Jump to content

Talk:List of botanists by author abbreviation (A)

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

Comment 1

[edit]

I'm unsure of the need for this list and the associated template, I have the 1992 list, and there are at least 550 botanists/naturalists that have named something. Many of whom may have done nothing else of note.--nixie 08:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The list is helpful because it lists all those who do have a WP article, and also gives the name of that article. Most people won't use this as a reference but some people filling in botanical articles come across the author abbreviation for the species they are writing about and want to link that article to the botanist concerned - which raises questions like "does this botanist have an article on WP?" and "if so, where can I find it?". This list avoids multiple possible transpositions and also disambiguation pages for example. VivaEmilyDavies 09:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You're, right, the formatting changes make it much easier to read too. If you need any author abbreviations checked leave me a message on my talk page and I can look them up.--nixie 23:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Format

[edit]

<Jun-Dai 13:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)>I think this list would be easier to use if it were either formatted better (i.e., a long single-column list, or a table of some sort), or if it simply listed the author abbreviation, which could then link to the article for that botanist.

ex.:

or:

or:

- Ach. - A.Cunn. - Adams - Adans. - Adr.Juss.

Just my 2 cents</Jun-Dai>

Many thanks for implementing that! VivaEmilyDavies 22:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The table format was no good, because it was hard to add new entries while preserving the layout. So I reverted it back to a list again. Gdr 13:19, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Completeness

[edit]

Is this list complete - or complete as of a specific date? ie, for historic botanists, if they aren't on this list can I assume they don't have an author abbreviation (Note: I don't even know the significance of a botanist having an author abbreviation...)Garrie 03:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not following you around, promise.
No, there are heaps missing, including lots of old ones. Hesperian 03:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


No, it's not complete. No, you shouldn't assume that for historical botanists they don't have an author abbreviation if it's not on this list--there are many missing. There is no particular significance, except that their name is abbreviated in a standard way. I suspect it's usually done for those with more contributions to botany than others. My grandfather and two of his sons were all botanists, named plants, and only one of the sons has an abbreviation, although I think my grandfather named more organisms than this one uncle. KP Botany 03:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there should be a disclaimer stating that this list is far from complete and far from accurate and that no one should rely on this list for legitimate citations of authorities. It is a good reference (thanks for putting this together!) but one would need to go to the original literature and cross-reference these abbreviations with currently accepted abbreviations used in various herbaria. The tough part is that not all herbaria agree. Take a look at IPNI (ipni.org). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjh13 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Wight

[edit]

Can somebody add Robert Wight? 89.240.2.245 19:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Hesperian 04:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation of the author

[edit]

There should be spacer after an abbreviation of the first name of the author according many examples in Saint Louis Code article 46. This means that there are authority written typhographically bad at http://www.ipni.org - they are following standard work "Authors of Plant Names" ed. Brummitt & Powell (1992) in which the editors state: "We recommend that no spaces be left after full stops.".

  • false: J.Agardh
  • correct (according Saint Louis Code): J. Agardh
  • false: H.E.Ahles
  • correct: H. E. Ahles

What is right solution for wikipedia? --Snek01 12:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical order

[edit]

This article was created in April 2005 and was originally listed in alphabetical order sorted by abbreviation, then in April 2006 this was changed to alphabetical order sorted by surname.[1]. I propose to restore the list to its original sorting method as this seems more suitable for casual readers (as opposed to WP Project Plants editors) who come to this page with an abbreviation to look up and are not familiar with abbreviation conventions. Any objections? --Melburnian 11:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the current order has always seemed rather strange to me. I support changing it back. Hesperian 12:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, have been puzzled by the collation, and support changing it back.--Curtis Clark 13:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Melburnian 11:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What botanists?

[edit]

What about bryologists? To me, it seems reasonable to include them, but i propose that phycologists and and mycologists should have their own list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.106.205 (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ke onada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.240.42 (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed break-up

[edit]

The article keeps crashing my system because its so big, mostly on edits, and I'm sure this will only worsen as it expands. I would like to break it up alphabetically into smaller articles, but cannot do it alone as my system can't edit some (most?) foreign or specialized characters, garbling them beyond recognition.

I propose the following scheme, should anyone be interested:

Each represents three letters (exceptions with letters q and x, as they are exceedingly uncommon, and can be thrown in with their nearest neighbors)

A lot or all of the other parts (intro, see also section, etc.) could be included with each page to keep them consistent, and the original title would represent the eight, above. The rationale behind breaking it up into eight, as opposed to less (two, for instance), is to delay further splits in the near term, as this list appears to be growing fast, and splitting is a pain in the neck.

This kind of break-up is just one way to do it, so other schemes are encouraged. I just know it needs to be done sooner or later. Thanks for any input. Hamamelis (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This generally makes sense. Would the current article become an index page (I think that's what you're saying)? Can we transclude the intro and other stuff so that it won't evolve independently in different articles? Are there other examples of this sort of thing that we can use for guidance?--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Curtis, those are all important things to consider. I've never worked on anything quite like this and hadn't considered the parallel evolution problem, which is an especially good point. You're probably also correct about making the first page an index page, and I think a lot of things can get transcluded by creating a template. I don't know if tranclusion is a given, or if it requires some vetting process, permissions etc.
Anyone, please take a look here at my ugly first attempt at creating a template for this; if you understand more than me, please feel free to alter it. The Herbs & spices template was my starter guide, though I'm not sure its optimal. Perhaps something closer than the herbs & spices template can be found to what would be required. Hamamelis (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptable abbreviations

[edit]

I moved the entry for G. R. Bhatti (sic) from the letter "G" to "B" as

However, according to IPNI this is his 'standard form'. Perhaps this is because Brummitt & Powell's Authors of Plant Names was published in 1992; IPNI's 'example of name published' shows a plant with this author in Fontqueria, 42: 5 (1995), and so the name could not be included (if no plant name was published by G. R. Bhatti previous to 1992, which, admittedly, I haven't taken the time to check). Also, I coudn't find anything for him at HUH. My question is, is it ok to place the name on the list or not? Is a 'standard form' acceptable in the absence of a B&P abbreviation? Hamamelis (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list contains many names added to IPNI after Brummitt & Powell (1992). Indeed, they are very pleased to be told about authors not in their list, whereupon they will add them, making up a new standard form. I've had a dozen or so paleobotanists added (the coverage of this group is poor). See e.g. Mey.-Berth. in IPNI. You need to give them a full bibliographical reference to a name created by the author. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Kew for an explanation of how Brummitt & Powell is being kept up-to-date, including in IPNI. Nadiatalent (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Peter and Nadia! Hamamelis (talk) 06:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source

[edit]

A California Flora by Philip Alexander Munz, David D. Keck contains various missing ones. Here's a sample page. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 17:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted on the page and above, the list is incomplete. The recent addition, Pierre Jules Fourreau, appears at IPNI and is worth noting if it didn't (see discussion above). If the page of that flora contains some biographical data it could, of course, be used to create the article. I say 'if' because, unlike IPNI, the google link to the page is not available to all (at least not to me). cygnis insignis 17:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only the IPNI is definitive for botanical author abbreviations. Some sources appear to have made up their own or to have made mistakes, so should always be cross-checked with an IPNI author search. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants doesn't rigidly prescribe particular abbreviations, but recommends that abbreviations be used, and suggests the earlier list that forms the basis of IPNI's list. This page is clear that it follows that scheme. There have been in the past and still are, other schemes, and I think it would be unfortunate for Wikipedia to be more rigid than the ICN is. Ideally, I would like to see the Botanist template allow for older abbreviations to be listed as well as the standardized ones; Medicus/Medikus, and Carl Koch/Karl Koch are very frequent examples of multiple abbreviations. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that there is a good case for including historically used abbreviations, so that people who come across these can use this page as a source of information. On the other hand, I come across quite a few abbreviations that are simply errors (typos, etc.). So I'm not quite clear what the criterion would be for adding names other than those in IPNI. Peter coxhead (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it might not be good to have L. Linn. and Linnaeus all listed, but perhaps just for people whose name was Latinized in more than one way ... Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page split

[edit]

I note that there was an earlier consensus that this page should be split up. It's now even longer and very difficult to edit as a whole. I propose to carry out a split (initially I think three parts will be enough) in the next few days. I have an idea how to do it: in particular to keep the A-Z table of contents in each alphabetic section and link to the appropriate page, so as to make moving around as easy as possible.

If there are strong objections, please say so now. Otherwise I'd like to try it out and then invite comments on whether this is the right way to do it; I think it's easier to comment on and improve pages that exist rather than an abstract description of how it could be done. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First step I have now split off the entries for P–Z. I'd welcome comments on the way I've done it before I split off another third. (I think a split into three pages is enough for now.) Peter coxhead (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great to me, but I think you need a "naive" user (an inexperienced wikipedia editor, not yet set in their ways) to vet it. I'll see if I can find such a person. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No comments offered by the "naive" people that I could muster. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you ever edit as a whole? Eau (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If your point is about why the page should be split, there are two reasons:
  1. The page is slow to load just to read, particularly on mobile devices which are increasingly commonly used for web browsing. Checking other pages of comparable total length, I suspect that the format – mostly a bulleted list – makes it worse than just text.
  2. Mostly you can just edit a section, but every now and then I check the page for hyphens instead of en-dashes, or copy the text to a spreadsheet which checks alphabetic ordering, or someone has to move an entry because it was put under the author's surname, not abbreviation. These kinds of edit are becoming very difficult to do.
I don't like splitting the page, which is why I'm trying to make it as invisible as I can. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make a point, I asked a question. The way the list is laid out, I did not see why anyone would edit the whole thing. I edit on mobile, though, and the page loads quickly. Loaded faster than this talk page and faster than long articles, so may differ greatly by mobile. But, also loads quickly on my 3g mobile.
Splitting the alphabet on the main page would, in my opinion, make it easier to understand you are being taken to a new page, if you need to strategize a search or come up empty with a search. Eau (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant "the point of your question" not that you were making a point. There seem to be two main ways of making a split (assuming there's a consensus for a split):
  1. Try to make the split pages look as much like a single page as possible, with a single navigation menu.
  2. Have the first page direct to "subpages", each with its own different submenu.
Both have advantages and disadvantages. I prefer the first, but obviously will go with the consensus. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that sounded harsh, my words, sorry. Just make the navigation clear for the user. In my opinion the navigation would be clearer if, instead of a single line with the full alphabet, the top of the page had lines that showed the groups of letters as they are paginated. Eau (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed the split into three sections. I've put dividers into the menu/table of contents to show the page divisions. I've also added a section on "Navigation" to the lead. I agree that this is clearer.
An extra possibility would be to shade the divisions in the menu to emphasize the current one, but this would make the menu template a bit more complex (i.e. less efficient and harder to maintain) so I'm reluctant to do this unless it would be a significant improvement. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The splitting looks great--very navigable. Great job, Peter! Hamamelis (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I'm particularly glad to know that you're happy with it since it was originally your proposal to split the page. I think it's broken down enough for the present, but there can be further splits later if pages keep growing. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second splits

[edit]

I am now in the process of splitting each of the three pages into two, making six in all. Each was over 50kB. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The split is now complete. I have made the page sizes as equal as I could, but without splitting a single letter, they can't be made as equal as would be ideal (C and S would need to be split). As of now, the splits and sizes are:
  • A–C 37kB
  • D–F 21kB
  • G–J 29kB
  • K–O 30kB
  • P–S 34kB
  • T–Z 21kB
Peter coxhead (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't this page in alphabetical order?

[edit]

huh? Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is in alphabetical order, given that the abbreviations are "identifiers" to be taken literally, not names. As a name "A.B.Jacks" is the same as "A B Jacks" or "Jacks, A. B.", etc. As an author abbreviation, they are different. What different order would you suggest? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For botanists themselves listed alphabetically, have a look at list of botanists. Hamamelis (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One person with two abbreviations

[edit]

Does anyone know how to adjust {{Botanist}} to allow for two abbreviations? Please see Olav Johan Sopp#Botanist abbreviation for an example. I tried to deal with it, but it just doesn't look good or read well. I've also posted this message at Template talk:Botanist#One person with two abbreviations. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 08:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that this was answered at Template talk:Botanist#One person with two abbreviations; there is now a template {{Botanist2}} which handles two abbreviations. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary information

[edit]

I don't see any reason to include additional information in this list.[2] This is just the list of the botanists by author abbreviation, nothing more, and the additional information is not needed in order to locate an abbreviation or clarify an abbreviation. It should be removed and just be put in the father's and and son's articles. --AfadsBad (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm often unsure what to include or not include on this list because it is somewhat different than most articles. In the case of this article, there hasn't been much discussion on this, so I would welcome a discussion on limitations. As to my last entry that AfadsBad points to, I don't mind it being removed. But we should make clear, as precisely as possible, what information should and should not be included. Some 'additional' information, sometimes, I think is helpful (such as when names are very similar, e.g. A.Cabrera = Ángel Cabrera; Cabrera = Angel Lulio Cabrera). Hamamelis (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think though, the father/son information you added did not clear up anything, it just added information which is not part of the article. However, I see no hurry to change, and we can get more input, as I am an inexperienced editor and may not see everything. Thanks for responding here. --AfadsBad (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Despite (or partly owing to) the apparent lack of interest in this, I've decided to remove the additional information from the entry for "Lank." as it admittedly isn't adding that much, and it will please at least one editor—so I deem its removal to be a net plus. Hamamelis (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I slightly prefer a "clean" list, although I'm not really bothered either way. When there was a single article, you could use it "in reverse", i.e. search for a name in order find the abbreviation. Now this is awkward with the list split across several articles, so I see the main use being abbreviation → name, in which case disambiguating names is not as useful. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know that it may not seem like it, but I also prefer a "clean" list (or at least, as clean as possible). I'm wondering if there would be any objection to paring down the added information, especially in cases where entries already have articles linked to them (on en.wikipedia), and therefore the added info is redundant. Also, where possible, I would like to make the entries more uniform in appearance. Please, comments/discussion from anyone? If not, I'll just proceed as time permits me. Hamamelis (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One template or three?

[edit]

Over the past few months, in relation to my work on Wikidata, I've been trying to increase the number of inline interlanguage links we use here on the English Wikipedia. I can go into my rationale for this if people are curious, but suffice it to say it's a hobby of mine to try to replace redlinks with {{ill}}s, {{ill2}}s, or {{ill-WD}}s (the last of which I created). At the moment, you can see all three templates in action in the "a" section here. I don't consider this particularly controversial, since the templates benefit our multilingual readers (of whom there is a surprising a number), and are very easy to ignore for our monolingual ones; plus, Google Translate can do a decent job, and a machine-translated foreign article is better than nothing at all. However, User:Peter coxhead has raised the concern that my use of three different templates with three different parameter setups will make this confusing for editors, and especially for the offline tools that he occasionally uses to clean up formatting errors and inconsistencies, and he thus proposes that we only use {{ill-WD}}. I'm certainly sensitive to his concerns, but, in the spirit of putting the reader first, I feel it makes the most sense to use all three ({{ill}} for one link, {{ill2}} for two or three, and {{ill-WD}} for four or more). Hopefully, once T49930 is fixed, it'll be possible to make {{ill-WD}} serve the purpose of all three, but, until then, I don't see any way around it. So, having reached a respectful impasse, Peter and I agreed it would be best to seek input from others. For the time being, I'm going to continue to use all three, but if there's a consensus that it's preferable to only use the one, then obviously I'll defer to that. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 03:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is useful to provide links to other Wikipedias instead of red links, so I support your general approach. I would prefer a single template, so let's hope that the bug can be fixed. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another split needed?

[edit]

The A–C page (the first page) is now over 50 kB in size, so perhaps needs splitting, particularly for the benefit of those who view Wikipedia on a mobile device. Unfortunately, the B entries are the largest, so an equal split would involve something like A–BL and BM–C. Keeping the initial letters together, A–B and C is the best split.

Any views please? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it could be time for some page splitting. For my part, I'm not so keen on splitting within a letter, for now. I looked at data for number of author entries (ratios roughly correspond to bytes downloaded) per letter and page with a view to reorganisation.
Two pages are now at over 800 entries: A–C and P–S. Given the effort involved in splits, perhaps its best that the next split gives pages of less than or equal to the sizes of the most numerous letters to allow for a fair bit of future expansion. One such scheme I looked at (with approximate number of entries post-split): A 204, B 357, C 300, D 211, E–F 304, G 227, H 278, I–J 226, K–L 341, M 275, N–O 142, P 244, Q–R 248, S 325, T–V 229, W–Z 256
I realise this increases the number of pages quite a bit, but a lesser split may just result in the need to split again in a shorter interval. Declan Declangi (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Declangi: yes, this seems a sensible split to me. As you say, it's quite a bit of work to make the split (especially trying to disrupt as few pages as possible at each step), so I'm happy to allow for a good deal of future expansion! I'm working on it today. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Peter coxhead (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter coxhead: Peter, this is excellent. Many thanks for your painstaking work doing this huge split. It should allow for a great deal of future expansion and be of immediate benefit for viewers on mobile. Declan Declangi (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List mycologists here?

[edit]

The question was posed above of whether mycologists should be included in this list? Not sure if consensus was reached on this somewhere. If mycologists should not be included then perhaps the excellent List of mycologists could be prominently linked to from here, to assist those looking for an abbreviation but unsure of which side of the fence the author is on. Declan Declangi (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think these lists are really "lists of authors with abbreviations in IPNI", regardless of what they worked on. As far as I can tell, although the taxon names are limited to "seed plants, ferns and lycophytes", the authors relate to the whole of the ICN, which includes fungi. Certainly all the abbreviations I tried from the List of mycologists were in the IPNI author search. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do all botanists have an abbreviated form of their name?

[edit]

Hi. Do all botanists have an abbreviated form of their name? I don't see Luís Wittnich Carrisso on the list. Thanks. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, only botanists who have authored a name under the ICN have an abbreviation. Secondly, IPNI isn't complete. If you know that he has authored a name, send the citation to IPNI and they will add him. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reference query

[edit]

Hi. I noticed that the reference section seems to occur twice on the list. Tried unsuccessfully to remove it - but did not want to fiddle too much with the template. Or is it just me who sees it ? DavidAnstiss (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is being caused by the Yobot bot which adds a duplicate Reference section in the wrong place if it "corrects" a reference. I've notified the owner of the bot. There's no point in trying to fix it (as I did!) until the bot is sorted. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you DavidAnstiss (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some botanist working on Philippines species not listed here

[edit]

jaap vermeulen , orchidology, bulbophyllum [3] Pieter B. Pelser- Julie Barcelona- Leonard co — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raabbustamante (talk • contribs) 09:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

see J.J.Verm. – Jaap J. Vermeulen (born 1955) is listed added - 5 May 2015‎ 21:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
See also "Pelser" and "Barcelona". Peter coxhead (talk) 07:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

[edit]

I just wanted to say that the botanist author abbreviation pages are a wonderful resource and I feel very thankful that the effort was spent to put them together so well.Regularuk (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation suggestion

[edit]

I love this page. I like learning about the history of botany through authors. I add their details to the plant Speciesbox, and other appropriate places. But sometimes I do it wrong. I just copy the wiki heading name off the list and go John Smith|Smith. So far so good, but it may actually be John Smith (botanist)|Smith. I don't notice the difference on this page, only if I am researching more on the author and follow the links. May I request that where the correct wikipage is John Smith (botanist), or whatever, that we write it here for the lazy/ignorant editors such as myself. Thanks to all who have created this resource, well done. Brunswicknic (talk) 08:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K.Rosenth.

[edit]

K.Rosenth. – Käthe Rosenthal (1893-?1943): Her life is recorded at IPNI as "1893-?1843", she published in 1916 and 1919, I presumed that 1843 is a typo for 1943, and I wonder if she died in a concentration camp. Brunswicknic (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brunswicknic: there's considerable confusion over identity. The VIAF entry here says that "Rosenthal, Käthe" was the former name of Hoffmann, Käthe 1893-1942. IPNI here says that Käthe Hoffmann (b. 1883) and Käthe Rosenthal (b. 1893) are not the same person. As far as I can see, all the names published by "K.Hoffm." are as "Pax & K.Hoffm.", where Hoffmann is not given as an author of the publication, whereas "K.Rosenth." names are in just one single authored publication. So it's not impossible that these are the same person: Pax used her married name, and she published one work by herself under her maiden name. But this is speculation. On the other hand, if Käthe Rosenthal (b. 1893) is the same as IPNI's Käthe Hoffmann (b. 1883), the earlier date of birth is more plausible, since the earliest Pax & K.Hoffm. name is dated to 1911, when someone born in 1893 would have been about 18.
Carrying on with the confusion, Google books says here that Monographie der Gattung Daphniphyllum 1916, Schlesische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Breslau, was authored by Käthe Hoffmann. But this is said by IPNI here to be source of information about Käthe Rosenthal (b. 1893). If anyone had access to this book, there might be information there.
So are they the same person, or not, with muddles over both date of birth and date of death? I really don't know. However, it seems entirely likely that either the one person or both people were indeed murdered in a concentration camp after 1941. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Peter coxhead. Even the recent past is sometimes so opaque. The position of women is society, including the compulsory name changes that occurred does not help matters, along with the loss of records and informed people from war. I presume that for now we leave the authority citations as the same. Though what happens when people do change name, I presume that the authority stays the same and they end having more than one authority citation. Brunswicknic (talk) 08:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no, scrub some of the previous stuff!
A bit more information. Here it says that Monographie der Gattung Daphniphyllum was Käthe Rosenthal's dissertation.
See this title page where both Käthe Hoffmann and Käthe Rosenthal are listed. So I'm now pretty sure that they were not the same person, notwithstanding the sources that imply that they were. Käthe Hoffmann (b. 1883) had co-authored work with Pax from 1911 onwards when she would have been about 28, which makes sense; Käthe Rosenthal, who if born in 1893 was 10 years younger, had her dissertation on Daphniphyllaceae published in 1916 when she was about 23, which again makes sense, and then re-wrote parts of it to be published in the Das Pflanzenreich : regni vegetablilis conspectus series in 1919.
Yes, anyone who changes their name ends up with two standardized abbreviations, each based on the name used at the time. There should be a cross-link in IPNI. This is an issue for women in particular, who in the past usually did not continue publishing under their maiden name. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Brunswicknic: you may be interested in the section on Käthe Rosenthal at Käthe Hoffmann. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter coxhead: Thanks for this good work. The dates of these 2 botanists deaths is still murky, shall we ask the German Wiki people (I presume they have a list of botanists by author abbr. and/or a WP:Plants, I hope) for possible clarification? I don't know who the major source for German botany is (though Goethe University rings a bell), we could chuck it to them. If you think it's a reasonable idea, I'm happy to ask, though I have no coherent German. Brunswicknic (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I consulted German Wiki, 1st of all they list Botanist and their Author Abbreviation by Surname, not by the Abbreviation. They list Kathe Hoffman as follows: "K.Hoffm. – Käthe Hoffmann (Kaethe ~, Kaethe Hoffmann Rosenthal, Kaethe Rosenthal; Käthe ~) (1883–ca. 1931), deutsche Botanikerin, publizierte mit Pax (Wikidata) (nicht zu verwechseln mit Käthe Rosenthal → K.Rosenth. (→ R)" However on their page there is no mention of Kathe Rosenthal. On her wiki page they repeat that she published those works in 1942. They list Kathe Rosenthal thus: "K.Rosenth. – Käthe Rosenthal (mögl. Käthe Emmy ~) (1893–?), Jüdisch-Schlesierin, Deutsche (nicht zu verwechseln mit Käthe Hoffmann Rosenthal → K.Hoffm. → H)" Jüdisch-Schlesierin="Jewish Silesian". So I googled Kathe Emmy Rosenthal, and got two hits. Buch der Erinnerung: Die ins Baltikum deportierten deutschen ("Book of Remembrance: The Germans Deported to the Baltic States") has the following entry: Rosenthal, Kathe Emmy, Dr./*25/06/1893 in Breslau/LA: Berlin Halensee/Seesener Str. 67. No other Rosenthal's at that address listed. At http://gen.scatteredmind.co.uk/show_person/7682 there is the following genealogy and info. "Ferdinand Rosenthal / Born 10/10/1839 Hungary, Kaposvár/Died 1921 Poland, Schlesien, Breslau / Partner Amalie Kaufmann (1856-57 – 24/06/1911) /Children: / Benjamin Willy Rosenthal (16/11/1880 – ) / Immanuel Felix Rosenthal (29/01/1885 – ) / Bruno Isachar Rosenthal (12/05/1886 – ) / Emmy Kaethe Rosenthal (25/06/1893 – ) /Walter David Rosenthal (14/03/1905 – ) / Notes Rabbi (Beuthen and Breslau) and doctor of philosophy. / Sources de.wikipedia.org (in German). Yes there is Ferdinand Rosenthal page on de.wiki, but no mention there of his children. No article in en.wiki, though I presume that the FR mentioned here ":Sefer ha-yashar, ed. Ferdinand Rosenthal (Berlin, 1898; repr. Jerusalem, 1975). Critical edition of second section (responsa)." at Sefer haYashar (Rabbeinu Tam) is him
Short vers. We have some biographical detail, we have a good sources for her full name, Ph.D, Jewish and Silesian identity and deportation from Berlin, and a poor source for family and other details. I'll now put a request to de.wiki at their list-botan-author-abbrev talk-page Brunswicknic (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B.Holst

[edit]

Would adding Bruce K. Holst be acceptable? See this reference for instance. --Jeran Renz (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine. B.Holst merits inclusion here. Plantdrew (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark James Elgar Coode

[edit]

I have ripped off the Italian Wikipedia article on the British botanist Mark James Elgar Coode. Never done it before, used another botanists page as template, google translated the Italian, and I pasted. But, problems, notes instead of <ref>, the authority box or whatever it is at the bottom and other stuff. Please, could someone fix what is wrong? Brunswicknic (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Li?

[edit]

I've been finding more and more "Li" in biology articles, but the List and the surname page and this page didn't help much. Anybody have any ideas?Leomk (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 02:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Leomk0403:, there are dozens of botanists named Li, but (apparently) none with a standard abbreviation of just "Li". If you're asking about the Li who described Lobophytum pygmapedium and Lobophytum anomolum, you'll find that their initial is "C." if you follow the taxonbar link to WoRMS. But the Lobophytum Li is not a botanist and would not belong on this list. Plantdrew (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

okay!Leomk (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 05:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_botanists_by_author_abbreviation_(A)&oldid=1206389008"