Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive17

message: I thought I had seen some strange mirrorings of WP material, not nothing compares to this one.  It appears to be a music site, but turned up while I was searching for information about the compositae genus Oblivia. Weird. --EncycloPetey 00:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bizarre wiki-mirror 

message: Prosopis pallida says: "The kiawe is native to coastal South America, but it is found throughout the Americas." Can anybody add more specific info on the original distribution/biome to the article? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added some more information based on the article references --Melburnian (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Prosopis pallida]], original range? 

message: Hello, all. This new page was on the AlexNewArtBot list of new pages. It could use a bit of attention if anyone would like to take a crack at it. --Rkitko (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ick.  It is very biased towards "higher plants" and ignores bryophytes, ferns, and algae completely.  I really cringed when I got to the statement about the "first report of haploid plants" (which post-dates their actual discovery by Hofmeister by several decades).  The article will need a thorough re-write. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Doubled haploidy]] 

message: Some questions have come up on another discussion board about the "adaptable range" maps in the Sabal minor and Rhapidophyllum hystrix articles.  Unfortunately the maps are unattributed, there is no indication of where the information in them comes from, and as they stand they are completely unverifiable.  They almost certainly constitute original research.  I believe they should be deleted, unless the editor who put them in can provide a clear and verifiable reference for where they came from. Edited to add: a similar map is in the Lagerstroemia article (where it is especially inappropriate as it apparently refers to only one particular species of this genus).  These images, and possibly others, have been added by User:Strongbad1982. MrDarwin (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Checking the past history, it turns out I've raised this before (including a comment on the editor's page, inviting him to join the discussion) but dropped the ball--I'm just going to delete the maps without further comment. MrDarwin (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, go ahead and nuke them.  If I had to guess, I'd say the map in Lagerstroemia refers to all commonly cultivated plants in that genus (two species plus some hybrids, if memory serves), but without sources, who knows? I'd be fine with some way of indicating where these things can be grown but those maps aren't it (as discussed in the above links). Kingdon (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Adaptable Range"

message: The entry for genus Taraktogenos was generated by Polbot.  What what I can find (e.g. ), it seems to be a synonyms of Hydnocarpus.  However, I am uncertain how we handle such a situation.  Should the page for Taraktogenos be converted to a redirect?  Do we keep the entry, but describe that it is a synonym, and if so should the page have a taxobox?  We keep pages for obsolete famiies, but not for synonymized species.  Whta do we do for a genus? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes I have created redirects and at other times created stub articles for the synonyms. I have tended to do the latter when the genus name has had a long and/or complicated history and/or is a well known name, e.g. Brachysema, to inform readers what happened to the genus. I've tended not to include a taxobox for these articles to avoid giving an appearance of "currency". --Melburnian (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, the only other example which is springing to mind is Eupatoriadelphus which clearly works better as a redirect (as far as I can tell), for a variety of reasons including the small number of species, the rarity of the name Eupatoriadelphus, and the lack of any complexity like different species moving to different genera.  If there is a family which has had everything transferred to another family, and the former family doesn't have an ongoing existence as a subfamily or anything like that, I suppose I might advocate a redirect there too.  But most families which get rearranged get split up, or something more complicated. There's probably a general rule lurking here, but I'm not sure what it is (or whether family versus genus has anything to do with it). (as for whether Taraktogenos has been synonymized in its entirety, I'm not sure of that either.  This paper refers to some of each and ITIS shows a synonym for one species (Taraktogenos kurzii), but I didn't find anything conclusive). Kingdon (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mabberley in The Plant Book equates them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As does GRIN Melburnian (talk) 05:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Taraktogenos]] 

message: Hi all, what do you think of this page? Would this be a candidate for deletion? Or merge somewhere? But where? If Wikipedia had a page for the NSF Arabidopsis 2010 Project (which this was part of) I'd say that would be the place to put it, but there is none. - tameeria (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some googling, both in google web and google scholar, and didn't really find much.  There's some kind of status report at  but even that probably isn't quite a WP:RS, or necessarily going to stick around long-term.  Oh, and it was renamed to The Plant Proteome Database (and now includes maize, which doesn't necessarily mean "Arabidopsis 2010 Project" is wrong, but does muddy the waters a bit).  I tried the Congressional Record (at http://thomas.loc.gov) but only saw a way to search for the current session, not for all issues they have on-line.  One could also try the federal budget, or documents that the agency prepares in support of it.  But none of this kind of thing will show it, if the program is part of some larger line item (which seems likely).  Even if we could find some sources, I'm not really sure I see the big need for an article.  So, seems like deletion is best.  It isn't as if there is much material there, so it would be easy to re-create the page if we want to some time in the future. Kingdon (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I was wrong about the 2010 project. It doesn't show up in the list of NSF awards. The 2010 chloroplast project appears to be a different site. - tameeria (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plant Proteome Database seems to be the current name--I think it probably is the same project ultimately. I'm moving the article and making at least a stub out of it based on the Cornell site. DGG (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Plastid Database]] - delete/merge? 

message: Dear Wikimedians,
This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration project (PGIP).
The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this page: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Requests
If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons, or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a given topic in other-language projects.
The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.
* General information about the project: m:Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project
* Potential illustrators and others interested in the project should join the mailing list: mail:greenspun-illustrations
thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[m:GIP|Greenspun illustration project]]: requests now open 

message: Hi, all. There is a large number of badly named (grammar and/or capitalization mistakes) lists at this page. I started to do what I could, but for those without common names I don't have the knowledge of proper conventions. I have fixed the grammar of all that I could be sure about, but have not touched the others, to avoid duplicating work when they are fixed properly. Please see a discussion of this on Talk:Larval food plants of Lepidoptera. I'd be grateful if people "in the know" could chime in and/or pitch in, helping to fix the grammar and capitalizations of these links. Many thanks! --Storkk (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help request for [[Larval food plants of Lepidoptera|Lists of Lepidoptera which/that feed on...]]

message: I think this is cause for celebration. Kudos to all that worked on them! Your hard work is appreciated :-) Rkitko (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay! Good work everyone! Now we just need some Top-importance FAs! Djlayton4 | talk  |  contribs 04:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been doing many tedious tasks recently. Working toward a top-importance FA would be a welcome break. Got the time and one in mind? --Rkitko (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've got two weeks vacation beginning in about a week. I'd be able to help out.  I'm leaning towards working on one of the "biggies", like Plant, Flower, Fruit, or Seed... though there are plenty of other Top-importance plant articles that really need work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was leaning in that direction, too. The big push, besides the usual checklist of making sure we've got the subject fully covered, will be to include in-line refs. That'll be a challenge, but I'm up for it. I suppose we should bring this conversation over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Collaboration, but I'm not sure if everyone has that watchlisted yet. --Rkitko (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be on break from uni in about 2 weeks as well, so I'm down. I'm more of a low-importance man myself, but working on something that someone actually reads could be great. I don't really have much of a preference on the article, but I think the Plant article represents us most, so we might as well make it pretty for everyone. But, like I said, I have no strong preference. I've got collaborations watchlisted ;) Djlayton4 | talk  |  contribs 05:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll be glad to help with copyediting and similar stuff, but I'm not very good at summarizing many sources (it is nightmarish for me, unless I'm trying to source something specific, to the point I almost never got that FA done). Circeus (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me on all counts. I'll be there. :-) Rkitko (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. I posted some ideas and a beginner to-do list on Talk:Plant. I'm ready to roll up my sleves and dig in. --Rkitko (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milestone 

message: I imagine of course that we wouldn't want an article for every cultivar of every plant (though that is the plan on Wikiversity and Wikibooks), but I'm just wondering if there is any case where a cultivar really would be notable enough to merit its own article. If not, I wonder whether there should be redirects from cultivar names to the appropriate genus, species, or hybrid (wherever the cultivar may be mentioned and/or briefly described). Any thoughts? --SB_Johnny | talk 15:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think most cultivars are notable and deserve their own articles, especially given proper references. See Stylidium graminifolium 'ST111' for one of the cultivar articles I've written that others might see as non-notable. --Rkitko (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it is any different from any other application of WP:N which has a lot to do with "are there enough sources out there to support the article". The number of cultivars in the world (especially if you include extinct ones or varieties which are not formally named according to the ICNCP) is so large, and little is known about some of them, so I don't know that I'd agree that "most" are notable, but a lot of them are. Where there are only a few cultivars that seem to be worth mentioning, I'd consider just putting them in a parent article (species, cultigen, cultivar group, etc). Kingdon (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, now you've usually got an organization which manages cultivar registration. So at the very least you're always going to have the registration and description as a reliable source. Indeed there are many, many, many cultivars out there (thinking of how many historical tulip cultivars that were out there gives me a bit of a headache). But Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. The only limits would be WP:V. It seems as if we, as a project, have taken the position that every species is inherently notable, so why not cultivated varieties, given that they're properly sourced? I have no problem with including them in species pages, but I see nothing wrong with letting them have their own articles. Take a look through :Category:Elm cultivars for other examples of plenty of cultivar pages. --Rkitko (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Or Peace Rose. Although there are 20,000+ rose cultivars, printed encyclopedias of roses can usually manage 2-3 paras for each at least. A useful intermediate step is to list each breeder's cultivars with the breeder's article, then split off when additional material is available for the more notable. Stan (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's an issue of reliable sources.  Can we find enough information in a reliable source to write an article that's more than one or two sentences long?  Can we find several independent sources?  While I would assert that all species are notable, I think we should just apply the normal notability standards to cultivars.  Guettarda (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that some cultivars deserve articles.  Sorry if I wasn't clear.  Guettarda (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, do remember that the criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. It's easy to assert that "the characteristics noted to be novel in the cultivar's registration description include..." and still be accurate, verifiable, and truthful. But you're right, some cultivar registrations are better than others. For example, recently the International Carnivorous Plant Society became the IRA registrar for carnivorous plants. New cultivars have been published in the Carnivorous Plant Newsletter. Because of the peer-reviewed, academic nature of the publication, I would trust the verifiability of those descriptions and articles. See Dionaea muscipula 'Bohemian Garnet' for an article I created on a recent cultivar registration. So yes, it is variable between cultivar registration authorities and through history, but I still feel cultivar articles can be accurate, verifiable, and notable. And as an aside, I would say that it is reasonable to say all taxa are notable, including those of the subspecific ranks. --Rkitko (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been compiling a list of  list of Grevillea cultivars (200+ so far)  to give an overview of some of the hundreds of cultivars that are (or have been) commercially available. So far three Grevillea cultivar articles have been created, Grevillea 'Superb' and Grevillea 'Robyn Gordon' and Grevillea 'Honey Gem'. For well-known cultivars, there is an abundance of information to potentially create a substantial article. On the other hand, there are other cultivars for which information from reliable sources is very scarce, so it would be hard to create an article with more detail than is shown on the list. Most Grevilleas available through retail plant nursersies tend to be cultivars rather than species so I feel that substantial  coverage of cultivars through a combination of lists and articles is necessary to give a complete picture of this genus in terms of cultivation and use, and this would also apply to many other cultivated genera. --Melburnian (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: In that particular case I'd check here (no entry) and here ("accepted name in the RHS Horticultural Database", has won "The Award of Garden Merit") and try a  Google search (1380 hits, some detailed information can be found amongst the hits), and would conclude that a worthwile (if smallish) article could be created. I really don't like the concept of redirecting species or cultivars to the genus (in general), if the name is contained within an article it will come up in the search results anyway. I think common sense, and looking at it on a case-by case basis is the way to go, creating 3000 one line "Rhododendron"  cultivar stubs (for example) would probably not be a good idea. --Melburnian (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If there are thousands of cvs (or even a couple dozen), then I think a list of cultivars would be in order.  And as we do with "minor characters in Harry Potter", just redirect each cv to the list.  If anything on the list grows long enough, it can be spun off into an article.  Guettarda (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think lists work better as an intermediate step - one can even set the list up as a table and include columns for general description, parentage, date, and picture. Redirect names to the list, just as we do now for minor characters in fiction and such. Stan (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that's what I'll do. The obvious question though is what to call these articles... should it be List of daylily cultivars or List of Hemerocallis cultivars? This is lilely to become a pressing issue in the spring as we are hoping to have arboretums and nurseries involved on the WV bloom clock in the spring, which will entail a rather massive need for interwiki links :). --SB_Johnny | talk 00:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I would pick hems and make daylily a redirect. Other lists might be more problematic, but the major ones like Hosta, Iris etc should go to the genus. The genus list then can be broken down into species if known, but since many or most are complicated hybrids, the genus is best. Hardyplants (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think genus is better too, of course, but I've never understood how the "exemption" policy works for plants that are article-named by the English name over the scientific. --SB_Johnny | talk 00:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might need a hierarchically list with multiple entry points. Take something like spiderwort cults, most people are not going to look for them under Tradescantia but under spiderwort. But there are many different Tradescantia cults that are not spiderwort cults,  so I would have one List for all Tradescantia cults and then have a sublist in this list for spiderworts.  Hardyplants (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Meaning the cultivar lists should be sorted? Definitely... Rhododendron vs. Azalea would be an obvious need for sublisting, as would any of the genera that have major divisions (roses, daylilies, irises, narcissi, etc.), but are you saying these should be separate pages or single pages? (Funny, when I first read that I thought you were talking about garden clubs (daylilies and hellebores of course have rather religious followings, though I had never heard of a Spiderwort club). --SB_Johnny | talk 16:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultivars and notability 

message: There is a current CfD discussing a potential change to :Category:Plant articles without taxoboxes. There are two proposed changes: :Category:Plant articles needing a taxobox and :Category:Plant articles without infoboxes. At present time there is no consensus, so input from the WP:TOL editors would be appreciated. Justin chat 19:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested change to taxobox categories 

message: Yes, again with the interwiki stuff :). I've been importing Wikipedia articles to Wikibooks to fix dead interwiki links from the Wikiversity bloom clock, and have run into 3 minor problems. 
The first is the use of <ref name=X> for references... it's something that can be fixed using AWB on the wikibooks end, but it might be nice to come up with some "standard" ref names. I've come across many which are named after authors (without dates), or worse "flora". I realize everyone's here to write an encyclopedia, but we should keep in mind that we're also creating GFDL content, and using the same ref name for 2 or more texts over 2 or more pages can create difficulties when generating printable "textbooks". 
The second is that some articles have sections called "references and external links" (as opposed to one section for references and another for external links). Combining the two can be a bit confusing when reusing content, because a reference involves attribution, while an external link is, well, just a link to something you might find interesting (I personally think external links that aren't sources have no place on Wikipedia, but don't get me started). 
Finally, everybody please register an account on Wikibooks using your username here, because Special:Import attributes to username, as opposed to project:username. If you have any problems doing that, I'm a b'crat, and can almost certainly fix any problems (if you have problems, just leave me a note (and pray to the dev-gods that SUL will come soon and make this all moot). --SB_Johnny | talk 00:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so how do you think we should implement this?  The only way that I can think of doing something like that would be to create a master list of references used in {some subset} of articles, and then trying to get people to use these standards.  It seems like a potentially massive project - we could get a bot to harvest every reference from Plant articles, but then we'd still need to find a way to sort through them all.  If we did that, it would have to be a sortable table...which would work if people use  templates... That said, I suppose it wouldn't hurt to start somewhere.  Guettarda (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was just going to suggest having BotanyBot check through individual pages and search for Ref/external link sections. It could generate a list that use a combined external links/references section for users to sort through manually. I could also see what I could do about updating the 11,000 Polbot plant articles to use ref tags and a references section instead of the "Source" section currently on those articles. --Rkitko (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Section names aren't really the problem, it's when you're not sure what is being used as a reference ,and what's just an external link :). I think the ref namiing would be nearly impossible to do exhaustively, but standardizing names for very commonly cited authorities (GRIN, USDA PLANTS database, RHS Encyclopedia, etc.) might be nice. --SB_Johnny | talk 12:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: (1) I'm not aware of any expectation that ref names be unique across articles, nor do I see how we could make it so.  (2) A combined "references and external links" section is mostly found in older articles and is a deprecated practice as I understand it. Just as an aside, external links have their (limited) place - for example the link to the Banksia Study Group on Banksia. (3) As for the account, sorry to be difficult but I already have a lot of wikimedia accounts and I don't really see creating ones for projects I don't even edit in. Kingdon (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh! those are just about what I had in mind. We can probably work out the kinks on the Wikibooks side first, and then use some sort of marker for an AWB runner to make the changes on wp once it's perfected :). --SB_Johnny | talk 22:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been creating custom templates for my most important references for ages. A word of warning that these have limited usefulness in high-quality articles, because it is difficult to control when you want an author, book title, journal article or journal to be linked versus unlinked, citation of page numbers, etc. Circeus and I had a friendly disagreement on this point, and I now empathise with his position. I now consider templates like  to be convenient short-cuts for use on stub and start articles, but to have no real place in high quality articles, where problems like the above must be avoided. Hesperian 23:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A trio of Wikibooks-related issues (ref names, external links, and usernames) 

message: Hi, all. Is anyone familiar with fern taxonomy? Seems that according to Pteridopsida there have been recent (2006) changes to the taxonomy. Should that article be renamed to Polypodiopsida? A couple new contributions including Monilophyte have introduced different higher taxonomy schemes into the taxoboxes. Would be nice if we could get some clarity and help adjust all the taxoboxes if they need it. Any input would be appreciated! Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am.  All of this comes from the Smith, Pryer, ... Wolf article. (I know Smth and Pryer personally).  They chose not to use any ranks above class.  They did use Polypodiopsida as the class name for all leptosporangiate ferns, excluding the Marattiopsida, and they included the Ophioglossales in the Psilotopsida.  Note that they include Equisetopsida and Psilotopsida within the "Ferns" clade, as we currently have it as well.  Updating the higher-level fern taxonomy has long been on my (long) list of things to do, but I only got a reprint copy of the article about a month ago.  I've incorporated some of the changes already, but  I could attend to some of more of this revision next week. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I've now cleaned up classes Psilotopsida, Equisetopsida, and Marattiopsida. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ferns 

message: Hello. I recently added a significant amount of information to Everglades National Park and I would like to nominate it for feature after a few loose ends are taken care of. However, there is a red link from the indigoberry tree (Randia aculeata). Red links are not allowed in FA nominations, so I thought you fine folks might want to see about creating an article for this tree.  --Moni3 (talk) 13:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I created a short stub on it. If anyone wants to expand it, the US Forest Service pdf is a great resource (and, I believe, public domain). --Rkitko (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay! Cool. Thanks so much! --Moni3 (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Red links are not allowed in FA nominations Of course they are! An overabundance of redlinks has in the past caused problems (and would certainly a FLC to be shot down), but opposing a FAC over a single, minor redlinks is absolutely ridiculous­­­. 17:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indigoberry? 

message: Does anybody know what is going on with Heronswood lately?  There is a new article about "Heronswood (botanical garden)" which, aside from the awkward article title, I think is surely inaccurate in stating that "Heronswood is a botanical garden in Kingston, Washington, USA".  Heronswood was a commercial nursery with display gardens at that location, which was purchased by Burpee and subsequently moved to another location.  I haven't heard anything lately about the original location but assume it is still owned by Burpee and is not operating as a "botanical garden" as most of us would understand the concept. MrDarwin (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what I know is based on the cited sources (especially the New York Times one).  I could see room for quibbling about "botanical garden" versus some other term (although I see room for grey - for example they did more than your average nursery at things like documenting the origin of their plants, as far as I can tell).  But other than that the article seems to more or less match what the sources say: it was well-known; Burpee is trying to sell the land (with plants).  Whether "Heronswood" is the best name will perhaps be clearer when the sale happens (or doesn't happen) but Heronswood, a Burpee company, does own it for now.  The people trying to buy it call it the "former Heronswood Nursery property". As for whether all of this is up to date, seems to be, see for example Heronswood Voice entry for December 5th, 2007 which goes into what is going on with the property in some detail. There are also some July and October updates at . Kingdon (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Heronswood

message: I just wrote Frederick Vernon Coville, and will probably do a write up for George Vasey next, but I have a few refs I can't look at because I'm not at college, and probably couldn't get there anyway. Anybody can access Science (for Coville: ) or JSTOR (for Vasey: , )? Circeus (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have downloaded the first two, am currently downloading the last. Send me an email and I ll reply with attachments. Hesperian 00:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. THank you. Circeus (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sent. You're welcome. Hesperian 03:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay! Expect an article tomorrow (buy watching end-of-year summaries and celebration on TV/procrastinating right now). Circeus (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science and JSTOR access