Talk:Leptotes (orchid)/Draft

From Citizendium
Jump to: navigation, search
This article has a Citable Version.
Main Article
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Gallery [?]
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition A genus of orchids formed by nine small species that exist primarily in the dry jungles of South and Southeast Brazil. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category Biology [Editors asked to check categories]
 Subgroup category:  Botany
 Talk Archive none  English language variant Not specified

good article

Hello. I'm actually enjoying what I read here! I hope you will complete it & get it approved soon. The history of its taxonomy is interesting. (Chunbum Park 23:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

Oh, thank you. Actually I guess it is about to be considered done. I suppose it needs an English correction and maybe some suggestions about anything I may have forgotten. Sometimes when we are writing about things we know well we just forget to say important things that are pretty much obviuos for us but people less familiar with the subject have no idea about. Is it clear enough? Is there anything missing? I did not talk much about the species as every one of them will have a full article in the future. I do not mention more about culture for the same reason, furthermore culture varies a little from species to species; I'll treat higher classification in depht in Laeliinae article; and Phylogeny is not 100% stable as yet. Oh, yes I will add some extra photos to the article. Cheers, Dalton Holland Baptista 00:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


I just went through the intro and I'm not sure if "candies aromatizers" is correct. Do you mean "candies and aromatizers"? Chris Day 03:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I mean it is used as flavoring (I guess this is the right word, hehe, like vanilla). Dalton Holland Baptista 03:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
That makes more sense, I thought I might be on the wrong track. Chris Day 04:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In the distribution section, I was not sure what you meant by "The distribution of one species is only an assumption". Chris Day 03:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, Leptotes mogyensis was described solely based on a plant found under culture in the USA. Comparing this plant with the large list of varieties Krakowizer mentioned in a lecture at Círculo Paulista de Orquidófilos, in 1954, Christenson concluded it matched a variety Krakowizer found at Mogy das Cruzes, thus Christenson just implies it is from there, although no collection record does indeed exist. Dalton Holland Baptista 03:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, now I understand, I'll try and capture that into a short sentence. Chris Day 04:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the term "almost imperceptibly prolongate". Could you spell this out a bit more? Chris Day 06:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, its pseudobulbs are abbreviated, cylindrical about the same diameter of the leaves, which are also cylindrical, therefore the place where one ends and another starts are not easity diferentiated because they are very alike. One has to look for the joint to see it, it is not clearly marked. - diferent from a large number of orchids where you have a very clear pseudobulb that looks like with a potatoe and then a completely diferent flat petiolated leave starting over its top. Dalton Holland Baptista 13:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Floral diagram

Excellent, great choice, loved it! Dalton Holland Baptista 18:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


  • Quote: "This new species was included in Célestin Alfred Cogniaux's revision of Brazilian orchid species, published 1903, but in doing so he was partly ignoring the variability within the Leptotes species. At the time Cogniaux published his book he had not had ..."
  • Question: is it clear enough in this sentence that Cogniaux was not "aware of" and not that he was "intentionaly ignoring"? Dalton Holland Baptista 06:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually this was one bit where I could not make a call. I added "partly" since i thought he was probably not actively ignoring it. Ignorance is bliss as they say. I would be happy to remove ignore altogether. It could be written as: "This new species was included in Célestin Alfred Cogniaux's revision of Brazilian orchid species, published 1903, but in doing so he was unaware of the variability within the Leptotes species. At the time Cogniaux published his book he had not had ...'' Chris Day 07:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
That's it! Dalton Holland Baptista 07:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Leptotes tenuis and L. pauloensis

Despite L. tenuis is the most rare one, it was the firts to be discovered. When Leptotes pauloensis was described it mentioned the diferences of color and a slight difference on the callus present on the labellum. Today color variation alone usually is not regarded as enough to stablish a new species, and maybe not even a subspecies. Because these Leptotes species are hard to find and because the herbarium dried material loose information (like the callus exact shape), many taxonomists were in doubt. BTW, even today that we know well these species, many think it is better if they were classified as a complex of a variable superspecies, rather than three easily distinct species. Dalton Holland Baptista 19:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent species

i just edited the last few paragraphs in the taxonimic section. I am left wondering if L. harryphillipsii and L. mogyensis are universally agreed upon as new species or is this controversial? i wonder if there is a recent reference discussing this issue? Lastly, Leptotes vellozicola seems to get a very short paragraph at the end, especially given it is described as quite distinct to the others. This left me thinking it might even be a different genus? A description of these difference might be useful as well as an clarifications as to why it is considered a Leptote. Possibly I have over-interpreted some of the original text? Chris Day 19:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit clash] I just saw your new comments above. That helps clarify the situation a bit more. Chris Day 19:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

[another edit clash]

You are right about the the status of L. mogyensis and L. harryphillipsii they are not widely accepted by Brazilian taxonomists, maybe because we have never seen the first and the second is just regarded as a variety of L. pauloensis. However I would say this is just a general believe and nothing has been published disprooving their acceptance thus I didn't want to include what might be considered more a general opinion than a fact in the article. There are so many cases an unknown species proved to be a good one after some years. Although I guess the general feeling is implied as you guessed very well.
Regarding L. vellozicola, it sure is a Leptotes species. It seems to be that different not because of its absolutely differences but because some of the other ones are very confusing. I have a photo of it Cássio van den Berg sent me allowing me to publish it, although, as he is my friend I did not asked for a declaration saing that I might do so. It was clear enough because I asked him exactlly for that purpose. If you think uploading it here is fine I'll do it, otherwise we may wait for some plant to show up for me to shot or someone else upload one. Dalton Holland Baptista 19:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Chris, as it seems species articles will take a while to be writen we might add to Leptotes vellozicola that it is the species which takes the highest amount of sunlight because it is epiphytic on Vellozia species, which have very few leaves, and also that it lives in a much dryer area than all other species. Dalton Holland Baptista 19:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Approved article?

Now, do you think this is good enough to be considered an approved article? If you do, we might go on with the proccess, which is new to me, and see what happens. Dalton Holland Baptista 19:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly close. The process involves adding a url of the version for approval to the metadata page along with an approval date and an editors name who is proposing the approval. Three biology editors need to approve or one uninvolved biology editor. In this case, if you put it up for approval two other editors would then sign up in agreement.
As to the photo from your friend. If he is in agreement to release it to CZ, under a creative commons license, then that would be really good for the gallery. Even the article. Chris Day 19:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Well Chris, I have many, many photos from friends I gathered for the last years, as I meet them I'll ask them to write something allowing me to upload them to CZ in particular. Probably it is better this way. They allowed me to publish them on my website and a on a CD but nothing was said about licensing it. I doubt they might concearn about this as they do not have any intention of using them to make any money, but it is better to ask them anyway. I'll upload them thereafter. I have photos of all species from friends, even the one used in the original publication of L. mogyensis. Will work on that. Dalton Holland Baptista 20:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Dalton, I see that you set the article to be approved in just a few days (March 4). That is probably too soon. Since you have been the primary author of the article, you will need two other biology editors to also sponsor the article before the approval can be made official.

You've done a great job on the article itself, so it will probably be pretty easy to get other biology editors to sign off after asking a few questions or making minor comments. But March 4 is probably too soon to expect them to respond. Usually, editors set the final approval date around a week in the future, sometimes two weeks. --Joe Quick 21:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I added that time frame. I agree we might want to add some extra time. Chris Day 21:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Joe, I have to say Chris is responsible for the English revision tho. Thanks a lot, Chris, for your comments and all the work correcting my mistakes. Well, take as much time as your need as we do not have a schedule to attend. The most important is that we make any correction needed to turn it into an article good enough to fit CZ standards of quality. Dalton Holland Baptista 23:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Straw poll: Are there any other editors reading this who are ready to support approval? --Joe Quick 04:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Me, but I will only come back on a more regular basis after two weeks from now. --Daniel Mietchen 22:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to change the date to 20 March, if that is alright with you Dalton? This will give Daniel enough time to read it, I hope. It will also give me a little more time to copy edit. There are still some parts that i rewrote that still don't sound quite right. Chris Day 22:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, there is no hurry at all, whenever you think it's better. You all take your time and everyone who find any weird sentence feel free to adjust it. I'll be here for the doubts case there is any. Dalton Holland Baptista 23:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I have downloaded some of the references and will go through them and the article before March 20. First brief observation: The Subtopics' definitions on the Related Articles page should not just state the reference but provide the orchid context (e.g. "An orchid species in ..., first described by ..., known for ... ." or so). The references in the definitions, by the way, could be formatted as in CZ:Direct referencing (so far an experiment of mine, far from any official policy though), i.e. by giving them their own page in the Provisional reference namespace, and linking to that page from the definition. --Daniel Mietchen 12:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand all suggestions, but looking for the best way to display the information is a very good thing to do because in the future this article may be used as a model to the next genera articles. I think I understand what you mean about the definitions on the list of species but then let me talk a little bit about them. When I added the list of species it was my intention just have them just as a list. The references provided, I think (despite they are references), should be regarded more like a part of the name of the species what means the author of the species description is not a reference but part of the name of the species itself, and the date, just an extra info we generally add to avoid confusion when the name has an homonimous with the same authorship (what hardly happens but it does). So if I format the species names here according to your suggestion, I still have to keep the names of the species displayed as they are (with authors) because this is standard way the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature uses. It is possible to add definitions to every species, but there are two things to consider here, the first is as because most of the species are very alike in a genus, sometimes these definitions will have be very large to state the diferences, or too short and almost the same to each one, and the second is that sometimes this list will include 200 or even more than a thousand names of species. Many times the species on the list will be confusing because they are not well defined, or are very old and have not been revised under the lights of modern taxonomy. If we had these definitions possibly the best way to display them would then be in the format of an identification key but then they would not be the definitions again. Now formating the publication info as you suggest might work but possible with some adaptations for taxonomic uses, that is, I cannot use brackets because if I do so in a species name this implies I am refering to a basyonym author and not the actual accepted name of the species. Well, I still have to think more about this and try to see what the implications are. Sure we need the definitions tho. Dalton Holland Baptista 14:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm a newbie so let me ask something. Leptotes is a small genus and I know all the species, now, let's suppose I am writing and article about a genus of 300 species and I have this list of species (that hopefully one day will have their own articles). Should I write a definition to each of them? This will be a huge task because many times this information is not easyly available anywhere. So I ask, should the species definitions be regarded as an really important item to include? I agree having them is excellent but some orchid species are so confusing that reviewing them all (with Phylogeny) usually are regarded as good subject to Ph.D. thesis today. Furthermore, species definitions sit a little bit aside the genus article scope itself for the genus article intention is giving a good input about the genus. Maybe trying to identify each species of a genus possibly is setting the standards too high for the article. In small genera articles it is a good thing to do, but large ones will make the article species lists as long as a book. Dalton Holland Baptista 15:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Dalton, I think you should use your best judgment on whether to include a full list of species for any given genus. If the genus is pretty small, then it would make sense to list all of the species. But if it is very big, then it would indeed be impractical to prepare a full list. In cases where the list would be unmanageable or overwhelming, it might make more sense to mention the best known species or those with special aspects like medicinal or agricultural applications that make them important; others might not need to be mentioned. Of course, there will be links back to the genus from the articles about individual species and a catalog subpage of all species is always an option. --Joe Quick 17:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Joe. The tennis cataloy is great, wonderful work there. Now I understand the idea behind catalogs and related articles. Regarding the species lists, I don't know yet. When I started writing on WP my first articles had to be fixed later, when better ideas about articles structure came. I think we will develop our own way and possibly a better one than there is on WP. My first thoughts about species lists are that, even when they do not say anything further, having all their accepted names on a list is good. These lists are not hard to get because they are available on line from several databases. This raises the question as they are already on-line why should we do have them here too? I guess having them here may work as a to do list of articles and also as more complete info so readers may get them all at one place. Further than that, some on-line lists are not really updated and can conflict with info showed here. Well, orchids are pretty useless plants, the ones that have uses other than for collections or decoration can be counted on our fingers thus what makes them important or not is just as much desired (or noted) they are, a quite subjective avaliation. I'm thinking about Daniel's suggestions. Dalton Holland Baptista 18:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Daniel, this list you are putting togheter will be absolutely huge, wow. Again, regarding a detail about formating the references to the references list, what does it happen when we have 20 citations as Campacci 2008 that refer to different publications on different articles? Just asking (because this will be frequent in taxonomy, Lindley may have more than 200 each year) have you solved that already? Do the links go straight ot the right one? Can we have many references with the same name on the list? Dalton Holland Baptista 18:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I will get back to this tomorrow. --Daniel Mietchen 19:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for breaking the indentation: I wrote this offline yesterday and only copy-pasted it here now, so some of the wiki formatting may not be entirely correct, but I don't have the online time to check. Dalton, if I understood you correctly, you brought up two points in response to my suggestion:

  1. How to display the species names correctly on Related Articles pages?
  2. How to avoid confusion with references by the same "Author et al., Year"?

Ad 1: I gather you are more experienced with wiki templates than I am, and so a closer look at the documentation or source of the {{R}} template will probably quickly resolve the issue for you. In brief, you can pipe things through the template, such that {{R|Species}}, as it stands now, can be replaced by {{R|Species|Species with authors}}. In my understanding, the taxonomic authors should come before the colon sign in the output of the template (and thus be passed on to the template), and the real definition (which is to be written down in the Definition subpage) after the colon. I know that writing "definitions" (particularly in the commonly used sense of the word) is tedious (to say the least) for large numbers of related species but here at CZ, the Definitions have a special meaning in that their main purpose is to populate Related Articles subpages in a way that is coherent across the site. This means that you'd have to consider which articles' Related pages might eventually contain your {{R|Species|Species with authors}}, and phrase the definition accordingly - still a lot of work but perhaps a little less tedious (Joe's comments above on feasibility apply). Sometimes, there may be several options (e.g. assumed reader levels, or otherwise different contexts), and then you choose the one you deem to fit best. One way to differentiate between the CZ definitions of closely related species might then indeed be to add a "first described by [[Reference page|Authors and Year]]" note (see point two).

So far, approvals that I have seen have not really taken issue with proper formatting of the Related Articles subpages (or any subpages at all, for that matter) but I personally prefer to approve the cluster as a whole (even though we don't have "draft" pages for subpages). If you are going, as it seems to me, to write a lot of related articles, than this extra work in the initial stages (i.e. with the first articles) will save you a lot of work later on, since all those definitions can be reused multiple times.

Ad 2: The short answer (piping authors' names into R, leaving them out in the definition) was already given but the longer one (linking from the definition to the relevant taxonomic reference) requires some further explanation: The main idea behind my reference experiment (not really fleshed out anywhere yet, though briefly introduced at the talk page of CZ:Bibliography under "Annotation mechanics" or so) is to have a unique page for each unique reference. Uniqueness can be most easily achieved by using unique identifier systems like DOI, ISBN, PubMed-ID and so on (perhaps with a hierarchy in cases where several of them refer to the same item). Soon after I started with the "CZ:Ref:DOI:" names, I found that it is hard to work with them as a human (particularly if you haven't entered the reference yourself), and so I now routinely create two pages for a reference - one that contains the DOI or, for books, the ISBN (if it does not contain characters that are special in wiki syntax - see pages with "^" in their name for details) and is thus reasonably unique. The other (or, if no unique identifier is known to me, the only) is a page named "CZ:Ref:FirstAuthor_Year_Full_Reference_Title" (there is a character limit for wiki page names, perhaps 256 - don't remember) that redirects to the DOI page and can be referenced in-text as usual, e.g. [[CZ:Ref:FirstAuthor_Year_Full_Reference_Title|FirstAuthor et al., Year]] if that is unique in the context of a given CZ article (if not, add letters to the year after the pipe, as usual). On Bibliography pages, I usually transclude these reference pages: {{CZ:Ref:FirstAuthor_Year_Full_Reference_Title}}, which has the effect of bringing in - much like what {{R}} does for definitions - any comments made on the "CZ:Ref:DOI:" page (check "WhatLinksHere" for a reference of your choice to see how this looks like). There may even be different human-readable formats in use (e.g. by different authors) to refer to the same unique item (some may prefer, perhaps, "CZ:Ref:FirstAuthor_Journal_Year" or even "CZ:Ref:FirstFiveAuthorsInitials_Year") but the shorter these redirect page names get, the higher is the probability that they may refer to non-unique references, necessitating some sort of "CZ:Ref:FirstFiveAuthorsInitials_Year (disambiguation)" page which I would like to avoid as far as possible. At the moment at least, I do not worry about the list of entries in the provisional namespace (or, for that matter, a separate namespace) growing huge, and I do not expect it to be read by humans in the long run anyway (machine-reading it may, however, provide some interesting alternative citation metric). The individual entries in the list, on the other hand, may serve purposes other than in article or Bibliography pages - I increasingly use them to "bookmark" references, making use of the context that CZ provides (or may, eventually, provide).

I promise my remarks on the rest of the cluster, and particularly its article page, will be shorter. --Daniel Mietchen 06:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a lot to digest and, over the top, tech stuff, lol. Regarding the definitions, I spent some time yesterday thinking about it and will try to make them so see what I can come up with. I'll study the rest and come back to this later as I fully understand it. Maybe will also make some experiences to see what I get. Everything is new so usually seems more complicated than actually is. Thanks Dalton Holland Baptista 11:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, here is (Lindley 1833)[1] I have tried to include the references but there are so many pages, subpages, and subsubpages, reference pages, index of references pages, codes, etc., that I couldn't make it work. Would you add this first one at the end of Leptotes bicolor definition and I'll try to follow your steps on the rest, please? Dalton Holland Baptista 16:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  1. Lindley, J. (1833), "Leptotes bicolor", Edwards's Botanical Register 19: t.1625 [e]
Will do on Sunday. --Daniel Mietchen 19:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Done. I simply created CZ:Ref:Lindley 1833 Leptotes bicolor and piped it into {{R}} at the L. bicolor entry on the Related Pages subpage of this article. However, I am not aware of any unique identifier system for book chapters or encyclopedic lists like this, and so the formatting could perhaps be improved by using identifiers that are unique in a narrower context, e.g. that of this book (is t. 1625 unique?) or botanicus (31753002748314 probably is unique). --Daniel Mietchen 01:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is unique here. t. stands for table, the species illustration and its description. Sometimes the indexing is not unique though, when several plants are described at once on the same page. Dalton Holland Baptista 01:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
One more: Dalton, as you suggested, Edwards's may be treated like a journal, which still gives no unique identifier but at least an alternative way to format these things:
Lindley, J. (1833), "Leptotes bicolor", Edwards's Botanical Register 19: t.1625.
Choose whatever you prefer, and try to apply it consistently across your articles. My point was simply that it would be nice to have such references on individual CZ pages like this one, such that comments, quotes or whatever can be added. For an example comment, see CZ:Ref:Aiello 1995 The Expensive-Tissue Hypothesis: the Brain and the Digestive System in Human and Primate Evolution, as referenced in these CZ pages. --Daniel Mietchen 01:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree it would be fantastic to have all references indexed like this. Do you think it is possible to set a bot to automatically add them from databases already existing on Internet? I ask because manually adding the two hundred references of Coelogyne species list, which probably is the next article I am planing to work with is not something I am really looking forward to do. lol Dalton Holland Baptista 01:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it certainly is possible (and indeed desirable) to have bots do this kind of work. However,
  1. the only bot I have seen here is the Subpagination Bot, and I do not know how to operate (or write) them, though I would be interested in giving this a try if someone were to assist me.
  2. before the bot goes into operation, it will have to be approved, and this will require that a scheme for reference formatting will have to be agreed upon (and implemented in the bot). This is not likely to occur in the next few months, I'd say.
So I'd say keep this option in mind but concentrate on other things for the time being. And if you happen to know bot work (or someone who could give me advice on this), please drop me a note. --Daniel Mietchen 02:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I personally understand nothing about bots but this guy does a lot. He quickly solves bots problems and requests in pt-WP. I suppose he might easily program one for us. Dalton Holland Baptista 02:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. There may also be some interesting stuff on this at fr.wp who have a separate name space for references (though based on templates, and not aimed at unique identifiers). So I will do some more testing here and perhaps also there (or other wikis that use separate reference namespaces, like Dispersive Wiki) and then try to formalize the resulting insights into a proposal by the end of May. That would then also be the time frame in which to contact Leonardo but I will get back to you on that then. --Daniel Mietchen 02:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Species list experience

While writing the definitions it occured to me that I'd rather display the synonyms a different way although I am not sure it is the best. Generally speaking, some species have no synonyms, some have a couple and a few have tens. Do you thing including them at the related articles as it is is a good thing? would not be better just to have them on the species articles? In this particular case all synonyms are also Leptotes, but most of the the time they are from a wide number of other genera. Other question is, I know this subpage is related articles but as it is also a species list we are dealing in this section, what if I make a definition for each one of the other 5 Leptotes not currently accepted instead of placing them just under the species they are synomyms. So a reader would come across a list of 14 instead 9 species of Leptotes, and the definition of the ones not currently accepted would say something like:

This way we might get rid of all synonyms lists on the species items and have a complete list of all Leptotes described so far, making the consultation easier. The reader will find alfabetically ordered the species he needs info, accepted or not, and be directed to the current name when it is not currently accepted. There will be no articles to them but definitions yes.

A second idea might be add another section named Leptotes species not currently accepted and at the side of the names on the list just see (currently accepted species name). What do you think? Dalton Holland Baptista 13:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

species lists

I don't have time to comment on everything here. But one thing, I don't think that every species has to have a description in the related articles page if there is a large number of them. In the genus list I just used regular links rather than {{R}} template, as well as default collapsed state with the option to click on the header to view the list.

Another thing to consider is where such lists should be housed. Somewhere predictable is useful. I put the genus list at Leptotes/Related Articles/Masterlist but I doubt that is the best home. The species list i put at Leptotes bicolor/Related Articles/Masterlist which makes a little more sense as it is the type species. But it might also be logical to house it where the genus list is now and put the genus list at a different location?

As to the solution of pipelinking in the cites, for example; {{r|Leptotes pohlitinocoi|'''''Leptotes pohlitinocoi''''' <small>V.P.Castro & Chiron 2004</small>}}, this seems like a good solution. more when i have a bit more time. Chris Day 16:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

References on original descriptions

I guess that splitting the name of a species in two different links may be somewhat confusing. What if we placed the links of original description at the end of definitions? Dalton Holland Baptista 01:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. --Daniel Mietchen 02:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Layout question

When writing and having articles featured in WP, despite the process is very different from here, one of the main concearns they had was about layout, thus if I sent Leptotes to be featured there, I am pretty sure, because they are so small, they would ask me to merge the sections phylogeny and culture into some other section, possibly the introduction. When I started these section I thought they would be larger but actually there is not much to say on these things as they will be treated extensively on Laeliinae page. Do you think we should move them or let them as they are? the section phylogeny gives an impression of uncompleteness maybe merging it into taxonomy? What do you think? Dalton Holland Baptista 13:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer merging the shorter sections - they can always be separated and expanded later. --Daniel Mietchen 20:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Version to approve

Please, check for the few changes that have been done to this article since the version to approve was selected, to be sure we approve the current version of March 17th. Most are minimal changes of typos and words, besides the country of origin of one Botanist that has been corrected from Sweden to Denmark. Thanks Dalton Holland Baptista 03:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Some more comments prior to approval

  • I commented out the sentence "It is assumed that L. mogyensis is a variety collected by Krakowizer found at Mogy das Cruzes, although this has not been verified as Christenson only worked with specimens under culture in the US." , as this point was made further down in the article.
  • I wonder whether moving the article to something like Leptotes (orchid) might be better, as it gives readers a hint as to what to expect behind the name.
  • I approved the current version.

Congratulations, Dalton, for this very good start here! --Daniel Mietchen 18:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Daniel, thanks for taking the time to help and evaluate the article. The more people read it the better it gets. It seems there is always a missing typo, lol. Well, regarding the article's name, I have no objections about the move although I guess it something that deserves further discussion on a broader forum because it will possibly imply changes on the names of about all articles after scientific names of species (and their links), etc. In Leptotes particular case, I suppose it is going to happen sooner or later because Leptotes is also the name of a butterfly genus. Dalton Holland Baptista 19:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it sure was redundant, thank you both. BTW, will we have the latest version approved? Dalton Holland Baptista 20:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
We should get the latest one approved. Let's wait for more last minute changes before we pick the final version that is agreeable to all editors. Chris Day 20:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Segments or organs?

For me, organs are anything that has a primordia. Floral organs, therefore, includes petals sepals and tepals as well as stamens and carpels. I have never heard the term segment used to describe tepals and petals. Replacing "organs" with "petals and tepals", as you just did, is more accurate and certainly less confusing. Chris Day 20:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Good, will do it from now on. Dalton Holland Baptista 20:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
So is it tepals or sepals for these orchids? Chris Day 20:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

99 or 100

I see Hydrodesulfurization is lined up to claim the 100th approved article prize. Maybe I should object to the approval of Leptotes to slow it down a bit? :evil grin: Chris Day 20:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL, That's what we call a machiavelic act in Brazil! Should we? you know better! BTW, what's the prize? lol Dalton Holland Baptista 20:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Just kidding, I think we should go as planned. Besides, there is a grand prize of zilch, and who will remember 100 when we break 1000? Chris Day 22:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Given that the round numbers tend to receive special attention, Leptotes may be better PR-wise, as it is illustrated in a way much more attractive to the public. Having said that, I do not see a reason to delay approval of this one (yes, of the latest version), except perhaps to allow for proper discussion of the article name in the context of butterflies and other homonyms or otherwise similar entries, which brings us back to CZ:Disambiguation, a policy discussion that has still not come to a fruitful conclusion (and may well not do so before we reach 1000). --Daniel Mietchen 09:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Daniel, I moved the article to Leptotes (orchid) as it is the place where I suppose I should have done it from start because the butterflies (have I done it properly?). On the other hand, I'd be very glad if the discussion about articles names could go on. The number of links to Leptotes was sort of high, therefore as I am working with many other genera the problem will escalate, lol. Should I go on and name all orchid genera as genus (orchid)? or that's just for the ones with homonyms? Yes, you guys need to discuss this soon!
Other thing, I tried to fix all links to Leptotes although they still show up on the affluent list. Is this the problem of editing talk page again? if yes, wow, that's really bad. lol. Will they disappear from there anytime when the database is refreshed or anything like that? Have I fixed them all? Dalton Holland Baptista 14:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Page move

I agree with the page move, though it's better to move the metadata page, rather than creating it anew (moving keeps the history intact). I do not think we have a system that facilitates deletion of all the old subpages, since they won't be needed in the presence of a disambiguation page. As for your genus (orchid) question, there is still no rule, and I have no idea how long it will take to have one here, so I would suggest we leave things as they are and only apply this treatment to names with known homonyms. --Daniel Mietchen 14:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Daniel. Would you please fix the metadata problem I guess I got confused with this move as it was the first time i did it. Thanks. Dalton Holland Baptista 14:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I fixed it. The moving protocol template has still not been finished (must do this!) but in general the best sequence when doing a move is to start by moving the metadata, then move the pages finally change the pagename field to the correct name. In that way the template gives helpful directions. Any other order can be make it even more confusing than it already is. Chris Day 14:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok got it. Thanks. Dalton Holland Baptista 14:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

APPROVED Version 1.0