit worked out before we do too much more of this, that's all. I hope you don't mind, but I went ahead and set up two links to subpages of your user page for you. You will find them on your user page. The first one I put a couple of sentences in so it became a blue link. The second one currently has no content so it is still a red link. You don't have to use them only for drafting articles. Best wishes,

2142:

name). I've had such requests a number of times and I've seen photos of mine used in glossy books about art, in official publications, in a number of scientific papers, and even in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica online. My name has been attributed in photos used by others on the internet more than 40,000 times (and God knows how many haven't been attributed). All this, because I used a license that others can re-use easily. I advise you to do the same and you'll be surprised what may happen.

31: 1402: 452:: Merle D., Garrigues B. & Pointier J.-P. (2011) Fossil and Recent Muricidae of the world. Part Muricinae. Hackenheim: Conchbooks. 648 pp. page(s): 114. I have identified these issues when getting ready to upload images, and trying to be safe by checking with WoRMS and Knowledge (XXG)'s articles 1780:

Please, go ahead and make photos of them all. There is almost nothing available on the internet. Yes, they are micromolluscs, measuring usually between 2 and 5 mm. A good photo (one with with the aperture in front, and another one with the back as to show the keels) could be made in macrophotography

1272:

in italics whenever we use them. I encourage people to use italics for genus names even here on our talk pages, which are more informal, because once it becomes a habit to do this, then it becomes automatic and you don't have to remind yourself to do it when and where it is important to get it right.

1248:

OK, thanks for your note, Shellnut. Now I understand where the wording of the list came from. A couple of general things I wanted to say are that since we are an encyclopedia, we want to make our text as easy to understand and pleasant to understand as possible, even for non-specialists, and since we

1211:

Hello again Invertzoo!! Those modifications were made by Ganeshk when he played with the BOT and revised my initial work on the article. I had used references to the WoRMS articles by their species number showing the page in WoRMS noting the Africonus species name as an alternative reference. That

1023:

species are being put into one or another of the new genera is because the people who named those species chose to do that in the papers in which those new species were described. That does not mean that even those authors agree that T&T were correct in every single species they assigned to every

999:

To answer your first question: on Knowledge (XXG) we cannot use "personal communication" because the references we use are all supposed to be ones that anyone can check. Also, one Knowledge (XXG) article has often been worked on by a large number of people, many of whom are more or less anonymous, so

977:

Hi Invertzoo!!! I just "hit pay dirt" asking for help. Dr. Tucker has kindly corresponded with me and has provided me with data without the "pay wall", including complete reference citations. T&T (2009) heavily cross referenced their work with molecular phylogenetics work already performed and

779:

Invertzoo, please do not think for a moment that I am discouraged. Rather, I am trying to be polite and respectful of your (plural) experience and the customs of Knowledge (XXG). It has been and remains my intention to do what I can to better the Project Gastropods pages where within my power to do

732:

article after JoJan had edited my prior comments therein about the "alternative representation" scheme to ensure that it took what I felt was a neutral point of view. Once we have a cleaner statement on that issue, and I have your (plural) approval I would be happy to work on the genus articles - or

511:

stuff we talked about ... but I did have an idea there. What if I was to made article pages for each of the genera or sub-genera used by Tucker & Tenorio and shown as an "alternate representation" by WoRMS, then add the species under each genus/sub-genus, with links to their main pages (if any)?

309:

Good point Anna! Yes that's right, as Anna showed us here (look at her message on the edit page and see how she did the link) you can use a "pipe" and put the title however you want it to be after the pipe, but it won't work if you don't use a pipe. Shellnut do you know about the pipe (vertical line)

2055:

To be honest, the ones I checked so far are of rather poor quality. But I suppose that's the best you can do with your equipment, even going to ISO 6400 to obtain the shortest possible shutter speed. Yet, there is something I cannot understand. I use a Panasonix Lumix FS30 that I bought in Barcelona

1366:

up front without an explanation of the acronym? I know that in a header it can get too long without abbreviations, but maybe the average reader does not know it. Whatever you think is best, as we all use the WoRMS acronym casually. P.S. - I just posted my genus descriptions on the "sandbox" of my

1282:

article now you will see I changed the wording of the list, and also a little bit changed the intro, and the explanation further down just to make everything clearer still. I want to give the article another look this evening or tomorrow morning but certainly it is coming along great. Thanks for all

806:

Hi again Shellnut and thanks for your very considerate note and your very good work. I am currently just waiting for us to hear back from JoJan, because he is far more experienced than I am with this kind of thing. I trust his opinion whereas I feel that I am not really expert enough on this kind of

756:

Hey, no problem Shellnut, you are doing great work, don't let me discourage you in any way! We really appreciate everything you have done, and your general enthusiasm! JoJan is a very good person to have check something like these articles, where the subject is a bit controversial and where we might

106:

was to move the citation to the end of the sentence, and your note was to avoid taxonids. What does that mean? Should I NOT be citing the authority the genus or species after the name but rather at the end of the sentence, and why? I will do it however you guys want, but I need to understand that

2156:

Thanks JoJan! I will look for the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 from now on; I just went with the default one since I did not know better. I had borrowed a neighbor's camera on Saturday and used my lens. My wife and daughter had mine, and I was a bit unfamiliar with the electronic gadgetry on

2141:

One last advise : when uploading my own photos, I always now use the license : Creative Commons Attribution 3.0. This gives other people a greater possibility to re-use them, i.e. by a publishing company in a book (in this case they cannot use the ShareAlike, but they can give attribution with your

1761:

OK, I just looked to confirm ... those dudes are REALLY small!!! I knew they were little, but WOW. I am sure that I can photograph them, but the images may take some time to do, crop and zoom in. I will have to place them on a smooth surface to shoot as they are way to small to elevate on a nail

1004:

had received the personal communication, what that person's real name is and where they work, and also would also not know whether that person has a professional reputation that could be damaged if the person lied about having been told something by an expert. It's very different when you publish a

947:

Do let us know if you hear anything from Dr. Tucker. What I did just now was I went to the section on "Significance....representation" and put a couple of "citation needed" tags in. I must say I am being a bit strict with this, but since this section may end up in 82 new genus articles, we might as

695:

I took a quick look at the new article. The wording of the prose needed some alteration to make it first of all clearer in meaning and also, neutral in tone (not colored with Point of View). I am currently working on it. It still needs a lot more work. There are many statements that are unsupported

1803:

Good morning JoJan! I will give it my best shot. I have a Canon Rebel EOS camera with an 8 megapixel maximum capacity. I always shoot images in full quality. What I will probably do is to use extension tubes, a 100 mm macro lens, and screw on magnification filters adding a total of 10x, and of

1665:

genus articles until I hear back from Invertzoo and/or JoJan with feedback on my section distinguishing the genera. P.S. - I have now corresponded via e-mail and Facebook with both John K. Tucker and Manuel J. Tenorio, who were both extremely helpful and provided significant insights. Dr. Tenorio

932:

and each of the genera set forth in Tucker & Tenorio that will take time and work (just like species descriptions) to avoid copyright violations, etc. I too would need to buy the book or get the info from a non pay wall source. I have e-mailed the senior author of the study to try to get his

643:

Hello Shellnut. I took the liberty of copying this message from you and putting it under a new heading, even though it is a continuation of a previous conversation. I did that because there were so many conversation threads going on at once on your talk page that it was hard to see which ones were

378:

Hello again Shellnut. Because you said you wanted a subpage, I went ahead and listed two subpages of your user page; you can see the links on your user page, under a new heading. For the first one of the links I went ahead and put a couple of sentences on the subpage so that the link is now a blue

1014:

that the source we referred to uses that way of referring to these names. On Knowledge (XXG) we can only go by what sources say or do. We are not allowed to editorialize about things and express out own opinions. WoRMS is currently the No. 1 source we are using on marine gastropods. WoRMS has Dr.

993:

Good news, it's always really nice when the professionals are prepared to take our work seriously. But are you able to find how precisely each of the new T&T genera are defined? That's what I think we can't do without the book, and that would be extremely handy to know if we are going to make

1470:

Daniel was busy for a few months IRL (in real life) and because of that we did not see much of him here for a little while, however fortunately for us he is back again. He has done a lot of fabulous work in the gastropod project previously though! More or less by himself he raised several of our

860:

I checked the article Africonus. As a test for the other articles with genera derived from Conus, this looks promising. The significance of "alternative representation" is clearly explained. However, the casual reader will wonder what makes the genus Africonus different from its prior name under

737:

article can be done for the others I would then go in and add the "alternative representation" paragraphs, citations, photo images (one per genus to the extent I have shells for them). Let me know what I can do to help here. I am trying to contribute but do not want to step on anyone's toes so

1911:

in the same photo where possible, or two photos (one of each view). As small as everything was I had a lot harder time than I thought. A dissecting microscope with a camera might have been a better bet, but even them we would need at least 50x magnification. I hope this helps you out in your

134:. If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the sentence or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text." 1212:

made a long list of citations and Ganeshk modified it to read as it does now, probably using the BOT but we will have to ask him. I can clean up the lead in sentence to reflect that the "name" is an alternative representation from the traditional Linnaean classification using

379:

link. The other one is still a red link, which means you can create it if you want to, by adding a bit of content, or leave it as it is or even delete it if you don't need it right now. You can see how easy it is to make a subpage. I hope this is helpful to you, Best wishes,

1015:

Bouchet and some other world-class taxonomists working on it constantly, and we follow their expertise and their decisions. We pretty much have to do something like that, and it is best for us to follow one very reliable overall system. On Knowledge (XXG) we cannot make our

1249:

are electronic and not on paper, we don't have to concern ourselves with creating short dense descriptions like the ones you find in published papers, where the less words used the better. For example, on Knowledge (XXG) in text we always use whole sentences, not note form.

864:. But the price of 80 € is a bit too steep for my pockets. Perhaps you can find a bit or two on the internet. I can't go deeper into this, since I'm fully occupied with checking the GaneshKbot and adding information where I can. Anyway, your work is much appreciated. 1361:

and it looks great!!! I really liked the changes to the wording on the species links, the language was awkward at best before. The only comment I have is the use of "WoRMS" in the bold header, do we want to use the acronym rather than the would name spelled out as

532:

The article Conidae explains clearly the situation we have to deal with at this moment : recognized genus or alternate representation ? I don't mind if you create articles such as Africonus etc. (with a list of species involved), but explain each time that it is

699:

In general, for something as important as this you might be better off posting your message on JoJan's talk page and on my talk page so you can be sure we see it immediately. Also I very much need to show you how you can put together a draft of an article on a

1055:. I did find, however, a peer reviewed published article and a website published interview to back up that assertion - separate and apart from my personal communications with Dr. Kohn. Check out my new revisions, including the references to Linnaeus and the 667:, with complete WoRMS citations as to each species. Assuming that the format and content is acceptable to JoJan and Invertzoo, I would propose to do the same thing for the other "alternate representation" genera. If it could be done by a Bot it would be 581:, with complete WoRMS citations as to each species. Assuming that the format and content is acceptable to JoJan and Invertzoo, I would propose to do the same thing for the other "alternate representation" genera. If it could be done by a Bot it would be 1024:

single one of the new genera. Cone snails are a very big group and a very difficult group. Once the results of the new studies come out, it might turn out that T&T grouped some the species into some of the genera incorrectly; anything is possible.

139:

I wrote "add TaxonIds" on the edit summary. The TaxonIds template makes it easy for bots to link the Knowledge (XXG) page with WoRMS and other databases. A bot can for example pick up the ID numbers and check the WoRMS database to see they are valid.

1047:

Hi Invertzoo!!! Yes, I was provided an electronic copy of the manuscript but asked NOT to hand it out as it is published and sold for profit in book form. I can write descriptions from the text of the manuscript to distinguish the genera from

1483:

of our older stubs fixing them up and updating the taxonomy. Daniel is one of our very few professionals: he has a job in the mollusk department of a major museum in Brazil. In my humble opinion he seems to be a thoroughly nice guy all round!

1781:

at high resolution (10 MB or more) and then be cropped. A photo under a microscope would be asking too much. Identification is problematic, but I'm in the course of describing most West American species in this genus. You can always check at

1260:

species in Conidae "Linnaean", because it makes it sound as if that taxonomy has been completely unaltered for over 300 years, which is not really true or fair to say. And one could argue that the T&T taxonomy of the Conidae is still

1804:

course a tripod and tether cord to avoid vibrations while taking the image. I will have to play around with this because it has been over 25 years since I took photos of such small biological items (I had shot pictures of juvenile

1273:

You may have noticed that I have been changing genus names to italics on the talk pages whenever I notice they aren't in italics, even in other people's messages. Maybe this is an obnoxious thing to do, but it is in a good cause. :)

327:

Thanks a bunch Invertzoo and Anna! Yes, I know about the verticle pipe - I learned about it a few weeks ago and have been using it in my taxobox image descriptions and in those few articles I have done. Nice to have the link from

1081:

You can always refer to the book by T & T. It doesn't matter if you possess the electronic version. Anyone in possession of the book can check your contributions and that is what matters. This method complies with the rules of

1342:

for comparison, and I will post it on my "sandbox" draft spot which you created. I tried to use whole sentences for the most part, rather than one word or one line notes, or dense descriptions. It may take a bit of polishing

896:), but he (and I) can't afford to buy the T & T book. Also really from my point of view, some more of the statements in the article could use an online citation to back them up. But other than those things it looks good. 611:

species still. But you do not use a Redirect page in order to do that, instead you simply by using a pipe in the link, putting the Conus name first and then a pipe and then the T&T name. Do you know what I mean...? Best,

2070:

JoJan, good night! Yes, the small size of some of them contributed to the difficulty. I will try to reshoot some of those shells later on with a different camera and set up. Shells bigger than 5mm are much easier to

537:. When the complete molecular phylogeny of the family will be published, we'll see the conclusions. In any case, we will have already at hand an article under each new name and only a few changes will have to be made. 723:

Hi Invertzoo, and greetings to you and JoJan! I only did the one genus article as I wanted to ensure that it met with the standards of the senior editors of Project Gastropods (yourself, JoJan, and Ganeshk, etc.)

861:

Conus. I suppose the key for the genus (morphology, radula, genetics...) is explained in the book by Tucker J.K. & Tenorio M.J. (2009), Systematic Classification of Recent and Fossil Conoidean Gastropods.

1840:

Hi JoJan! I will get to those photos, maybe today. As to time of day I keep forgetting that you are in Europe and I'm in California. Have you seen my User Page's "sandbox" draft of the description for

1019:

decisions about what we think is the right taxonomy, we are not allowed to do that on here. We are just an encyclopedia and we publish knowledge that other people put together. The reason why the new

107:

it is (if it is) a standard protocol, and the basis for it so it makes sense in my mind and so that I don't replicate a citation foopah. Thanks SO VERY MUCH for all of youe help and mentoring!!!

1556:

Perhaps we can wait a bit and not create too many more of these new genera articles until JoJan and I have decided what the best wording for the introduction should be? Best wishes to all,

1456:

Hello and thank you Daniel!! I don't think I've seen your name come up before. I take it you are anoher senior editor and Gastropod Project person. What area(s) of molluscs are you into?

1666:

also provided me with information about the status of the mega-molecular phylogeny work being performed currently and Dr. Philippe Bouchet's supportive yet cautious position on the issue.

1659:

and in the process found a decent image to use for the genus article. I will work up the comparative description and add it in short order. At that point I intend to cease any further

607:

Yes, we should never have two different articles for one species, so each species link in the new genera pages should link to the existing species page, even though that is given as a

1962:

Gould, 1861 according to gastropods.com). I shall crop (and try to improve) the other images. File:Odostomia desimana.jpg cannot be used, as too much out of focus. More later.

1323:

Hi Invertzoo, and good morning! I apologize for getting a little sloppy last night in my notes here (failing to use italics or blue lining). Usually I do that and either say

414:, and one of which is lost in cyber space. Should I make the changes that I have identified through WoRMS to that genus? Also, similar issues have arisen with genera in the 922:

Thanks again Invertzoo!! I'd be happy to look up references if you would tell me what statements you would like more authority for. As to the differences betweem classic

1641:

and have gone to each species link to ensure that the WoRMS links both work and any improper genus names (by another young editor not to be named herein) are reverted to

1297:

P.S. I am thinking that perhaps we should shift the discussion of the T&T genera articles to the Project Talk page because it is such an important discussion.

1420:

Because you are always thinking about gastropods and their shells, I hereby present to you this award I've drawn myself. What could he possibly be thinking? --

1184:

Also the lead-in sentence "The following species are alternate representations" does not make sense. A species cannot be an "alternate representation", only a

1331:. I tried to change the italics to blue line in the article in most places as it seemed appropriate to do so. This morning I wrote a rough description for 1191:

I am too tired to suggest something clearer this evening, but I will try to think of a better way of wording these lists and the lead-in sentence tomorrow.

1173:

The way this section is set up makes it very confusing to someone who is not familiar with the situation. For one thing, it makes it look as if the name

1635:

article and WoRMS) with the BOT, which Invertzoo and I have both extensively edited ... so I have taken the liberty to copy those edits over here to

473:

I don't posses the book "Fossil and Recent Muricidae of the world. Part Muricinae. Hackenheim". Therefore I don't know what the authors state about

507:

Thanks JoJan! I just did not want to get into major article edits without some kind of "nod" from the powers that be. You know, like the

1256:

a Linnaean genus, because it is one, he named it. But I don't feel comfortable about calling the traditional taxonomy of putting all

1363: 1234:

and found that the offending language (poor organization) was simply lifted from there, so it was probably done through the BOT.

485:. If you trust that their opinion is correct (and why shouldn't it be not), you can edit the corresponding articles. As to 2085:

One small advice: don't go any higher than ISO 800 when using a tripod. Higher values contribute to blurring of the image.

272:

So, if you want to add the link to that article anywhere, just write Conus without italics and the link should work fine.

2041:

images? Some of them were SO SMALL that they kept sticking to the end of the pin I was using to try to push them around!

1597:

article after I have revised the intro and the analysis, because I very much trust his judgement on this kind of thing.

89: 81: 76: 64: 59: 1723:

in my collection. I have not photographed them yet, but I am sure that I could do so. Would you like me to take some

127: 1005:

paper in a scientific journal and then people know exactly who you are and to what degree they can trust what you say.

1498:

Awww thank you for your kind words Susan. I feel really flattered! It's just the way it is, I do enjoy wiki-writing!

1230:

I have made an attempt to clarify it, and I think it is clear now. I looked back at the WoRMS website for the genus

123: 1503: 1443: 1425: 38: 948:

well get it just right now rather than trying to fix all 82 of them up more at some later date. All good wishes,

675:

species link so that there could/would be only one article per species regardless of the outcome of the current

589:

species link so that there could/would be only one article per species regardless of the outcome of the current

438: 299: 2157:

my neighbors'. I will try to reshoot the photos later this week - and if they are better I will upload them.

1648: 742:

is a good idea to learn. Feel free to e-mail me direct on this too, or we could talk by phone if you like.

188:

Ganeshk, should I be putting "TaxonIds" in the articles I am writing? If so, how, and where are they done?

1150: 131: 1499: 1439: 1421: 444: 287: 255: 247: 1786: 1908: 1740: 2128: 1744: 1904: 1010:

To answer your second question, "alternative representation" is not an argumentative label, it is a

210:

Yes, if the article you are writing is listed on WoRMS, then please add {{TaxonIds|worms=<ID: -->

1883: 1602: 1561: 1489: 1302: 1288: 1199: 1119:

article this evening, and realized I am not at all happy with a couple of things. Firstly it says:

1034: 953: 909: 901: 812: 762: 713: 676: 649: 617: 590: 556: 384: 359: 315: 295: 277: 263: 310:

and how it works when you are making a link? If you don't know that yet we can explain it to you.

258:, the problem was that the link syntax can't deal with trying to put the word Conus into italics. 2162: 2076: 2046: 1925: 1850: 1817: 1771: 1752: 1732: 1728: 1671: 1461: 1372: 1348: 1239: 1221: 1064: 983: 938: 842: 785: 747: 684: 598: 517: 463: 337: 193: 112: 47: 17: 458:

uploading the images - to avoid file name problems like I have had previously. Any ideas JoJan?

1268:

However one thing we must always do, to at least seem professional, is to put genus names like

2019: 1579: 1543: 1056: 228: 216: 172: 149: 2112: 1720: 1697: 1438:

Welcome to wikiproject Gastropods, Shellnut! It's good to have another shell lover with us.

1265:

in that it uses genus and species in the same way that Linneaus did, as rigid ranks of taxa.

399: 1789:, where I added some drawings from old publications by Tryon (1889) and by Bartsch (1903). 1083: 2147: 2090: 2061: 2028: 2009: 1988: 1967: 1831: 1794: 1736: 1705: 1476: 1252:

I think we have to be careful both how we use the adjective "Linnaean". It's fine to call

1091: 869: 542: 494: 130:. I am quoting, "The citation should be added close to the material it supports, offering 659:"I have taken a stab at writing a genus article on the "alternate representation" of the 671:

less time consuming. I was thinking that each species link should be redirected to the

585:

less time consuming. I was thinking that each species link should be redirected to the

573:

I have taken a stab at writing a genus article on the "alternate representation" of the

2038: 1913: 1860: 1598: 1557: 1485: 1298: 1284: 1195: 1162: 1138: 1030: 949: 905: 897: 808: 758: 709: 645: 613: 552: 380: 355: 311: 273: 259: 1859:

Hello JoJan and good morning!!! I have uploaded onto WikiCommons photos of all of my

1357:

Hello and good morning again Invertzoo! I just looked over the revisions you made to

862: 2158: 2072: 2042: 1921: 1916:

project, although compared to my regular macro images not all of the images of these

1846: 1813: 1767: 1748: 1700:

is even endemic to the Pacific Ocean off San Diego ? This would be much appreciated.

1667: 1457: 1368: 1344: 1335: 1235: 1217: 1060: 1052: 979: 934: 929: 892: 838: 781: 743: 680: 594: 513: 459: 410: 333: 189: 108: 879:

So JoJan is saying it would be good in that article if we could indicate what makes

215:). This will help the bot validate the status on these articles as well. Please see 2166: 2151: 2094: 2080: 2065: 2050: 2032: 2013: 1992: 1971: 1929: 1917: 1854: 1835: 1821: 1798: 1775: 1763: 1756: 1709: 1675: 1606: 1586: 1573: 1565: 1550: 1537: 1507: 1493: 1465: 1447: 1429: 1376: 1352: 1306: 1292: 1243: 1225: 1203: 1095: 1068: 1038: 987: 957: 942: 913: 873: 846: 816: 789: 766: 751: 717: 688: 653: 621: 602: 560: 546: 521: 498: 489:, I have already edited the article to show the synonymies. Feel free to add more. 467: 388: 363: 341: 319: 303: 281: 267: 235: 222: 197: 179: 166: 156: 143: 116: 1954:(one n) and is old name (used in the 19th century) that looks like a synonym of 1894: 1877: 1871: 535:

still regarded as an alternate representation by some authorities, such as WoRMS

420: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2143: 2086: 2057: 2024: 2005: 1984: 1963: 1899: 1827: 1790: 1701: 1087: 865: 551:

I added an emphasis here and put genus names into italics, hope no-one minds.

538: 490: 103: 1865: 1842: 1782: 1724: 1716: 1693: 1631: 1625: 1593: 1401: 1358: 1278: 1108: 970: 664: 635: 578: 432: 415: 1946:

in the family Amathinidae (this is also confirmed by www.gastropods.com).

1637: 1530: 1521: 734: 426: 404: 1177:

is the alternate representation. That is not the case at all. It is the

1889: 1812:

claws for morphological studies). We will see how the photos come out.

1661: 729: 660: 574: 508: 329: 1570:

Sure, I will hold off on creating new genera articles in this family.

408:

being three species, two of which WoRMS has now placed in the genus

2023:: I had to create a new article : valid name but not yet in WoRMS. 1475:

status (which is by no means an easy task), he created the article

1762:

or pin head. Finally, my identifications may be off (as they are

1643: 1328: 1049: 924: 672: 586: 346:

Great! As I said last week, pretty soon I am going to be asking

512:

Would that work within Knowledge (XXG) and satisfy both camps?

1623:

From what I have read JoJan has OK'ed the basic format of the

25: 1715:

I do have 5 California species (11 total from the genus) of

122:

Citations are usually added at the end of the sentence. See

163:

And thanks for the wavy barnstar. I am glad to be of help.

1696:, since many species occur off California and one species 402:

with Invertzoo (see above) and had run into an issue with

696:

by a reference. Let's see what JoJan says about it too.

1826:

Great ! There is no hurry. And good evening from here.

1629:

genus article, and Ganeshk made this article (from the

1591:

I just want to see what JoJan has to say about the new

1115:

I took a new look, a close look at the list within the

728:

putting out others. I tried to follow the tone of the

212: 1958:

A. Adams, 1860 (that has become in turn a synonym of

1727:

pictures? I have the following Califorinia species:

1123:

The following species are alternate representations:

1651:. I had to change 2 or 3 species articles to from 704:, where it can be fixed up by yourself and others 211:}} right after the External links section header ( 1766:) so I will need JoJan or someone to review them. 1059:. Is that appropriate without expressing a POV? 1528:Hi Shellnut, I have used the bot to create the 708:it goes live on the encyclopedia. Best wishes, 398:On taxonomy issues, I had been discussing the 1942:Well done ! I'm working on this and I've put 1692:Do you happen to posses photos of species of 1479:, and he also helped me go through literally 102:Hello Ganeshk!!! I saw one of your edits to 8: 1181:name that is the alternate representation. 1785:. There is also a category in the Commons 2135:Turbonilla tennicula : wrong spelling of 1893:(looks like WoRMS has this in the family 1142:(Petuch, 1975) (alternate representation) 2037:JoJan, overall what do you think of the 1216:. That may help with the clarity issue. 933:assistance. We will see if he replies. 1399: 1166:Rolán, 1990 (alternate representation) 1154:Rolán, 1990 (alternate representation) 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 7: 418:for individual species in the genus 219:for the other supported databases. 733:if the Bot that Ganesk ran on the 24: 1863:species (18 species), including 1400: 1364:World Register of Marine Species 904:) 12:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC) 254:I fixed the link to the article 29: 994:articles on each of the genera. 2116:(Dall & Bartsch, 1907) or 1887:(WoRMS shows only 5 species), 1: 2167:17:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC) 2152:16:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC) 2118:Chrysallida (Ividella) navisa 2095:08:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC) 2081:21:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 2066:21:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 2051:19:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 2033:19:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 2014:18:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 1993:18:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 1972:17:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 1930:06:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 1855:20:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 1836:17:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 1822:17:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 1799:17:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 1776:16:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 1757:16:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 1710:16:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 1676:02:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 1607:15:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 1587:22:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC) 1566:19:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC) 1551:17:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC) 1508:23:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 1494:19:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC) 1377:16:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 1353:15:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 1307:14:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 1293:14:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 1244:02:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 1226:02:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 1204:02:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 1160:(Rolán, 1990) represented as 1148:(Rolán, 1990) represented as 1096:18:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 1069:02:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 1039:02:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 1000:a reader could not determine 988:00:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 958:02:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC) 943:21:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC) 914:12:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC) 874:14:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC) 847:19:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 817:14:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 790:00:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 767:22:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC) 752:21:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC) 718:17:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC) 689:09:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC) 654:17:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC) 622:02:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 603:09:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC) 561:19:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC) 389:15:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 364:00:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC) 342:19:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 320:15:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 304:14:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 282:14:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 268:22:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC) 236:11:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC) 198:04:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC) 180:03:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC) 157:03:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC) 2126:(Holmes, 1859) : synonym of 1466:21:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 1448:19:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 1430:19:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 1136:Petuch, 1975 represented as 547:13:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 522:21:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 499:19:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 468:17:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 350:how to do stuff rather than 117:16:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 1647:per the agreed standard in 2185: 2120:(Dall & Bartsch, 1907) 1897:with only 7 species), and 1810:Callianassa californiensis 1787:Commons:Category:Odostomia 1146:Africonus antoniomonteiroi 374:Subpages of your user page 2004:Dall & Bartsch, 1909 1920:are really worthy of use. 1406: 740:subpage of (my} user page 702:subpage of your user page 439:Phyllonotus erythrostomus 1747:. What's your pleasure? 1029:All good wishes to you, 430:rather than lumped into 883:different from classic 679:studies. Any thoughts? 593:studies. Any thoughts? 1649:WikiProject Gastropods 1276:So If you look at the 1151:Conus antoniomonteiroi 837:Thank you Invertzoo!!! 2124:Pyramidella crenulata 256:list of Conus species 248:list of Conus species 132:text-source integrity 42:of past discussions. 2137:Turbonilla tenuicula 2129:Longchaeus suturalis 2110:navisa : synonym of 1960:Cingulina circumdata 1948:Odostomia circinnata 1745:Odostomia virginalis 332:to the species list. 1956:Cingulina circinata 1952:Odostomia circinata 677:molecular phylogeny 591:molecular phylogeny 1998:Odostomia eucosmia 1983:(A. Adams, 1860) 1733:Odostomia eucosmia 1729:Odostomia aepynota 1179:Africonus anthonyi 1158:Africonus bellulus 1134:Africonus anthonyi 644:the new messages. 445:Phyllonotus regius 18:User talk:Shellnut 2132:(H. C. Lea, 1843) 2020:Odostomia limpida 1977:Odostomia diadema 1909:abapertural views 1806:Callianassa gigas 1435: 1434: 1128:and then it says: 217:Template:TaxonIds 95: 94: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2176: 2113:Folinella navisa 2000:is a synonym of 1979:is a synonym of 1741:Odostomia navisa 1721:Odostomia esilda 1698:Odostomia esilda 1585: 1582: 1576: 1549: 1546: 1540: 1500:Daniel Cavallari 1440:Daniel Cavallari 1422:Daniel Cavallari 1404: 1397: 1396: 1283:your good work. 400:Coralliophilinae 234: 231: 225: 178: 175: 169: 155: 152: 146: 73: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2184: 2183: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2002:Iolaea eucosmia 1981:Miralda diadema 1950:Adams, 1860 is 1905:apertural views 1737:Odostomia helga 1690: 1580: 1574: 1571: 1544: 1538: 1535: 1526: 1471:articles up to 1395: 1113: 1057:Linnaean system 975: 641: 396: 394:Taxonomy issues 376: 252: 229: 223: 220: 173: 167: 164: 150: 144: 141: 128:Manual of style 100: 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2182: 2180: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2139: 2133: 2121: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2083: 2039:Pyramidellidae 2016: 1995: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1914:Pyramidellidae 1861:Pyramidellidae 1857: 1759: 1689: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1525: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1477:Byne's disease 1451: 1450: 1433: 1432: 1417: 1416: 1407: 1405: 1394: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1355: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1295: 1274: 1266: 1250: 1228: 1188:can be that. 1175:Conus anthonyi 1171: 1170: 1167: 1163:Conus bellulus 1155: 1143: 1139:Conus anthonyi 1130: 1129: 1125: 1124: 1112: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1042: 1041: 1026: 1025: 1007: 1006: 996: 995: 974: 966: 965: 964: 963: 962: 961: 960: 917: 916: 858: 857: 856: 855: 854: 853: 852: 851: 850: 849: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 819: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 792: 772: 771: 770: 769: 693: 692: 663:for the genus 640: 632: 631: 630: 629: 628: 627: 626: 625: 624: 577:for the genus 566: 565: 564: 563: 549: 527: 526: 525: 524: 502: 501: 395: 392: 375: 372: 371: 370: 369: 368: 367: 366: 307: 306: 296:Anna Frodesiak 251: 244: 243: 242: 241: 240: 239: 238: 203: 202: 201: 200: 183: 182: 160: 159: 136: 135: 124:Citing sources 99: 96: 93: 92: 87: 84: 79: 74: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2181: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2140: 2138: 2134: 2131: 2130: 2125: 2122: 2119: 2115: 2114: 2109: 2106: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2022: 2021: 2017: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1996: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1978: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1961: 1957: 1953: 1949: 1945: 1941: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1918:micromollusks 1915: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1901: 1896: 1892: 1891: 1886: 1885: 1880: 1879: 1874: 1873: 1868: 1867: 1862: 1858: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1764:micromollusks 1760: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1718: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1695: 1687: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1664: 1663: 1658: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1645: 1640: 1639: 1634: 1633: 1628: 1627: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1595: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1583: 1577: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1547: 1541: 1533: 1532: 1524: 1523: 1519: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1436: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1419: 1418: 1415: 1413: 1408: 1403: 1398: 1393:Thinker award 1392: 1388: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1365: 1360: 1356: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1341: 1337: 1336:sensu stricto 1334: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1281: 1280: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1264: 1259: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1194:Best wishes, 1192: 1189: 1187: 1182: 1180: 1176: 1168: 1165: 1164: 1159: 1156: 1153: 1152: 1147: 1144: 1141: 1140: 1135: 1132: 1131: 1127: 1126: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1118: 1111: 1110: 1105: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1053:sensu stricto 1051: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1027: 1022: 1018: 1013: 1009: 1008: 1003: 998: 997: 992: 991: 990: 989: 985: 981: 973: 972: 967: 959: 955: 951: 946: 945: 944: 940: 936: 931: 930:sensu stricto 927: 926: 921: 920: 919: 918: 915: 911: 907: 903: 899: 895: 894: 893:sensu stricto 890: 886: 882: 878: 877: 876: 875: 871: 867: 863: 848: 844: 840: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 827: 818: 814: 810: 805: 804: 803: 802: 801: 800: 799: 798: 791: 787: 783: 778: 777: 776: 775: 774: 773: 768: 764: 760: 755: 754: 753: 749: 745: 741: 736: 731: 727: 722: 721: 720: 719: 715: 711: 707: 703: 697: 690: 686: 682: 678: 674: 670: 666: 662: 658: 657: 656: 655: 651: 647: 638: 637: 633: 623: 619: 615: 610: 606: 605: 604: 600: 596: 592: 588: 584: 580: 576: 572: 571: 570: 569: 568: 567: 562: 558: 554: 550: 548: 544: 540: 536: 531: 530: 529: 528: 523: 519: 515: 510: 506: 505: 504: 503: 500: 496: 492: 488: 484: 480: 476: 472: 471: 470: 469: 465: 461: 457: 456: 451: 447: 446: 441: 440: 435: 434: 429: 428: 423: 422: 417: 413: 412: 411:Coralliophila 407: 406: 401: 393: 391: 390: 386: 382: 373: 365: 361: 357: 354:! Well done. 353: 349: 345: 344: 343: 339: 335: 331: 326: 325: 324: 323: 322: 321: 317: 313: 305: 301: 297: 293: 291: 286: 285: 284: 283: 279: 275: 270: 269: 265: 261: 257: 249: 245: 237: 232: 226: 218: 214: 209: 208: 207: 206: 205: 204: 199: 195: 191: 187: 186: 185: 184: 181: 176: 170: 162: 161: 158: 153: 147: 138: 137: 133: 129: 125: 121: 120: 119: 118: 114: 110: 105: 97: 91: 88: 85: 83: 80: 78: 75: 72: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2136: 2127: 2123: 2117: 2111: 2107: 2018: 2001: 1997: 1980: 1976: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1898: 1888: 1882: 1876: 1870: 1864: 1809: 1805: 1691: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1642: 1636: 1630: 1624: 1592: 1529: 1527: 1520: 1480: 1473:Good Article 1472: 1411: 1409: 1390: 1339: 1332: 1324: 1277: 1269: 1262: 1257: 1253: 1231: 1213: 1193: 1190: 1185: 1183: 1178: 1174: 1172: 1161: 1157: 1149: 1145: 1137: 1133: 1116: 1114: 1107: 1020: 1016: 1011: 1001: 976: 969: 923: 891: 888: 884: 880: 859: 739: 725: 705: 701: 698: 694: 668: 642: 634: 608: 582: 534: 486: 482: 478: 474: 454: 453: 449: 443: 437: 431: 425: 419: 409: 403: 397: 377: 351: 347: 308: 289: 271: 253: 101: 70: 43: 37: 1895:Amathinidae 1878:Pyramidella 1872:Peristichia 738:maybe that 479:Phyllonotus 421:Phyllonotus 36:This is an 1900:Turbonilla 1367:User Page. 968:Update on 807:question. 352:vice versa 104:Megastraea 2108:Odostomia 1866:Odostomia 1843:Africonus 1783:Odostomia 1725:Odostomia 1717:Odostomia 1694:Odostomia 1688:Odostomia 1632:Africonus 1626:Africonus 1599:Invertzoo 1594:Africonus 1558:Invertzoo 1534:article. 1486:Invertzoo 1481:thousands 1359:Africonus 1340:Africonus 1299:Invertzoo 1285:Invertzoo 1279:Africonus 1232:Africonus 1196:Invertzoo 1169:And so on 1117:Africonus 1109:Africonus 1031:Invertzoo 971:Africonus 950:Invertzoo 906:Invertzoo 898:Invertzoo 881:Africonus 809:Invertzoo 759:Invertzoo 710:Invertzoo 665:Africonus 646:Invertzoo 636:Africonus 614:Invertzoo 579:Africonus 553:Invertzoo 475:Chicoreus 433:Chicoreus 416:Muricidae 381:Invertzoo 356:Invertzoo 312:Invertzoo 274:Invertzoo 260:Invertzoo 246:Link for 98:Taxon Ids 90:Archive 7 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 71:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 2159:Shellnut 2073:Shellnut 2043:Shellnut 1922:Shellnut 1884:Oscillla 1847:Shellnut 1814:Shellnut 1768:Shellnut 1749:Shellnut 1719:but not 1668:Shellnut 1653:Asprella 1638:Asprella 1531:Asprella 1522:Asprella 1458:Shellnut 1412:Strombus 1391:Strombus 1369:Shellnut 1345:Shellnut 1263:Linnaean 1236:Shellnut 1218:Shellnut 1106:More on 1061:Shellnut 980:Shellnut 935:Shellnut 839:Shellnut 782:Shellnut 744:Shellnut 735:Asprella 681:Shellnut 595:Shellnut 514:Shellnut 487:Liniaxis 483:Hexaplex 460:Shellnut 427:Hexaplex 405:Liniaxis 334:Shellnut 288:List of 190:Shellnut 109:Shellnut 1944:Iselica 1890:Iselica 1662:Conidae 1575:Ganeshk 1539:Ganeshk 1414:Thinker 1343:though. 928:in the 730:Conidae 661:Conidae 575:Conidae 509:Conidae 450:see ref 436:. E.g, 330:Conidae 292:species 224:Ganeshk 213:example 168:Ganeshk 145:Ganeshk 39:archive 2071:shoot. 1084:WP:REF 726:before 706:before 455:before 2144:JoJan 2087:JoJan 2058:JoJan 2025:JoJan 2006:JoJan 1985:JoJan 1964:JoJan 1828:JoJan 1791:JoJan 1702:JoJan 1657:Conus 1644:Conus 1333:Conus 1329:Conus 1325:Conus 1270:Conus 1258:Conus 1254:Conus 1214:Conus 1088:JoJan 1050:Conus 1021:Conus 925:Conus 889:Conus 885:Conus 866:JoJan 673:Conus 609:Conus 587:Conus 539:JoJan 491:JoJan 290:Conus 126:and 16:< 2163:talk 2148:talk 2091:talk 2077:talk 2062:talk 2047:talk 2029:talk 2010:talk 1989:talk 1968:talk 1926:talk 1907:and 1851:talk 1832:talk 1818:talk 1808:and 1795:talk 1772:talk 1753:talk 1743:and 1706:talk 1672:talk 1603:talk 1581:talk 1562:talk 1545:talk 1504:talk 1490:talk 1462:talk 1444:talk 1426:talk 1410:The 1389:The 1373:talk 1349:talk 1338:and 1303:talk 1289:talk 1240:talk 1222:talk 1200:talk 1186:name 1092:talk 1065:talk 1035:talk 1012:fact 984:talk 954:talk 939:talk 910:talk 902:talk 870:talk 843:talk 813:talk 786:talk 763:talk 748:talk 714:talk 685:talk 669:much 650:talk 618:talk 599:talk 583:much 557:talk 543:talk 518:talk 495:talk 481:and 464:talk 442:and 424:and 385:talk 360:talk 338:talk 316:talk 300:talk 278:talk 264:talk 230:talk 194:talk 174:talk 151:talk 113:talk 1655:to 1327:or 1017:own 1002:who 348:you 2165:) 2150:) 2093:) 2079:) 2064:) 2049:) 2031:) 2012:) 1991:) 1970:) 1928:) 1881:, 1875:, 1869:, 1853:) 1834:) 1820:) 1797:) 1774:) 1755:) 1739:, 1735:, 1731:, 1708:) 1674:) 1605:) 1572:— 1564:) 1536:— 1506:) 1492:) 1464:) 1446:) 1428:) 1375:) 1351:) 1305:) 1291:) 1242:) 1224:) 1202:) 1094:) 1086:. 1067:) 1037:) 986:) 956:) 941:) 912:) 872:) 845:) 815:) 788:) 765:) 750:) 716:) 687:) 652:) 620:) 601:) 559:) 545:) 520:) 497:) 477:, 466:) 448:, 387:) 362:) 340:) 318:) 302:) 294:? 280:) 266:) 221:— 196:) 165:— 142:— 115:) 86:→ 2161:( 2146:( 2089:( 2075:( 2060:( 2045:( 2027:( 2008:( 1987:( 1966:( 1924:( 1849:( 1845:? 1830:( 1816:( 1793:( 1770:( 1751:( 1704:( 1670:( 1601:( 1584:) 1578:( 1560:( 1548:) 1542:( 1502:( 1488:( 1460:( 1442:( 1424:( 1371:( 1347:( 1301:( 1287:( 1238:( 1220:( 1198:( 1090:( 1063:( 1033:( 982:( 952:( 937:( 908:( 900:( 887:( 868:( 841:( 811:( 784:( 761:( 746:( 712:( 691:" 683:( 648:( 639:? 616:( 597:( 555:( 541:( 516:( 493:( 462:( 383:( 358:( 336:( 314:( 298:( 276:( 262:( 250:? 233:) 227:( 192:( 177:) 171:( 154:) 148:( 111:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index