My activity

  • Profile picture of jhilty who took this action.

    jhilty commented on "Inflorescence - side view":

    The photographed plant is something in the Asteraceae, possibly a Eupatorium or something similar. Agrimonia eupatoria (Rosaceae) produces a narrow spike of simple yellow flowers, whereas the photographed plant has a panicle of pink flowerheads. A misidentification has occurred here.

    over 1 year ago

  • Profile picture of jhilty who took this action.

    jhilty commented on "Leaves":

    Again, I don't think this is Agrimonia eupatoria. The photographed stem and leaves clearly belong to the plant with a panicle of pink flowerheads (see the 2 preceding photographs). It is something in the Asteraceae, possibly a Eupatorium or something similar.

    over 1 year ago

  • Profile picture of jhilty who took this action.

    jhilty commented on "Inflorescence - side view":

    The photographed plant is not Agrimonia eupatoria, nor an Agrimonia, nor is it even in the Rosaceae. Instead, this plant is in the Asteraceae, possibly a Eupatorium or something similar. Agrimonia eupatoria produces a narrow spike of simple yellow flowers, whereas the photographed plant has a panicle of pink flowerheads.

    over 1 year ago

  • Profile picture of jhilty who took this action.

    jhilty commented on "Inflorescence in bud - side view":

    This photo from BioImages is not Agrimonia eupatoria, nor even an Agrimonia (Rosaceae). It's not even in the correct plant family. It is something in the Asteraceae, possibly a Eupatorium or Eupatoriadelphus. Agrimonia eupatoria produces a narrow spike of simple yellow flowers, whereas the photographed plant has a panicle of pink flowerheads.

    over 1 year ago

  • Profile picture of jhilty who took this action.

    jhilty commented on an older version of Description:

    As Cyndy Parr has indicated, my website was never intended to target a global audience. In general, I agree that it would be desirable to use both types of measurements, however that would involve changing the content of over 1,000 web pages. Rather than approach this on a piecemeal basis, it is better to make such changes throughout the website on a more systematic basis (so that I know what has, versus what hasn't, been changed). This is something that can't be done immediately, however, because of constraints on my time. Michael Frankis states that 95% of the world's population uses metric units, and uses this as an excuse to hide content. It seems to me that he is throwing out the baby with the bath water, as 100% of the world's population can't read hidden content. It should also be noted that the majority of the world's population can't read English either. And so, using your reasoning, Frank, all of the English content on EOL should also be hidden. Similarly, if a content partner of EOL submitted articles in German, those articles would have to be hidden as well because 95% or more of the world's population doesn't understand German, and so on, ad infinitum. The fundamental problem, here, is that Michael Frankis rarely makes comments that can be addressed and/or corrected. He makes very vague comments like "incorrect/misleading," "poor quality," etc. without providing specific information. On those rare occasions when he DOES provide specific information, it often turns out that he is wrong, or he makes the false assumption that a content provider should target either a global audience or academic audience exclusively. As an example, he hid content in response to the use of "Canada Thistle" for Cirsium arvense, claiming that it was misleading. However, Canada Thistle is by far the most commonly used common name for this species in the United States (as the Wikipedia article states). The common name, Creeping Thistle, is only used in Great Britain, and it's somewhat misleading too because this species doesn't actually creep along the ground. The fact is, many common names are misleading: 1) Blue-Eyed Grass (Sisyrinchium) isn't really a grass, it's in the Iris family. 2) Prickly Ash (Zanthoxylum americanum) isn't an ash, it's in the Citrus family. 3) Small-Leaved Lime (Tilia cordata) isn't related to the fruit of the same name, nor is it in the Citrus family. 4) Wool Grass (Scirpus cyperinus) isn't a grass, it's in the Sedge family. And so on and so forth. It isn't my responsibility to change common names of species that have been used for generations because they have misleading implications. Nor is this the responsibility of Michael Frankis.

    almost 2 years ago • edited: almost 2 years ago

  • Profile picture of jhilty who took this action.

    jhilty commented on an older version of Risks:

    @Michаel Frаnkis: Regarding your curation activities for Cirsium arvense: Non-global content partners are not required to describe the global distribution of a species.

    almost 2 years ago

  • Profile picture of jhilty who took this action.

    jhilty commented on "Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.":

    Regarding common names of Cirsium arvense. Common names are frequently misleading, which is one of the reasons we use scientific names. In this case, a curator has commented that "Canada Thistle" is a misleading and inaccurate common name, therefore the associated content should be hidden. However, Canada Thistle is probably the most commonly used name for this species in the United States (at least in the Midwest and Northeast). Many authors have used this common name (see Mohlenbrock, 2002). The common name that EOL uses, Creeping Thistle, is an English common name. Almost no one uses this common name in the US. For the purposes of the content partner, Illinois Wildflowers, Canada Thistle is a perfectly legitimate common name. Therefore, the curator's judgement on this matter is faulty. This curator also incorrectly asserted that the Range & Habitat section does not cover the native range of Cirsium arvense. In fact, it does mention that this species is native to Eurasia. This section does not go into greater detail than this because it focuses on the distribution of this species within a single state of the United States. Describing the global distribution of a species is not a requirement of non-global content partners.

    almost 2 years ago

  • Profile picture of jhilty who took this action.

    jhilty commented on an older version of Faunal Associations:

    This curator (Michael Frankis) does not make helpful comments.

    almost 2 years ago • edited: almost 2 years ago

  • Profile picture of jhilty who took this action.

    jhilty commented on an older version of Range and Habitat in Illinois:

    This kind of curator activity is not helpful.

    almost 2 years ago

  • Profile picture of jhilty who took this action.

    jhilty commented on an older version of Description:

    EOL is supposed to pool material from multiple sources, even when some overlap in material is involved. The judgement of "low quality" seems rather arbitrary and capricious to me.

    almost 2 years ago • edited: almost 2 years ago

  • Profile picture of jhilty who took this action.

    jhilty commented on an older version of Range and Habitat in Illinois:

    This comment was deleted.

    almost 2 years ago • deleted: almost 2 years ago

  • Profile picture of jhilty who took this action.

    jhilty commented on an older version of Faunal Associations:

    This comment was deleted.

    almost 2 years ago • deleted: almost 2 years ago

  • Profile picture of jhilty who took this action.

    jhilty commented on an older version of Description:

    This comment was deleted.

    almost 2 years ago • deleted: almost 2 years ago

  • Profile picture of jhilty who took this action.

    jhilty commented on an older version of Description:

    Non-metric measurement units (English) are used here. They are used correctly in the original source material. For some reason, EOL's extraction program has changed " (double quotation mark for inches) to ' (a single quotation mark for feet). This has the potential to mislead readers.

    almost 2 years ago • edited: almost 2 years ago

  • Profile picture of jhilty who took this action.

    jhilty commented on an older version of Comments:

    Once again, the measurement unit of flower diameter is not missing; it is expressed in inches. This is a standard unit of measurement in North America. Secondly, the Comments section is intended to be open to various kinds of information, including subjective impressions. The purpose of the Comments section is more broad than this curator assumes.

    almost 2 years ago

  • Profile picture of jhilty who took this action.

    jhilty commented on an older version of Description:

    Non-metric measurement units are used in this description. These are commonly used in North America. Therefore, this description is neither inaccurate nor misleading.

    almost 2 years ago

  • Profile picture of jhilty who took this action.

    jhilty commented on "Lilium michiganense Farw.":

    I don't agree. It's Lilium michiganense because 1) the tips of the tepals don't extend behind the base of the flowers, and 2) the filaments are too short and the anthers are too short and chunky for it to be Lilium superbum.

    about 2 years ago

  • Profile picture of jhilty who took this action.

    jhilty commented on an older version of Comments:

    I will modify the text of the Comments section to indicate that Chenopodium simplex (Maple-Leaved Goosefoot) is a North American species, while Chenopodium hybridum (Maple-Leaved Goosefoot) is a similar European species. This should make the distinction between these two species more clear, notwithstanding the fact that they share the same common name.

    about 2 years ago

  • Profile picture of jhilty who took this action.

    jhilty commented on an older version of Comments:

    @Michаel Frаnkis: In North America, Maple-Leaved Goosefoot refers to Chenopodium simplex. See efloras (North America), USDA Plants Database, or Mohlenbrock (2001, 2003). It certainly doesn't refer exclusively to the European species, Chenopodium hybridum, as the comment of Michael Frankis implies.

    about 2 years ago

  • Profile picture of jhilty who took this action.

    jhilty commented on an older version of Image of an unknown taxon:

    @Cyndy Parr: I would say that this problem affects about 20% of the web pages on plant species. It is possible to distinguish the photographs and maps by their file formats: for example, the map files are in gif format, while the plant photo files are in jpg format. The map files and plant photo files are also stored in different folders, therefore they will have different root addresses.

    about 2 years ago • edited: about 2 years ago