User talk:Franz Xaver

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

-> de:Benutzer Diskussion:Franz Xaver

File:1024 in der Ragga-Schlucht-2773.jpg[edit]

Hallo Franz, vielen Dank für die Präzisierung. Ich freue mich, daß ich einen Spezialisten für Alpenblumen gefunden habe. An Literatur habe ich Christine Jaitner und Helmut Hartl/Thomas Peer. Ich habe mich gleich an die nächste Bestimmung gewagt: File:1024 Am Naturlehrweg Seebachtal-2433.jpg. Grüße --Hedwig Storch (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Servus! Ja, das ist natürlich das Zweiblütige Veilchen - das ist unverwechselbar. Hartl und Peer kenn ich von der einen oder anderen Gelegenheit persönlich, das Buch (Pflanzen, Nationalpark Hohe Tauern ??) hab ich aber noch nicht in der Hand gehabt. Dem Umfang nach zu schließen kann das nur eine Auswahl der wichtigen und auffallenden Arten sein. Die Autoren kennen das Gebiet sehr gut und werden sicher eine gute Auswahl getroffen haben. Für Gelegenheitsbotaniker im Urlaub ist das Buch sicher ideal. Solltest du aber planen, Ausflüge in die Kalkgebirge südlich der Drau (z.B. Gailtaler Alpen) zu machen, da werden sich dann größere Lücken zeigen. OK, kein Problem, mach halt einfach Fotos und stell sie hier ein. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ich hab inzwischen einiger deiner Fotos bestimmt, d.h. in die richtigen Kategorien eingeordnet. Phyteuma persicifolium hat es bisher auf Commons noch nicht gegeben. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hallo Franz, ich bin begeistert. Vielen herzliche Dank! Grüße --Hedwig Storch (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pflanzen aus dem alpinen Kärnten[edit]

Hallo Franz, als Laie habe ich mich an die Bestimmung meiner vielen Fotos von Anfang Juni dieses Jahres gemacht. Würdest Du mich bitte korrigieren:

Würdest Du bitte die Pflanze bestimmen

Grüße --Hedwig Storch (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Das erste Foto halte ich für Myosotis alpestris. Die Blüten sind bei Eritrichium nanum ganz ähnlich, aber beim Himmelsherold sind die Blüten nur ganz wenig über die Laubblätter emporgehoben.
Der Steinbrech kann nur Saxifraga oppositifolia im engeren Sinn sein. Saxifraga rudolphiana bildet immer sehr dichte Polster - vgl. [1]
Die letzten beiden Fotos gehören zu Crepis aurea. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vielen Dank für die Korrekturen/Bestimmung. Ich habe geändert/eingefügt. Herzlichen Dank auch für den Link http://flora.nhm-wien.ac.at/ Ich muß mir mal die 5000 Fotos anschauen. Vielleicht hilft das weiter. Grüße --Hedwig Storch (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo Franz, habe ich die unten alle richtig einsortiert?

Grüße --Hedwig Storch (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Soldanella alpina, Gentiana verna, Tussilago farfara, Doronicum austriacum und Stellaria nemorum sind korrekt bestimmt. Das Habichtskraut kann vielleicht auch stimmen, es ist aber anhand dieses Fotos eigentlich nicht bestimmbar. Die Behaarung auf den Hüllblättern kann man höchstens erahnen. Ich vermute, dass da mehr helle drüsenlose Haare als (dunkle) Drüsenhaare vorhanden waren, was dann eher auf Hieracium bifidum (oder Hieracium vulgatum) weisen würde. Aber auch wenn die Behaarung für das Wald-Habichtskraut passen sollte, kann man dann wiederum das Gewöhnliche Habichtskraut (Hieracium lachenalii) nicht ausschließen, weil man hier von der Beblätterung überhaupt nichs sieht. Das Bild kannst du bei den unbestimmten Habichtskräutern einordnen und dort wird es leider wohl ewig bleiben müssen. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hallo Franz, vielen Dank für die kritische Durchsicht. Deiner Empfehlung folgend steht jetzt File:1024 in der Ragga-Schlucht-2865.jpg unter Category:Unidentified Hieracium. Das Foto steht jetzt mit höherer Auflösung (7 MB statt früher 0,25 MB) in Commons. Vielleicht sind beim Herausvergrößern mehr Details sichtbar. Grüße --Hedwig Storch (talk) 07:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Servus! Leider bringt die Vergrößerung auch nicht viel. Das ist jetzt zwar größer, aber nicht scharf. Ich tendiere jetzt aber doch eher zu den Drüsenhaaren - das gleiche Problem mit anderem Vorzeichen. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 07:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo Franz, würdest Du bitte meine Einsortierungen überprüfen:

Grüße --Hedwig Storch (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Silene dioica und Geum montanum stimmen. Bei der Glockenblume wäre es hilfreich zu wissen, wie die Blätter aussehen. Die Blüten von der Seite würden auch nicht schaden. Bei den ersten beiden Bildern passt das, was man von den Blättern sieht, gar nicht zu Pritzelago alpina. (Bitte, nicht die Blätter unterschätzen! Da gibt's oft mehr Bestimmungsmerkmale als an den Blüten.) Ich denke, das ist Arabis soyeri subsp. subcoriacea. Der "Alpendost" ist keiner, sondern das ist ein Doldenblütler (Apiaceae). Leider fehlen auch hier die Blätter. Da müsste man jetzt alle Apiaceae durchgehen, die in der Gegend bekannt sind. Jedenfalls gibt es in den höheren Lagen von vielen Arten, die sonst weiß blühen, auch rosa blühende Formen. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, das dritte Bild ist ziemlich sicher Chaerophyllum hirsutum. Ausschlaggebend ist, dass die Ränder der Kronblätter bewimpert sind. --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hallo Franz, ich bin Dir für Deine Hilfe sehr dankbar und habe korrigiert. Ich ärgere mich, daß ich kein Blattwerk liefern kann. Hoffentlich hilfst Du mir noch weiter. Ich mache mal eine neue Überschrift auf. Grüße --Hedwig Storch (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pflanzen aus dem alpinen Kärnten (Fortsetzung)[edit]

Hallo Franz, bei denen bin ich ziemlich ratlos. Könntest Du mir bitte helfen?

Eine Pestwurz (Petasites) - mit den Blättern wäre die Art leicht zu bestimmen. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lotus corniculatus --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alle drei Bilder Cardamine amara --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Homogyne alpina --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ich denke schon, dass das in beiden Fällen das gleiche ist, nämlich Dactylorhiza fuchsii, aber ganz sicher ist das mit den beiden Fotos nicht. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nein, das ist irgendeine Segge (Carex) - so nicht genauer bestimmbar. Unter Wasser ist noch eine Callitriche zu erkennen. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ja, beide Male das gleiche: Veratrum album subsp. lobelianum. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ziemlich sicher Saxifraga aizoides --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Zur Bestimmung der Unterarten des Alpen-Mohns (Papaver alpinum) würde man auch Blätter brauchen. Aber das sind ohnehin Kulturformen, bei denen nicht einmal eine Zuordnung zu Papaver alpinum sicher möglich ist. Da kommen zumindest auch Papaver radicatum und Papaver nudicaule in Frage. --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kein Nelkengewächs, sondern ein Steinbrech: Saxifraga paniculata oder vielleicht auch eine verwandte Art. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grüße --Hedwig Storch (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ich schreib meine Bestimmungen und Kommentare in deine Anfrage dazwischen hinein. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo Franz, recht recht vielen Dank für Deine wertvolle Arbeit. Da hab ich ja teilweise wieder ganz schön daneben gelegen. Vorhin habe ich Deine Anmerkungen eingearbeitet. Zur Pestwurz hab ich ausnahmsweise ein Foto der Blätter, die weite Teile des Malta-Bachufers bedeckten: File:1024 Pestwurz Laubblätter Malta Hochalmstraße-3146.jpg.

Könntest Du mir bitte noch folgende Pflanzen identifizieren?

2x dieselbe:

Viele Grüße --Hedwig Storch (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Die Pestwurz ist dann also Petasites albus. Die nächsten beiden Bilder zeigen eigentlich keine Pflanzen, sondern Flechten, also genau genommen Pilze. Bei denen sag ich lieber nix. Da kann ich höchstens die Gattung raten, das erste Bild vermutlich Usnea, das zweite vielleicht Ramalina oder Evernia.
Die zwei nächsten sind Geum rivale. Das Veilchen ist entweder Viola riviniana oder Viola canina, wenn im Wald eher ersteres. Das letzte ist ein Hahnenfuß (Ranunculus). Ohne Blätter kann ich da nichts Genaueres sagen. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo Franz, vielen Dank für Deine Antworten, die ich eingearbeitet habe. Könntest Du bitte noch zu denen etwas sagen:

Ein Vertreter der Gattung Phedimus, früher ein Teil von Sedum. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Das sieht sehr nach Rhodiola pachyclados (= Sedum pachyclados) aus. Ich weiß leider nicht, ob es da noch ähnliche Arten gibt, die in Kultur sind. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Es handelt sich da wohl um eine weißblühende Form von Ajuga reptans. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Offenbar ein Helianthemum. Da wären mehr Bilder günstig, die mehr Merkmale zeigen. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In die Verwandtschaft von Saxifraga paniculata gehört das wohl schon, aber bezüglich der Artzugehörigkeit hab ich Vorbehalte. Da es in so einem Alpengarten gut möglich ist, dass fremdländische Arten kultiviert werden, wäre es für eine sichere Bestimmung nötig, auch die Blätter gut sehen zu können. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Es dürfte sich um ein Symphytum handeln, vielleicht eine Hybride. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Das sieht nach Vicia cracca aus. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ein Vertreter der Gattung Aquilegia. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ein Vertreter der Gattung Dianthus. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eine Geranium-Art, wohl eine weißblühende Kulturform von Geranium macrorrhizum. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eine rotblühende Saxifraga. Die Blüte erinnert mich an die Hybride Saxifraga × arendsii. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Viele Grüße --Hedwig Storch (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ich mag heimische Wildpflanzen lieber als diese Sammlung von internationalen Steingartenpflanzen. Ich kann da leider in der Regel nur eine Bestimmung bis zur Gattung anbieten. Da sind vermutlich auch Hybriden darunter. --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hallo Franz, recht vielen herzlichen Dank für Deine Geduld und Deine nützlichen Antworten. Im nächsten Frühjahr will ich mir vielleicht mal das Kärnten südlich der Drau vornehmen. Grüße --Hedwig Storch (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Genehmigung[edit]

Lieber Franz, auf der Seite zur Duftwicke möchte ich das Auftaktbild (oben rechts) gerne für mein Buch über Charles Darwin verwenden. Es ist ein Lehrbuch in deutscher Sprache und erscheint in einem wissenschaftlichen Verlag. Ich bitte dich um Erlaubnis diese Abbildung verwenden zu dürfen. Mit den besten Grüßen Paul Wrede

Charite-Universitätsmedizin Berlin Molekularbiologie und Bioinformatik 14195 Berlin --Paul wrede (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo Paul Wrede! Soweit ich jetzt sehe, geht es offenbar um File:Lathyrus odoratus Painted Lady.jpg. Ich bin hier nicht der Urheber des Bildes, sondern hab es nur von Flickr nach Wikimedia Commons überführt. Die ursprüngliche Quelle befindet sich auf Flickr. Wie auf der Bildbeschreibungsseite zu sehen ist, hat FlickreviewR im Dezember 2006 bestätigt, dass zu diesem Zeitpunkt das Bild auf Flickr unter der Creative Commons-Lizenz cc-by-2.0 gestanden ist. Inzwischen ist das Bild auf Flickr als unter Copyright stehend gekennzeichnet. Ich weiß über die rechtliche Seite nicht wirklich Bescheid, aber ich denke, dass eine nachträgliche Einschränkung der Lizenz, wie sie offenbar auf Flickr geschehen ist, nicht rückwirkend gelten kann. Vermutlich kann man das Bild mit der Quelle Wikimedia Commons und der korrekten Angabe des Urhebers "vinceconnare" ohne rechtliche Probleme verwenden. Wenn man ganz sicher gehen möchte, müsste man beim Urheber vinceconnare auf Flickr direkt um eine Genehmigung anfragen. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Bidens pilosa-beijing.JPG[edit]

see [2]--shizhao (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Category Barnstar[edit]

Category Barnstar.png The Category Barnstar
For your input in identification and proper categorization of plant images. - Tupungato (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

question[edit]

Hi Franz Xaver,

Could you please tell me, why this plants are not Geranium robertianum? File:Geranium robertianum W35.jpg and File:Geranium robertianum W36.jpg

Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's most obvious, if you compare the leaves, which should look like this one in Geranium robertianum. Morever, flowers also look different: Petals of G. robertianum are much smaller, more narrow and not notched at the apex. Your plant most likely is Malva sylvestris, but at the moment I also cannot exclude some other species of Malva or even Lavatera cretica. I need to check some books that I don't have here with me. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK than, thanks for your answer! When you have time, please look after the species. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, it is Malva sylvestris. --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, thank you! DenesFeri (talk) 09:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paradisea liliastrum statt Lilium candidum[edit]

Danke[edit]

Servus/Hoï, Großen Dank für diese wichtige Information. Die Seite ist korrigiert. Danke und Gruss auch an Bayern! --Schnäggli (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, den Gruß werd ich ausrichten, wenn ich einmal nach Bayern komme. Von Wien aus ist das auch nicht gleich ums Eck. --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Lerchensporn (Corydalis) 3354.JPG[edit]

Hallo Franz Xaver, danke für die Präzisierung. Hoffentlich denke ich dran, die Blätter Anfang April nach der Raupe des Apollo abzusuchen. Grüße --Hedwig Storch (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Servus! Ich fürchte halt, dass der Standort für den Schwarzen Apollo nicht hoch genug liegen wird: "In Europa kommt er meist zwischen 1.000 - 1.700 Meter über NN vor." An dieser Stelle wär wohl eher eine Aussicht. Andererseits kommt die Art manchmal schon auch tiefer unten vor. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Schade. Trotzdem danke für die Info. Bis zum nächsten Mal. Grüße --Hedwig Storch (talk) 08:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plants taxonomy[edit]

Hi,
Do you know the source we should follow for plant taxonomy or is that an ad hoc decision depending on the species? See this change? Regards.  B.p. 13:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I see, there is no general source to follow. It depends on what reference better reflects the actual state of knowledge. However, the decisions made by the Kew Checklist usually are OK and Flora Europaea (2n ed. from 1993) is old and in many points outdated. Also the Gymnosperm Database treats this taxon as Juniperus communis var. saxatilis. So, you will have to ask MPF personally, why he decided the other way round. Maybe he follows a more recent reference. In my opinion, however, it is not a good solution to treat the taxon from North America at the rank of a variety (Juniperus communis var. depressa) and the similar taxon from the Old World as a subspecies (Juniperus communis subsp. alpina). Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See the treatment at en:wiki Juniperus communis or the layout on the Commons page Juniperus communis, which accurately reflect the morphology and ecology of the species; var. depressa is a variety of subsp. communis - that the other taxa don't (yet) have separate categories on Commons reflects the paucity of photos of them on Commons. The treatment of subsp. alpina as just a variety rather than a subspecies is something pushed by primarily US botanists who reject any use of the rank of subspecies at all in botany. Of genetics, there is a complete mismatch between the genetic material studied so far, and both morphology and biogeography, suggesting that good taxonomic markers in the species' genome have not yet been found (much as in many other conifer examples). - MPF (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi MPF, that's not very convincing for me. In the article in en.wiki most of the references cited come from the working group of R.P.Adams. I don't have access to the book Junipers of the World, but the linked papers show clearly that these people are treating all taxa below species at varietal rank. Generally it would be OK to indicate a hierarchy between taxa by using varietal und subspecific rank side by side. In this special case, however, this seems to be unjustified to me, as genetic data are suggesting that the deepest division is between American and Old World taxa. The morphological differences between communis s.str. and alpina have to do with ecological adaptation, but it is very likely that there was a lot of gene flow in refugial areas during glaciation. You are certainly right that US taxonomists generally dislike the rank of subspecies and European taxonomists use the rank of variety only for minor variants, but this is not the central issue of this case. Policies of wikipedias demand that "original research" is not permitted and everything has to be based on references. The taxonomy of this world-wide distributed species has to be based on a reference covering the total range of the species. So, Flora Europaea should not be used for this, as it is covering only Europe - and it is rather old now. References from the Adams group apparently use only the rank of variety, as also the Kew checklist does. So, this approach should be followed also here. (For my private use, probably I will call the prostrate juniper Juniperus communis subsp. alpina, as I have done since many years, but this is not relevant here.) Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, but I'd disagree strongly with that, precisely because taking a world view is important. Following Adams is merely to follow a strictly-US [+ Canada] viewpoint (Kew and the Gymnosperm Database have just copied from Adams) which is based more on ideology than science (see the introduction [p. 8] to Little's 1953 Checklist of United States Trees, which rejected subspecies usage completely, and has had very strong influence there). In e.g. Bulgaria, China, Russia and Slovakia at least, it is treated as a distinct species (J. sibirica Burgsd.). The European viewpoint of Alpine Juniper as a subspecies (as either ssp. alpina or ssp. nana) is therefore 'in the middle' and as such, the best compromise between the extremes, as well as being in use in the greatest number of countries including most where it is native (e.g. Britain, Czech Rep., France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, etc.). I'd also contest your assumption "but it is very likely that there was a lot of gene flow in refugial areas during glaciation"; there is nothing to suggest that the same ecological separation did not apply then as it does now. Such a rapid change in ecology would be extraordinary in a taxon with such a slow generation turnover. Currently there is much greater distinctiveness / separation between the two in refugial regions (e.g. Balkans, where there is a ~400m altitudinal gap between the two) than there is in more recently recolonised northern regions (e.g. Britain, Scandinavia) (see photos here - scroll down to J. communis), so if anything there has been a breakdown of prior barriers with recolonisation northward, rather than recent new separation. - MPF (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, the ecological preferences would have been the same during glaciation, but spatial separation maybe was not the same as today in the same regions. At least we can assume that timberline during glaciation was lower than today in the Balkans. So, also the altitudinal gap would have been narrower. Anyway, both taxa will have come into contact during remigration, when cold sensitive plants invaded new areas already occupied by cold tolerant plants. --Franz Xaver (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The altitudinal gap could easily have stayed the same, as both taxa will have moved downhill, with subsp. communis occupying even lower altitudes where J. oxycedrus occurs now. And cold-sensitive plants need not have come into contact, as the cold-tolerant ones would have died out before they reached there. I don't have detailed pollination dates for the Balkans, but it is also highly likely that subsp. communis and subsp. alpina are fully reproductively isolated by differing pollination times (Feb. - Mar. for subsp. communis, when subsp. alpina is still buried under deep snow not clearing until late April or May). - MPF (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyway, there may exist some regions where there is an altitudinal gap of 400 m between both taxa, but also at present there are regions where this gap is missing, including parts of the Alps. Meanwhile I have checked some literature: H.Kutzelnigg & R.Düll 1989, Die Gefäßpflanzen des Pitztales / Tirol, ISBN 3-925425-05-5, for Juniperus communis subsp. communis record an altitudinal range from the valley (= ca. 700 m) up to 2000 m and for subsp. alpina from 1200 m to 2850 m. Also H.Zoller in his contribution for Illustrierte Flora von Mitteleuropa, ISBN 3-489-51020-8, reports for subsp. communis in Wallis an upper limit of 1950 m and in Unterengadin up to 1840 m, whereas for subsp. alpina the range in Wallis is given as ca. 1600-2700(-3570) m and in Engadin as 1660-2600(-3180) m. So, there is considerable altitudinal overlap. When both taxa grow at the same altitude, I don't expect there would be a big difference in pollination times. Actually Zoller within subsp. communis presents a var. intermedia: "Meist unter 1 m hohe Zwischenform von subsp. communis und subsp. alpina, die in der Übergangsregion im Gebirge von 1400-1800 m gleitend zwischen diesen beiden Unterarten vermittelt." I can confirm from own field experience in the Alps that distinction between both is not always clear. --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For me it is not really important, if the rank of variety or subspecies is used - it has more or less the same meaning. However, I cannot recognise this hierarchical grouping of taxa. Genetic results do not show that communis s.str. is closer to depressa than to alpina/saxatilis. --Franz Xaver (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The genetic results are odd, but that is proving to be the case with many conifer studies, with major mis-matches between morphology and genetic test results. For example, in Pinus lambertiana, plants in about half the species' range show up in genetic tests as more closely related to several other pines than they are to the rest of P. lambertiana, yet no-one is suggesting any reclassification since P. lambertiana is so uniform morphologically. For that, and many other highly surprising results in Pinus, see here (pdf). Likewise, the genetic relationships within Picea show no congruence with morphological similarity, with obvious close relatives on morphology coming out deeply separated on current genetic tests; so much so that one can only conclude that current tests are giving only a very partial view of relationships with much yet to be learnt, and cannot be relied on for making new classifications. I suspect a lot of Adams' juniper work will be heavily revised with further research. - MPF (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's science: Some people publish some results and interpretations and some other people try to challenge this. And in the course of the time knowledge is improved. However, we may distrust the papers of Adams and colleagues, but these publications represent the present state of knowledge. --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, according to Flora Iberica this one should be hemisphaerica. For Segovia (Sg) province, only subsp. alpina and subsp. hemisphaerica are recorded. What's your opinion? --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ochna thomasiana 01.jpg[edit]

Thank you for the identification. Best regards. Prenn · Talk · 06:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome. --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Veilchen[edit]

Servus! Das Bild File:Viola odorata 001.JPG ist als März-Veilchen falsch bestimmt. Man sieht links, dass die Kelchblätter spitz sind, und in der Mitte, dass die Pflanze einen beblätterten Stängel ausbildet. Mit dem violetten Sporn handelt es sich hier jedenfalls um ein Wald-Veilchen (Viola reichenbachiana). Am zweiten Bild File:Viola odorata 002.JPG sind leider keine Bestimmungsmerkmale zu sehen. Da musst du dir dann selbst sicher sein, ob es sich da wirklich um dieselbe Art handelt. Die Bilder sind halt nicht vom selben Datum. Vielleicht ist das zweite Bild ja tatsächlich ein März-Veilchen. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo, danke für den Tipp. Zu dem Veilchen vom 2. Bild: Da gerade Veilchensaison ist und das BIld "vor der Haustür" gemacht wurde (Vorgarten im Stadtgebiet), habe ich mir ein blühendes Veilchen von dort geholt und genauer angeschaut: Auch hier Blätter am Stängel und spitze Kelchblätter, also reichenbachiana. Die Beschreibung habe ich dann bei beiden Bildern geändert, auch die Kategorie und file-renaming beantragt. Kurz darauf ist mir jedoch aufgefallen, dass bei dem Veilchen, das ich mir zur Überprüfung geholt habe,der Sporn relativ plump ist und in etwa Viola selkirkii und Viola riviniana entspricht, wobei laut Literatur nur selkirkii einen so dunkelvioletten Sporn hat wie das mir vorliegende Exemplar, riviniana hat einen helleren Sporn. In Frage käme evtl. auch noch V. hirta. Auf alle Fälle ist der Blütenstängel beblättert, die Blätter stehen etwas unterhalb der halben Stängellänge wie bei reichenbachiana. Da ich dann völlig unsicher war, wollte ich das renaming rückgängig machen, aber obwohl nur 10 Minuten vergangen waren, war der File schon umbenannt. Im Moment also folgende Situation beim 2. Bild: File-name reichenbachiana, Beschreibung odorata, aber vermutlich beides nicht. Was könnte es sein? Viele Grüße --Llez (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wenn es einen beblätterten Stängel gibt, dann scheidet Viola hirta jedenfalls aus. V. selkirkii ist in Mitteleuropa nicht heimisch. Auf den Bildern, die man mit Google findet, ist bei dieser Art der Sporn eher länger als bei V. riviniana. Wenn der Sporn so plump wie bei V. riviniana ist, aber violett gefärbt, dann wird das wahrscheinlich eine Hybride von V. reichenbachiana und V. riviniana gewesen sein - vgl. [3]. Solche Hybriden sind sehr häufig, in manchen Gebieten häufiger als die Elternarten. Bei dem fraglichen 2. Bild passt mir auch die Blütenfarbe nicht ganz zu V. riviniana. Typische V. riviniana hat eher hellblaue Blüten wie z.B. hier. Ein Hybride wäre mit dieser Farbe aber schon auch möglich. Man muss aber bei den Veilchen ohnehin ziemlich aufpassen. Da wachsen oft auch mehrere Arten am selben Standort. Wenn du jetzt eine Art mit beblättertem Stängel gefunden hast, heißt das nicht unbedingt, dass du 2009 keine Viola odorata fotografiert hast. Und natürlich kann es im selben Bestand wie die Hybriden auch die Elternarten geben. --Franz Xaver (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Tulips miscellaneous group[edit]

Hallo Franz Xaver, könntest Du bitte einen Blick auf diese Diskussion werfen: [4]. Vielen Dank. Orchi (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Servus Orchi! Es tut mir leid, ich fürchte, ich muss dich enttäuschen. Ich möchte mich eigentlich auf Commons nicht in Diskussionen hineinziehen lassen, wo botanische Fachkenntnis keine Rolle spielt. Vielleicht wäre es auch besser gewesen, die Anlage dieser Kategorien zuerst auf Commons talk:WikiProject Tree of Life zur Diskussion zu stellen. Diese Möglichkeit gibt's eigentlich immer noch. Aber ich denke, es sollte jetzt erst einmal geklärt werden, wo hier das Problem liegt. Geht es nur um den Namen dieser Kategorien oder um die Struktur des Kategorienbaums? Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo Franz Xaver, danke für Deine schnelle Antwort. Ich sehe selbst noch keine Tendenz, ob es um den Namen der Kategorie geht. (hier ist der Einwand von User:Ulei sicherlich berechtigt) oder um die Struktur. Mir geht es ähnlich wie Dir, dass ich mich aus Diskussionen möglichst heraushalten möchte, vor allen Dingen, wenn sie in englisch geführt sind. Ich gebe gern zu, dass mich in letzter Zeit einige Kategorien zu Monaten, Streifen, Farbhintergründen etc. etwas beeinflusst haben, diesen Versuch zu starten. Viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Danke[edit]

Thank you for adding categories for my images. Now it's much more easy to identify them. Alles Gute, --Ivar (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not smilax[edit]

Sorry, [File:Golkakri Nepali.JPG it's] not from Smilax but similar to Coccinia grandis. It bears same fruit like C. grandis but fruits are not longer but they turn same color when ripen. Leaves are also not same so I'am confused. -Krish Dulal (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was thinking about something related to Smilax aspera, but you are right, it is not. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about Solena heterophylla (=Solena amplexicaulis)? See [5] and [6] --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure, but looks like same, I need to do more research now. I will try to collect its fruit. Hoping help from you to identify other plants that are categorized as Unidentified plants in Nepal. -Krish Dulal (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose, this one is Menispermaceae, maybe Stephania japonica - see [7]. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yah, you are right .-Krish Dulal (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pyrus elaeagnifolia and Pyrus elaeagrifolia[edit]

Can you point me to a solid academic reference that settles the question of which of these two names is the preferred one. There seems to have been quite a bit of debate on the issue. Thank you. HalfGig (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/rjp-2147. Cheers  B.p. 09:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Plantlist is only one more point of view - as this one is another. I can not give a definite answer at the moment. First I will have to check the ICN. Maybe this case is concerned by some changes in the last update of the Code. And maybe there have been some recent decisions of conservations on this case.
However, as a first information: My move was based on Euro+Med Plantbase. I trusted this to be the correct spelling as Euro+Med Plantbase is supervised by some of the most distinguished nomenclaturists - see [8]. Werner Greuter and Karol Marhold are both members of the editorial committee of the last edition of the Code - see [9]. (And Greuter was the chairman of the editorial committee for some older editions.) However, I have to check, if there are some news about this. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JSTOR has about a 50-50 split on this too. I'd like to write articles on this plant but don't want to get into a rename battle with anyone and we need to have the Commons name stable too. Let me know what you find out. HalfGig (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I did not find what I had hoped to find, i.e. a decision of the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants referring to this case, or maybe this case as an explicit example within the Code. Anyway, there is Art 60.1 of the Code, telling that The original spelling of a name or epithet is to be retained, except for the correction of typographical or orthographical errors ... So, we have to consider the original spelling, which is Pyrus elaeagrifolia in the original diagnosis. In order to be allowed to "correct" the original spelling, there has to be an indication that it was an orthograpical or typographical error. As for this presumably incorrect spelling there exists an etymological interpretation explaining the name in a meaningful way (= with leaves like wild olive trees), a move to explain the name based on Elaeagnus is not really compelling. In the Latin text of the original diagnosis I could not find any reference neither to Olea nor to Elaeagnus. Moreover, in the original publication, there is also Tab. X where the plant is depicted. Here again the name is written as Pyrus elaeagrifolia, this time not in printed letters but written by hand. If we suspect the typesetter might have made a mistake at the first place, this is no possible explanation at the second place. So, in my opinion the spelling Pyrus elaeagrifolia has to be accepted as the correct one. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Works for me. Good research. Thanks! HalfGig (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
en:Pyrus elaeagrifolia en wiki article started. Feel free to improve. HalfGig (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Gentianella germanica-DSC 5044w.jpg[edit]

Servus Franz Xaver, danke für's Korrigieren der Kategorien; jetzt haben wir aber ein Problem mit der Beschreibung des Valued Image ... LG --P e z i (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories fyki[edit]

Hi, as being tagged {categorize} p.e. that edit has been fixed, thx Roland zh (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo Roland zh, ich habe keine Ahnung, was du mir damit mitteilen willst. Diese Art Slang versteh ich nicht. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Auf den beiden gegenständlichen Bildern sehe ich nichts, was man unter dem Begriff "Flora" kategorisieren könnte. OK, unter "Nature" oder "Landscape" könnte das passen. Aber der eigentliche Gegenstand der Fotos ist ein Artefakt, dass wohl zum Fischen dienen soll - eine Art Reuse oder so etwas ähnliches. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hallo Franz Xaver, ist nicht als 'Slang' gemeint, sondern der Link zeigt ja auch den 'Versionsunterschied', da mein 'written English' halt nur beschränkt ist.
Kurzum: Nicht "Kerala" ist mE die 'passende' Kategorie, da eine 'Haupt-Kategorie' (={categorize})), sondern zB "Nature of Kozhikode district".
Betreffs Category:Fishing, na ja, damit kann ich leben ;-) mfg Roland zh (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
btw: Category:Fishing in Kerala wäre iZsh {categorize} eine 'passendere' Unter-Kategorie, aber nur meine persönliche Meinung ;-) mfg Roland zh (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mir war schon klar, dass Category:Kerala nicht der endgültige Platz sein würde. Vorher war da nur die Category:Fishing drin. Ich hab mich halt darauf verlassen, dass da schon jemand den geeigneten Platz finden würde, wenn die Bilder erst einmal (vorläufig) in der Regionalkategorie einsortiert sind. Mit Abkürzungen wie "fyki" , "p.e." oder "iZsh" fang ich nicht viel an. Das hab ich mit Slang gemeint. --Franz Xaver (talk) 07:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright status: File:Viola philippica 1.jpg[edit]

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ беларуская‎ ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Viola philippica 1.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

re: Anguis from Val Rosandra[edit]

Sorry, I was too hasty and I made a mistake! --Esculapio (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC) OK. Esculapio, but why did you revert my changes on it.wiki? In my opinion, it would be preferable to add the true Anguis fragilis to it:Rettili in Italia. I do not want to start an editwar on it.wiki. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

while waiting for a picture of true Anguis veronensis, I think that that picture could be used to illustrate the species in it:Rettili in Italia, considering that the two specie are macroscopically almost indistinguishable. --Esculapio (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I see. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anfrage wegen Bildes[edit]

Hi Franz! Ich mache grad den neuen Artikel fuer Sihanoukville City, kann man hier ansehen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikirictor/sandbox wuerde gern Dein bild: File:Casuarina equisetifolia 1.jpg benutzen....sehr schoen! Sag es mir bitte, falls Du nicht einverstanden bist. Alles Gute!!! Thor Wikirictor (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Verwende es einfach. Fragen ist hier nicht notwendig. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Flora of the coast of Coromandel vs fyki[edit]

Hi, Category:Plants of the coast of Coromandel (book) media have been 'dis-overcategorized' (some but not all) from Category:Flora of the coast of Coromandel in subcategories, among them Category:Plants of the coast of Coromandel, Volume 1 etc. regards, Roland zh (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Michael Schnitzler[edit]

Hello Franz Xaver, I was wondering if you know of any image of Michael Schnitzler or the Esquinas Rainforest Lodge somewhere around here. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lotje: Hi, this photo is from the pond inside the area of the lodge. However, that's probably not exactly what you were asking for. Unfortunately, during my last stay in 2010, I did not take a photo of the lodge, but from my first stay in 1998, as far as I remember, I should have some diapositive. Next weekend, I will try to make a scan. Of course, it has changed since then. Sorry, I don't have a photo of Michael Schnitzler. --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Franz Xaver: , thanks a lot. Dobar.svg Lotje (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Garden plants[edit]

Hi! You reverted my edit, asking "How d'ya know it's in Turkey?" It is quite simple: The photo was taken on 8. Okt. 2008, 16:56, obviously in this garden (taken 16:49, 8. Okt. 2008), which you yourself have categorised in Category:Gardens in Turkey. Anyway, Category:Unidentified plants is full with hundreds of photos. Nobody will try to identify a species without flowers, if not even the place/region is known, where the photo was taken. Hope, you will not mind, if I again place these three photos in Category:Unidentified plants in Turkey. Hopefully, this will increase the chances that sometimes it will be identified. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merhaba Franz Xaver. i think the place in Ankara. Now, in category:Gardens in Ankara. if you find an another file taken 8 Oct 2008, u can do it again. thanks. Vikiçizer (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leea > Anacardium[edit]

Dear Franz Xaver,

The pictures were taken in Thailand. They are thus presumably of Anacardium occidentale. I will rename and classify the pictures accordingly.

Thank you for your appreciated help, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unidentified Campanula from the Dolomites[edit]

‘’Dear Franz Xaver,

I first contacted Orchi for identifying this Campanula sp., which I have photographied in the Dolomites:

  • Unidentified Campanula from the Dolomites

    Unidentified Campanula from the Dolomites

He advised me to contact you.

Can you please help me for identifying it? Many tanks in advance, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 07:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Meneerke bloem: Dear Réginald,
As far as I see, it is without much doubt Campanula cochleariifolia. The relatively short calyx lobes as well as shape and colour of flowers are diagnostic. Certainly it is a small species with quite small flowers, isn't it? I am sorry, this is nothing special, but a rather common species. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...ich danke Dir!! Grüße. Orchi (talk) 09:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vielen Dank! --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sida subcordata[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
Sida subcordata has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this gallery, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ eesti ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ français ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ English ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Thiotrix (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Danke für Deine Ergänzungen...[edit]

...und beste Grüße aus Niederösterreich! --GT1976 (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Anhinga anhinga f 1.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Anhinga anhinga f 1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ eesti ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ français ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ English ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

—innotata 17:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Important message for file movers[edit]

Commons File mover.svg

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

  • To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
  • To perform file name swaps.
  • When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

identity[edit]

Hi Franz - several years ago you tagged File:Acaena argentea - close-up (aka).jpg and two other related files as "certainly not A. argentea" and moved them to Unidentified Acaena. Have you been able to come to any conclusion since then as to what species of Acaena they are? Unfortunately, this file, while recategorised, was never removed from erroneous uses and it now appears on wikidata and many wikipedias as "Acaena argentea"; the longer it is left on them, the bigger the task of removing it! (I'm starting on it now) - MPF (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MPF: I am sorry, I only can tell, that this is not Acaena argentea - see [10] and [11]. (Long time has passed since then.) The shape and color of the leaflets clearly is different. However, the photos in question seem to have been taken from plants in a botanical garden, where the name probably was taken over from a label. These plant looks similar to [12] or [13] and might be the same. For me, Acaena caesiiglauca is a candidate. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! I'll leave them in Cat:Unidentified Acaena then :-) MPF (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We need your feedback![edit]

Hello. Apologies if this message is not in your native language: please feel free to respond in the language of your choice. Thank you!

I am writing to you because we are looking for feedback for a new Wikimedia Foundation project, Structured Data Across Wikimedia (SDAW). SDAW is a grant-funded programme that will explore ways to structure content on wikitext pages in a way that will be machine-recognizable and -relatable, in order to make reading, editing, and searching easier and more accessible across projects and on the Internet. We are now focusing on designing and building image suggestion features for experienced users.

We have some questions to ask you about your experience with uploading images here on Wikimedia Commons and then adding them to Wikipedia. You can answer these questions on a specific feedback page on Mediawiki, where we will gather feedback. As I said, these questions are in English, but your answers do not need to be in English! You can also answer in your own language, if you feel more comfortable.

Once the collecting of feedback will be over, we will sum it up and share with you a summary, along with updated mocks that will incorporate your inputs.

Also, if you want to keep in touch with us or you want to know more about the project, you can subscribe to our newsletter.

Hope to hear from you soon! -- Sannita (WMF) (talk to me!) 09:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rhionaeschna variegata[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
Rhionaeschna variegata has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this gallery, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ eesti ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ français ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ English ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

JopkeB (talk) 05:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Franz_Xaver&oldid=605722957"