User talk:Robert Jan van de Hoek

Hello Robert,

Thanks for your interest in E. deglupta. It is an interesting species indeed - the only Eucalyptus species out of more than 700 that does not occur naturally in Australia. Elmer was an American, working in the Philippines when he described Eugenia binacag (the epithet a local name for the tree) - a plant that any Australian would have called "gum tree", meaning Eucalyptus. He published the name in the Leaflets of Philippine Botany in 1914.^[1] The following year, he apparently realised his mistake and changed the name to Eucalyptus binacag.^[2] However, the species had already been named Eucalyptus deglupta by Blume in 1850, or at least that's the opinion of other authorities including the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families.

If you think the WCSP and Plants of the World Online are wrong, you can contact Rafaël Govaerts and advise him of the mistake in listing Eugenia binacag Elmer and Eucalyptus binacag (Elmer) Elmer as synonyms of Eucalyptus deglupta. In the meantime, I would appreciate having them listed in the Wikipedia article. Gderrin (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

In connection with your more recent edits to the same article-

• ("Deleted some botanical terminology as superfluous as the botanical holotype was Eucalyptus multiflora Rich, W.P. 1854. Furthermore, no period is need after 'Rich' as this is not an abbreviation of the name of the botanist".) Eucalyptus multiflora Rich W.P. 1854 is a plant specimen, not a species. Eucalyptus multiflora Rich. ex A.Gray nom. illeg. is a taxonomic synonym, and a name by Asa Gray from an unpublished description by Louis Claude Richard (abbreviated Rich.), but was an illegitimate name because it had already been given to a different species by Poiret.
• ("Deleted redundancy of botanical author name given twice since same person") it is quite common for a taxonomist to publish a name, then later change the name. I found three examples in a single genus where the eminent German/Australian botanist Ferdinand von Mueller described a species of Pholidia, then changed the genus name to Eremophila. (E. crassifolia, E. divaricata and E. gibbifolia). This page lists appropriate citations for lists of synonyms. The rules governing author citations of plant names are prescribed in the "The Code", especially articles 46 and 49.1. Gderrin (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited E. Yale Dawson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berkeley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Roy, thank you for your edits to Augusta Foote Arnold. I note you have removed some red links, these should be retained as when an article is created they automatically change to blue links. I see you have researched Richard Knapp Allen, maybe you should write an article about him. Quetzal1964 (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Quetzal, you are very welcome, and I would like to say thank you again for creating the articel about Augusta Foote Arnold. I will return the red links if you have not already done so. Great teaching by you to me, so I thank you for sharing the depth and breadth of the red links and blue links, including referring to them as "links" as I had been calling them "double brackets" and so I ams still learning about being an editor. Regarding Richard Knapp Allen, I have indeed researched him quite a bit, even with the hope of editing and bringing back into print his book, Common Intertidal Invertebrates of Southern California. I also would like to edit and bring back into print as a second edition, the book by Augusta. And yes, I would like to write an article about him, not unlike your article about Augusta. I have never done an article as yet, but I am tempted to do, and your suggestion to do, pushes me to jump in again and try, and I would need help, as I am afraid of the time and effort needed, and I was sad at being denied, as I attempted feebly to do one for another person/topic (Beaudette Foundation linked to E. Yale Dawson. I only have about 900 editts, and thinking that I may get to 1000 edits soon. I am also reluctant and procrastinating at doing an article and about citations as overwhelming. I think that I am more interested in doing an article about Blanche Trask, and I would suggest that article to you, as she was a very remarkable naturalist and person, and links nature to poetry, and transcends nature and culture, and endured a lot as a woman. Her story, her biography, her life, is very fascianting to me. So is Richard Knapp Allen, as I have even met and know some of his 6 graduate students. Three women studie for their master degree with him in the 1970s. And I would like to see an article about Edith Abigail Purer, as an important scientific ecologist, also an artist, as much as I would like to do for Blanceh Trask and Richard Knapp Allen. My apology for writing so much to you, but my interest, passion, curioisty got the best of me. Thanks, yet again, for writing to me, to educate me on "links" and for doing an article on Augusta Foote Arnold. Peace, 'Roy'Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Roy, If you want to cooperate on any article I am more than happy to. I would help you with referencing and formatting. Not spelling though, I am Scottish so Americanised spellings don’t come naturally to me! Quetzal1964 (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Quetzal. I am interested to cooperate creating articles on the people and topics that I listed. Since Richard Knapp Allen has a 'red link' in the article of Augusta Foote Arnold that you created, do you think it proper to be the first one on which to cooperate? And have you possibly already started working on creation of a Richard Knapp Allen site, since it has a red link? Peace, 'Roy'Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Roy, no I haven’t started anything about Richard Knapp Allen. However, I have googled him and found very little information which could be used. I will, however, give it a bash. As the presenter of University Challenge here in the UK would say, “I’ll give you a starter for ten”. Quetzal1964 (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Quetzal, ok. Would you prefer to do an article on one or two women, with which I can contribute knowledge, namely Edithe Abigail Purer or Blance Trask (type Catalina into google alongside here name), who I mentioned, and whom I can assist as to I have some knowledge of her biography, or 'life and times' as I like to say? Regarding RK Allen, there are a few small biographical notes about him, with one by another mayfly entomologist, whose name escapes me at the moment, but he was from University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), with a photo of RK Allen with a sailboat, as he was also a sailor with boat in a California yacht harbor at Dana Point or Oceanside. I am fascinated and delighted to learn some UK/Scottish word "BASH" in your note. I also checked the blue link of University Challenge (note that I used the phrase blue link learned from you), which is so interesting for colleges in UK. In High School at 16-17 years of age, I was member of Knowledge Bowl, competing with other high schools, with my history teacher recruiting me for the team. Fun. Long time ago, 30+ years in high school. By the way, I did a web site/page on RK Allen, but I belive it was just suspeneded temporarily, as I am delayed in making an annual payment of ~$150.00 to keep my website up, which is www.naturespeace.org. Peace, 'Roy'Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I have started the article on Dick Allen using the obituary you are referring to, I found it on the Biodiversity Heritage Library. If you can expand it I will assist and hopefully you will be able to use your knowledge. I have a new Border terrier puppy so my Wikipedia editing is more intermittent than usual. Quetzal1964 (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, great, I will take a look via the blue link you provided. Congrats on your new puppy! No worries on intermittet time to work on article. Peace, 'Roy'Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Your addition is good but it needs to be sourced, you need to cite the references where you found that information. An online source would be preferable but if you have a printed source then that should be cited. Use cite book or cite journal for printed sources, if you are citing a book then the page numbers should be included. Quetzal1964 (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Agreed. I had considered that the citation at the end of my edit would suffice, and yet I do see what you advise and will follow up with printed source. Peace, 'Roy'Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Robert Jan van de Hoek. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Robert jan van de Hoek".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Liz, Thank you for eliminating this draft. I do not recall having attempted to create this draft, but assuming I did so, I was a new editor, and I did not know that I was attempting to make a new article, so I think I was doing User Page?

It is certainly inappropriate to make an article about oneself, ethically and morally wrong to do so, and so I am glad you have deleted the draft. I have not even heard of anyone making an autobiography article.

Thanks again, Liz.

Peace, 'Roy'Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Giovanni Antonio Scopoli, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emerita.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

As soon as I pressed "publish" I thought to myself: sjeez, calm down. The entitle/title thing is a pet peeve! Cheers from your old home country, Leo Breman (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Leo, Are you in Nederland, writing from there? If so, where in Nederland, presumably Amsterdam, but not certain? Interesting to see you give "Cheers" from "your old home country" as I would not, myself, use the word "old" in reference to my home country of Nederland. Peace, 'Roy' Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hiya Roy, no, I am in Leiden. I didn't read through everything on your user page, but saw something about moving to the US at a young age, hence "old". Leo Breman (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

But Roy, I see your new edit to Philip A. Munz, you really need to add a reference. I'm not sure you are correct here. In general, standard floras follow a particular order: gymnosperms, caryophyllales, etc., ending with monocots and orchids. I think that this is what Hickman was talking about. The assertion that Munz was first in this really needs a citation, it's just not true, I can easily find a older book in my library which uses an alphabetical order. Furthermore, there is no such thing as an 'evolutionary order' in plant families, this is just wrong. I will have to revert you there. Leo Breman (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The beautiful city of Leiden. Nice to know. Okay to say "old" when from you, in Nederland.

Regarding Munz, your mentioning of gymnosperms which occurred early in geological time, as closer to the beginning of appearance of vascular plants, although ferns are even earlier. and then dicots come upon the landscape after gymnosperms and ferns, and that is an evolutionary ordering, not a "particular order" but a focused biological science ordering, as known in his era. Instead of evolutionary, a geological ordering could be used related to plant fossils also telling us the evolutionary order.

Botanists that know plant evolution from their training, can find families easily, and there is always an index for those that like wildflowers but do not know evolution. An evolutionary order is when families first appear on Earth from natural selection.

For example, Asteraceae and Poaceae radiate late in Geology, while the Magnoliaceae family as an example evolved at leasat 30 million years prior to the Asteraceae.

Regarding Munz, the current statement prior to my change also did not have reference or citation, so perhaps the whole paragraph section needs to be removed.

I like the Munz manuals, also known as a Flora(s) and not sure why he switched away from manual as had it right in 1935 when MUnz named his first book as a manual. I had Systematic Botany back in 1978 now about 42 years ago. Great class on learning a lot of families and species as well as taxonomy and evolution right alongside systematics.

Peace, 'Roy' Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I also like floristic treatments that use alphabetical ordering, as I have no bias, and can use the particular FLORA, whether the ordering evolutionary or alphabetical, but it remains sad that the newer generation of botanists and students of botany are losing the ability to understand evolution in plants over geologic time. The focus has become more about ecology, which is fine as discipline, as I also consider myself a plant ecologist.

Peace, 'Roy' Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure evolution is the reason this order exists - I thought the order was set in 18th century already, before Darwin came up with the concept of 'evolution'! In ornithology there is a similar long-standing order: loons, grebes, gulls, waders, galliforms and ending with passerines ... it's just something old and stuffy that botanists do out of respect for past works, I thought. I think it stems from the De Jussieu system, only the monocots ended up at the end in later orders. Maybe you are correct, I'm not sure, but either way, you really need to add a reference/citation if you make that claim. Hickman, in his review of Munz, is saying Munz used a strange, non-standard form in his old books -that's it; there is nothing about evolution in his quote. Cheers, Leo Breman (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Leo, I learned the Bessey system in university systematic botany. There is a blue link for Bessey System which I will add to Munz as reference for the evolutionary system. Bessey was from US at University Nebrasksa, and he based his system on British botanists such as Hooker, but linked to Darwin thinking. Bessey came several decades after Darwin and Hooker. Asa Gray, famous US botanist used a Bessey-like system based on evolution, and author of Gray Manuals of North American floras. Hickman in Jepson Manual used alphabetical ordering for ease of use by non-botanists with doubts to do so. The original Jepson Manual of 1925 and his 1930s Flora of California used Bessey system. At least Hickman in new Jepson Manual and the second edition included phylogeny evolution of plants on inside cover, so he knew that for botanists he had to put the evolutionary classification of plants, which is changing with DNA genetic system.

Peace, 'Roy' Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Roy, this is not cool. You cannot just write all this stuff without providing sources. We have no idea if that is what Hickman meant. All I have to go on, is Hickman's quote that was originally in the article. It appears to me that you are just making things up. Maybe that is not true, but... you MUST provide sourcing. Either way, it is rather off-topic pertaining to Munz' career. I hate to do this, but I feel I must revert you until you can provide a citation for your sourcing. I see above that people have alerted you of this before. This is the quote:

"Munz used a phylogenetic system which so far as I know has never been explained in print except for a statement on the inside of the front portion of the dust jacket, 'It abandons the conventional family order and attempts to follow that suggested by recent contributions from morphology and phylogeny.' Floras are not a place to introduce new phylogenetic systems. In Munz' 1974 A Flora of Southern California he saw the light and arranged the families alphabetically within major groups."

I tried to make it more understandable, but you have completely perverted what Hickman was saying, into something completely incorrect. Please stop this, and find some references! Leo Breman (talk) 12:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Leo, My intention was not to make you angry, so I apologize. I simply wished to include discussion of evolutionary classification and inclued a well written wikipedia artice, Bessey system, with a blue link to satisfy a referene/citation. I will not add any more edits on this section of Hickman and plant family order, so as not to anger you.

I do think the entire paragraph could be removed as there is no citation/reference and is really a sidebar discussion focused on the opinion of James Hickman in a non-peer-reviewed newsletter, in which we do not know if the word "complained" is a direct quote of Hickman, with a distinct possibility that the newsletter editor inserted his/her own opinion, possibly not even paraphrasing Hickman.

There is possibly no way to see this Santa Clara CNPS newsletter, due to the generally ephemeral status of the newsletters of only a few pages in length, and sometimes irregularly printed with a limited intended audience.

Please see and note that I made approximately 7 edits to the Philip A. Munz article, which a positively constructive and which I hope you think are fine.

Lastly, I am concerned that discussion of evolution of plant families is complex and the 'Bessey system' may be to difficult to understand for many wikpedia users.

Peace, 'Roy' Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Roy, I am not angry, I'm just an emotional person. I reverted you because the problem is that you are simply making things up here, putting words in Hickman's mouth which he isn't saying. Hickman, in his review, complains (my word!) that Munz did not use a logical order, in his eyes -Hickman says absolutely nothing about the Bessey system. I used the word "complain" because of this quote: "Floras are not a place to introduce new phylogenetic systems." To me, Hickman is complaining about Munz' work here. Personally I disagree with Hickman, many botanists have done this (Linnaeus, Bauhin, Tournefort, de Jussieu, Ray, Salisbury). Yes, let's just get rid of the paragraph entirely, as Hickman's opinion regarding a book here is not that important compared to the totality of Munz' life. In the meantime I found an actual biography of Munz' life at Jstor. We can add that as a reference. I will check your edits now...

Okay, I am good with everything except two things: 1.) "4" WP:MOS stipulates we write "four", 2.) the removal of his main flora work, the standard way biographies of botanists are written here on Wikipedia is to include all of their main works at the end, using the section header 'List of selected publications', with the books in small type... like this tiny article on this famous Soviet botanist Vladimir Leontyevich Komarov, there should also be a line above his standard author abbreviation, just like Komarov... You'll notice most of these botanist articles don't follow the standard ... the plant group made this page Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Botanist template, but even it is missing stuff. So I will make these changes now. Cheers, Leo Breman (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sierra Club, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Dorsey.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Robert Jan van de Hoek. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Beaudette Foundation".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts to improve the page for Jon Allan Christensen. However, it seems that most of your edits have been to remove titles and roles, and generally de-emphasize his work. In many cases, your removals were valid because the statements were backed up by links that were now dead or where the web pages had been changed (although in all cases I was able to track down supporting sources and archived links with a bit of digging).

• You removed the link to his official UCLA page. Sure, the link was dead, but I found it easy to locate the correct new link: https://www.ioes.ucla.edu/person/jon-christensen/
• You changed his title from adjunct professor to "staff", based on the assumption that you can't be a professor without a PhD? That's an incorrect assumption. His official title on the official UCLA is Adjunct Assistant Professor, so I changed it back.
• You removed his role as previous Executive Director of the Bill Lane Center. Again, the source page had changed, but I found the original page on the Internet Archive that confirms this previous title. http://web.archive.org/web/20160323103917/https://west.stanford.edu/people/christensen
• I also added a source for your new sentence about Christensen's LA Times op-ed about the Ballona Wetlands, since there were no citations there.
• Finally, I reworded that sentence to remove the loaded language "He is a currently active polemic as shown by...". First of all, calling a writer a "polemic" is awkward language, it seems that "polemicist" would be clearer, but in any case that language is unnecessary and carries a negative bias.

Again, thanks for your work editing this page and removing unsourced material, but please take care not to stray into impartial tone. I left most of your edits in place, even though they seemed to be systematically trying to diminish Christensen's notability (forgive me if I'm getting the wrong impression). But I'll defer to other editors if they have any other concerns with the language. Almccon (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Almccon! Thank you for writing to me. You're welcome, I like being an editor for Wikipedia and always wish to make articles accurate. I see that you have made several edits as well, and I wsh to thank you for your efforts as well. I thanked you approximately 5 times for your 5 edits, which you can see in the editing history section, and I think you are made aware of my thanking you via Wikipedia announement to you?

Keep on editing. I have made more than 1,000 edits for which I have been thanked. I also wish to thank you for creating the Jon Allan Christensen article approximately 5 years ago, circa 2015, from doing a quick inspection of the article history.

I see that you are colleagues at Stamen Design from reading your user page and links, and that possibly you are friends?

Peace, Roy...Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Robert, I see that you have edited the coastal commission wikipage in the past. Recently there has been an aggressive editor posting very bias criticisms of the agency. If you have a moment to go take a look and present a more neutral point of view I would appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierpointer (talk • contribs) 23:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)