User talk:Rudolphous

iNaturalist request (2)[edit]

Starting a new section with #100 as the previous was getting tedious scrolling to the end! The ability of people on iNat to believe that the tree planted in their garden, street or local park in the colder parts of Europe or North America, is a tropical rarity growing wild, never ceases to amaze . . . . Pinus wallichiana (a popular ornamental tree) seems the main confusion culprit, despite the needles in 5s not 3s, and the long slender cones.

b1 Pinus ponderosa, in Aarhus Botanical Garden, red X
b2 Pinus wallichiana, red X
b3 Pinus wallichiana, red X
b4 Pinus wallichiana, red X
b5 ID correct for once, but so obviously newly planted, red X
b6 Pinus sylvestris, forestry plantation so red X
b7 Pinus ponderosa, in Birmingham Botanical Garden, red X
b8 Pinus wallichiana, red X
b9 Pinus wallichiana, red X
b10 Pinus wallichiana, red X
b11 Pinus montezumae, Wakehurst Place Botanical Garden, red X
b12 Pinus wallichiana, red X
b13 Pinus halepensis, planted red X
b14 Pinus halepensis, planted red X
b15 Pinus brutia, local native pine
b16 Pinus nigra, red X
b17 Pinus strobus, local native
b18 Pinus wallichiana, red X
b19 Pinus wallichiana, red X
b20 Pinus taeda, local native (seems people confused 'wilted' with 'pendulous' for broken branch! The cone with spined scales is P. taeda, though.

Thanks again! Sorry it's such a long list today! - MPF (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Another long list today, these are all verifications (and a few infraspecific refinements) for a kid Oceanf who is good with his IDs, but has a lot of contributions with no responses; I felt sad about that so wanted to help him a bit, with his conifers at least:

b21 Pinus echinata
b22 Pinus rigida
b23 Pinus contorta ssp. latifolia
b24 Pinus contorta ssp. latifolia
b25 Pinus ponderosa ssp. brachyptera
b26 Pinus ponderosa ssp. ponderosa
b27 Pinus torreyana (out of native range, but looks naturalised, rather than planted)
b28 Pinus torreyana
b29 Pinus attenuata
b30 Pinus radiata (out of native range, but obvious naturalised not planted)
b31 Pinus sabiniana
b32 Pinus massoniana
b33 Pseudotsuga menziesii ssp. menziesii
b34 Tsuga canadensis
b35 Abies concolor ssp. lowiana
b36 Abies concolor ssp. concolor
b37 Cunninghamia lanceolata
b38 Yes, definite Taxodium distichum, not any other Taxodium; probably planted, but hard to be sure. Look further upstream for any big planted specimens it could have seeded from!
b39 Juniperus virginiana (seedling with juvenile foliage)
b40 Juniperus virginiana
b41 Juniperus virginiana
b42 Juniperus scopulorum
b43 Juniperus californica (that the cones look odd is due to their being under-developed, aborted, and dried out)
b44 Juniperus communis var. depressa
b45 Calocedrus decurrens
b46 Agreed Taxus baccata (naturalised)

Then also this one:

b47 is Pinus sylvestris (short blue-green needles in pairs, flaky orange upper crown bark; planted in garden so red X) - this one is important as it is used as an example of Pinus ponderosa on an Identification Notes page here - could you also let the author of that page know that one of their examples is wrong ID, please!

And finally:

b48 is correctly identified (Larix occidentalis, not possible L. decidua as suggested at the start), but is well out of range, an obvious forestry plantation that needs a red X (no evidence if any regeneration)

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more today, please!

b49 is Carya illinoinensis, note winged nuts (Juglans is unwinged)

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sorry for the delay - too busy with offline activities. Rudolphous (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! No problem about the delay :-) and nice to see Oceanf's response! - MPF (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some more where people think a common tree is a rare one!

b50 Larix sibirica, red X (this is the main species, and the only larch, used in forestry experiments in Greenland)
b51 Larix decidua (the expected local native species)
b52 Larix decidua (the expected local native species)
b53 Larix decidua, red X (forestry plantation)
b54 Larix decidua (cones without visible bracts); mature planted trees and naturalised self-sown young trees
b55 Larix decidua (cones without visible bracts); likely forestry plantation with no evidence of regeneration presented, so red X
b56 Cedrus deodara, red X

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe you want to comment on: inat. Rudolphous (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! For @ alexbinck - identification as Baldcypress is not too difficult; Pondcypress has much shorter, more scale-like leaves, and Montezuma Cypress usually has more oval (less globular) cones. As to where it has come from - yes, it could be self-sown, but you really need evidence of a seed source, a mature tree further upstream, as I already suggested. Taxodium seed is large and heavy; it is water-dispersed, not by wind, so it can't have blown in. But it could easily be planted; 'guerilla gardening' is a strange thing (I've done it myself!), and exotics can turn up planted in very unexpected places. Perhaps someone grew the seed at home, and when they realised it would get large, planted it out in the local open land, rather than in their too-small home garden. The absence of pruning doesn't mean anything; the tree is 10-15 years old (perhaps more), and any sign of pre-planting ground preparation will have long been grown over by other plants. Hope this helps!

- MPF (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the above! This one more for tonight, please (with a few more similar tomorrow!):

b57 verifying Pinus cembroides subsp. orizabensis (though I think it should be split from P. cembroides, as Pinus orizabensis!) from the large cones and bicoloured leaves; and a request: Wiki Commons does not have any photos of this species - would you be willing to change the license on these 5 photos from CC-BY-NC to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA please? Gracias! - MPF (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some more please!

b58 is Pinus cembroides subsp. orizabensis (which I think should be split from P. cembroides, as Pinus orizabensis!): large cone, strongly bicoloured leaves, several fascicles with 4 leaves. A request to @ johngarrett, please: Wiki Commons does not have any photos of this species - would you be willing to change the license on these 3 photos from CC-BY-NC to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA please? Gracias!
b59 is Pinus cembroides subsp. orizabensis: strongly bicoloured leaves, several fascicles with 4 leaves. Same request, please!
b60 is Pinus cembroides subsp. orizabensis (which I think should be split from P. cembroides, as Pinus orizabensis!): large cone, strongly bicoloured leaves, many fascicles with 4 leaves. A request to @ bodofzt, please: Wiki Commons does not have any photos of this species - would you be willing to change the license on these 3 photos from CC-BY-NC to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA please? Gracias!
b61 is Pinus cembroides subsp. orizabensis: large cone, strongly bicoloured leaves, some fascicles with 4 leaves. Same request, please!
b62 is Pinus cembroides subsp. orizabensis: strongly bicoloured leaves, several fascicles with 4 leaves.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just two for tonight, please!

b63 is Cupressus macrocarpa (cones, top left, are too large for C. pygmaea); cultivated in Golden Gate Park, so red X
b64 is correct Cupressus pygmaea, but an obvious cultivated plant in Berkeley Botanic Gardens, so red X

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also this one please:

b65 is Afghan Pine Pinus brutia ssp. eldarica, which is very commonly cultivated in Texas. Needles much too long for Pinus remota. Planted beside a car park restroom, so red X.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ~~One~~ two (!) for tonight, please:

b66 is Pinus ponderosa as tagged, but an obvious planted tree, so a red X, please! - MPF (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
b67 is (contra @ chickeroni) definitely Pinus ponderosa, and from the cone shape and the needles mixed 2s and 3s, is further safely identifiable as P. ponderosa ssp. scopulorum. However, I'm very dubious these are self-sown, rather than new park planting, so without further evidence, I'd award them a red X - MPF (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One new for tonight (plus b67 above! ;-), please!

b68 is Pinus johannis: note the leaves in 3s, not 5s; also the altitude (2.600 m) is too low for P. culminicola. Also a request to @ ignaciomra1, please: Wiki Commons has very few photos of this species; would you be willing to change the license on these 5 photos from CC-BY-NC-SA to CC-BY-SA please? Gracias! - MPF (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF: Some pictures are free licensed now, see link. Rudolphous (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hope all's well! A longer list today, please :-)

69 is Pinus cembroides. Both species can have needles predominantly in 2s, but the bark here is typical fissured P. cembroides, not scaly P. remota; and no P. remota in BBNP.
70 is Pinus cembroides; no P. remota in BBNP.
71 is Pinus cembroides; umbo (the brown spot on each cone scale) is too large for P. remota, also no P. remota in BBNP.
72 is Pinus cembroides; umbo is too large and protuberant for P. remota, also no P. remota in BBNP.
73 is Pinus cembroides; pinyon seedling unidentifiable to species, but P. cembroides common in BBNP, while P. remota does not occur there.
74 is Pinus cembroides; pinyon seedling unidentifiable to species, but P. cembroides common in BBNP, while P. remota does not occur there.
75 is Pinus cembroides; the local pinyon in BBNP, where no P. remota.
76 is Pinus cembroides; fissured (not scaly) bark, also no P. remota in BBNP.
77 is Pinus cembroides; fissured (not scaly) bark, also no P. remota in BBNP.
78 is Pinus cembroides; the local pinyon in BBNP, where no P. remota.
79 is Pinus cembroides; dull green leaves, not bright green; also no P. remota in BBNP.
80 is Pinus cembroides; fissured (not scaly) bark, also no P. remota in BBNP.
81 pic 2 is Juniperus deppeana in agreement with @ ekarlogist, pic 1 is Pinus sp., either P. cembroides or P. arizonica, but not P. remota (scaly bark, not fissured).
82 is Pinus cembroides; dull green leaves, not bright green; also no P. remota in BBNP.
83 an obvious planted tree in a car park, red X

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also a couple more for Oceanf, please!

84 agree with Pinus flexilis.
85 having grown Quercus agrifolia acorns myself, I recognise these as that so can confirm.

And a couple more random, please:

86 red X for an obvious cultivated plant at Purdue University.
87 is Pinus rigida, needles in 3s, broad, slightly twisted.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks again! I fear #83, I forgot to add the identity! It too is Pinus cembroides: this also often has needles in 2s, and needles dull green, leaf sheaths forming rolled back 'rosettes'.
And a couple more, please :-)

88 is Pinus cembroides; deeply fissured bark, leaf sheaths forming rolled back 'rosettes'.
89 is Pinus brutia; needles in 2s not 5s, cone scales with flat dorsal umbo. A popular ornamental tree in southern California; red X.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Super, thanks! A response to the note by @ joshua_tx on #83, please: "Thanks! I have yet to meet a self-sown pine seedling that has evolved resistance to lawnmowers :-) This tree is clearly planted in a mown (and probably irrigated) lawn, and 'cared for' (stem pruned up). I did check photo #2 against street view footage for the car park 50 m to the northeast of the mapped site; it didn't match, but the street view footage is 2014, and the white barriers in the 2019 photo could have been added subsequently (as could the tree; it is young, and if planted as a large specimen, could easily be less than 5 years planted). I also checked several alternative car parks nearby on street view, but couldn't find any match - but again, all were 2014 footage. Of pine survival at the elevation (650 m at the mapped location), I'd think it could, if it is irrigated, as that lawn appears to be. The nearest definitely irrigated lawn I could find on the 2014 footage was Cottonwood Campground, 9 km ESE. - EDIT I think I may have found it, [https ://maps.app.goo.gl/H8pkiUy1hb9U5nRe6] (remove the space!), Fort Pena Colorado park, Marathon; everything matches including the young Pinyon (right) and the Stop sign" - MPF (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two more tonight, please!

90 is Pinus johannis - leaves in 3s (not mostly 2s of P. remota) and epistomatic; cones with very thin scales.
91 is Pinus johannis - leaves in 3s (not mostly 2s of P. remota) and epistomatic; cones with very thin scales.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of revisits, please!

71 - @joshua_tx : I have yet to see any definite P. remota material from BBNP, either posted here on iNat, or elsewhere; that's not to say it doesn't occur. But anyway, this specimen is definitely P. cembroides, the large umbos (>⅓ of the scale width) on the cone scales exclude P. remota (small, sunken umbo typically <¼ of the scale width and invariably <⅓ of the scale width). The needle count is not significant; P. cembroides typically has a mix of 2s and 3s, and predominantly 2s is frequent in many individuals. Several 3s are actually visible in photos 2 & 3 of this observation. And finally, P. remota sheds its fascicle sheath much faster than P. cembroides; on 2nd year fascicles, P. remota has only tiny basal scales of the sheath left, while P. cembroides has characteristic rosettes of curled-back scales. The latter are readily visible in photo 3 in several shoots just below the pollen cones.
69 - also @joshua_tx : as on the other observation 51235479, and additionally, the bark here is clearly typical P. cembroides, thick and fissured, not scaly. And, as @silversea_starsong mentions, many of its needles are in 3s. Worth adding too, this is a high profile site; there are about 10 or so other observations of this same tree, listed as verified P. cembroides.

And a few new ones, please:

92 is Juniperus sp.; leaves in whorls of 3 (arranged spirally in Pinus seedlings).
93 is Pinus cembroides; dull green (not bright green) leaves, semi-persistent leaf fascicle sheaths.
94 is Pinus cembroides; cone with thick scales and large umbos.
95 is probably Pinus cembroides but hard to rule out P. johannis; definitely not P. remota though (needles in 3s).
96 is Pinus cembroides; cone with thick scales and large umbos; leaves mixed 2s and 3s.
97 is Pinus cembroides; cone with thick scales and large umbos. Nothing to suggest hybrid with P. culminicola, either.
98 is Pinus cembroides; cone with thick scales and large umbos; leaves mixed 2s and 3s.
99 is Pinus cembroides; cone with thick scales and large umbos; leaves mixed 2s and 3s; leaf sheaths forming persistent rosettes.
100 is Pinus johannis; leaves in 3s (not mostly 2s of P. remota) and epistomatic; cones with thin scales.
101 is Pinus cembroides; leaves hypostomatic, mostly in 3s but some 2s. No evidence of P. culminicola; pollen already shed by mid May rules this (and P. johannis) out.
102 young seedling not yet identifiable, but most likely Pinus cembroides; Pinus johannis is also possible, but not P. remota, which does not occur anywhere near 2,800 m altitude. Best tagged as the commoner species (P. cembroides).
103 "Es parte de una reforestación" = planted, = red X, please!
104 same site as #103, so also red X

Many thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hope all's well! One for today, please:

105 is Pinus brutia; smooth, stout cone; local native

Thanks again! - MPF (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And one of your own, I fear!

106 is Pinus nigra; long, dark green (not glaucous) needles. Interesting to see it regenerating in the Dutch dunes!

Is there any problem causing the hold-up for #90 on? Let me know if you're not able to do these any more! Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All oke here, hope you too? I was a bit behind but just did them all. Rudolphous (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Very much appreciated :-)

Sometimes it is difficult to know what to do! As just one example, for Picea rubens, there are 46 claims of this American species in Europe . . . and every single one is wrong! Genuine Picea rubens is exceedingly rare in Europe, only in a few major botanical gardens. In the great majority of cases (though not quite all), it is due to mistranslation, English "Red" Spruce (Picea rubens) ≠ Danish "Rød"gran, Swedish "Röd"gran, German "Rot"fichte, Italian Abete "rosso" (which are all Picea abies, but translate into English as "red" spruce). I can list them all for you, but it is a big job! And then there are so many other misidentifications, too . . . - MPF (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have changed them all. We can keep doing something hopefully it sums up to something big Rudolphous (talk) 07:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Unfortunately, just a bit too quick off the mark :-) it wasn't quite all of them were Picea abies, one in Spain I can remember was Chamaecyparis lawsoniana (!!), and there were one or two others that were something else too; I'll have a check! - MPF (talk) 10:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Picea rubens iNat errors[edit]

Here we go; any you want reasons for my ID, let me know:

r1 in Japan; Picea sp., photo too poor quality to identify, but foliage is wrong for P. rubens
r2 is Abies alba
r3 is Picea abies
r4 is Picea abies
r5 is Picea abies
r6 is Picea abies
r7 is Picea abies
r8 is Picea abies
r9 is Picea abies
r10 is Picea abies
r11 is Picea abies
r12 is Chamaecyparis lawsoniana (oops above, Portugal, not Spain!)
r13 is Picea abies
r14 is Picea abies
r15 is Picea abies
r16 is Abies alba
r17 is Picea abies
r18 is _probably_ Taxus baccata, but why do people ever submit such dreadful photos, when they could so easily go round to the sunny side and get a good pic!!!
r19 is Picea abies
r20 is Pseudotsuga menziesii
r21 is Picea abies
r22 is Picea abies
r23 is Picea abies
r24 is Picea abies
r25 is Picea abies
r26 is Picea abies
r27 is Picea abies
r28 is Picea abies
r29 is Picea abies
r30 is Picea abies
r31 is Picea abies
r32 is Picea abies
r33 is Picea abies
r34 is Picea abies
r35 is _probably_ Chamaecyparis lawsoniana; bark is the only clue here!
r36 is Picea abies
r37 is Picea abies
r38 is Picea abies
r39 is Picea abies
r40 is Picea abies
r41 is Picea abies
r42 is Picea abies
r43 is Picea abies
r44 is Picea abies
r45 is Picea sitchensis (plantation, not wild; red X)
r46 is Picea abies
r47 is Picea abies

Finally, a few outliers from outside its native range in North America:

r48 is Picea abies, cultivated, red X
r49 is genuine, but obviously planted (click 'Satellite' on the map), red X
r50 is genuine, but obviously planted (click 'Satellite' on the map to see the plantation grid!!), red X
r51 is Picea mariana (local native); leaves too glaucous below for P. rubens
r52 is Picea mariana (local native); leaves too glaucous below for P. rubens

Thanks again! - MPF (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All done, thank you!. Rudolphous (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks! Two more offbeam ones I missed before as they didn't show up on the main map!

r53 is Picea sp., either Picea glauca or Picea mariana (can't tell due to the snow cover!), but not P. rubens.
r54 is correct identity, but the coordinates are switched; it should be Lat: 43.550679 Lon: -71.74496 that takes it off the Greenland Icecap (!!) and places it in typical Picea rubens habitat. Its accuracy ±1192.45 km can surely be narrowed down a bit too :-)

Thanks! MPF (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More Pinus remota![edit]

Just when I thought I'd finished with Pinus remota, I discover some more!

rem1 is Pinus johannis - needles in 3s, not 2s, and epistomatic, with white stomatal lines on inner faces; also, at 2.440 m, much too high for P. remota.
rem2 is Pinus johannis - needles in 3s, not 2s, and epistomatic, with white stomatal lines on inner faces; also, at 1.860 m, probably too high for P. remota. Note that photo 3, the large Pinus is a different species!
rem3 is Pinus johannis - needles in 3s, not 2s, and epistomatic, with white stomatal lines on inner faces; cones with very thin scales; also, at 2.870 m, much too high for P. remota.
rem4 is Pinus johannis - growth habit with thick, pale, upcurved shoots resembles this better than P. remota, and at around 2.100 m, too high for P. remota. Unfortunately not possible to count needle number!
rem5 is Pinus johannis - growth habit with thick, pale, upcurved shoots and probable epistomatic (bicoloured) foliage resembles this better than P. remota, and at 2.500 m, much too high for P. remota. Unfortunately not possible to count needle number!
rem6 is Pinus johannis - growth habit with thick, pale, upcurved shoots and probable epistomatic (bicoloured) foliage resembles this better than P. remota, and at 2.000 m, too high for P. remota. Unfortunately not possible to count needle number!
rem7 is Pinus cembroides - growth habit with 'spiky' branchlets and thick fissured bark (visible when photo brightened!) is typical of this species.

Many thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 06:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting set in Finland[edit]

From an experimental forestry plantation (which also has its own website with a species list):

fi1 is Pinus peuce, cultivated, no evidence of regeneration, so red X
fi2 is Larix laricina as labelled; cultivated, no evidence of regeneration, so red X
fi3 is Larix decidua as labelled; cultivated, no evidence of regeneration, so red X
fi4 is Picea abies as labelled; cultivated, but with evidence of regeneration, so green ✓ (though a local native species anyway)
fi5 is Abies lasiocarpa; cultivated, no evidence of regeneration, so red X
fi6 is Abies sibirica; cultivated, no evidence of regeneration, so red X
fi7 is Picea mariana as labelled; cultivated, but with evidence of regeneration, so green ✓

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And disposing of some cultivated Picea breweriana[edit]

Pcbr 1 is correct, but red X
Pcbr 2 is correct, but red X
Pcbr 3 is correct, but red X
Pcbr 4 is two different trees; photos 1, 3, 4 Picea smithiana, photo 2 Picea omorika; both planted, red X
Pcbr 5 is Picea breweriana, but red X
Pcbr 6 is Juniperus cedrus, red X

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All done, I marked fi7 as wild is that what you intended? Rudolphous (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks! Yes, there are young saplings between the planted trees in fi7 so it is becoming established as a potential invasive species. fi4 has young plants growing as well, so that too can be given a green 'wild' tick.

A few new ones, please!

Pmur1 is Pinus contorta, widely planted in forestry and often invasive in UK; needles too short for P. muricata.
Pmur2 is Pinus radiata; persistent asymmetrical cones without spines, cultivated red X.
Pmur3 is Pinus nigra; symmetrical cones without spines, most likely cultivated but could be naturalised (it's in your area, I'll let you decide whether to give a red X or not!).
Pmur4 is Pinus nigra; cultivated red X (planted tree in a housing estate). P. muricata is not winter-hardy in this region.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One more fake Brewer's, please!

Pcbr 7 is Picea abies; leaves too short, and without white stomatal bands. Probably cultivated.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Pinus muricata! Just one tonight, please:

Pmur5 is mixed: photo #1 is Pinus radiata, unarmed cone, and needles in 3s, while photos #2 and #3 are P. muricata.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few more, please![edit]

This one, could you put a red X for 'Location is accurate', and paste in the text below, please:

c1: A complex case! The tree is correctly identified as Pinus aristata, but significantly, in pic #2, with Abies lasiocarpa behind and Pinus reflexa at the right edge, so a high altitude location (min 2500 m, more likely ~3000 m or more). The trees are all old, so not planted by man (unless by Native Americans!). I checked along the entire length of the green 'uncertainty circle' on US-89A on street view, and it is all moderate altitude (2000-2200 m) Pinyon-Juniper (sadly nearly all recently burnt), except for a little Ponderosa at the highest part (2250 m) at the south end; nothing anywhere to suggest any high altitude species either beside, or away from, the road. So therefore, I fear the location cannot be correct. Is it feasible you took it in the San Francisco Peaks and misremembered the location on entering it here 3 months later?
c2 is Pinus longaeva - no white resin spots on the leaves, and the common bristlecone species at Bryce Canyon.
c3 is Pinus nigra - needles in 2s, no bristles on cones. Obvious cultivated plant, red X.
c4 is Pinus sylvestris (the common local native) - no bristles on the cones!

This next will make me popular, demolishing a species' sole iNat record :-)

c5 is Thuja occidentalis; leaf shape is wrong for T. sutchuenensis (compared with photos of herbarium specimens), and the location (urban Wuhan) well outside that species' very limited native range. Thuja occidentalis is commonly cultivated in China; presume planted rather than naturalised.

Couple of others from the same observer:

c6 is Metasequoia glyptostroboides; planted (red X!) in urban Wuhan.
c7 ditto, verifying (and presume planted).

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

all

Done Rudolphous (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks! Some more checks on extralimital or near-limits Pinus aristata:

All correct ID, but cultivated:

c8 is Pinus aristata, but planted in Yampa River Botanic Park so red X.
c9 is Pinus aristata, but planted in a garden so red X.
c10 is Pinus aristata, but planted in a garden so red X.
c11 is Pinus aristata, but is planted in a hotel forecourt (see street view!) so red X.
c12 is Pinus aristata, but is planted in a housing forecourt (see street view!) so red X.
c13 is Pinus aristata, but planted in a garden so red X.
c14 is Pinus aristata, but planted in a ski resort so red X.
c15 is Pinus aristata, but planted in a ski resort so red X.

These all misidentified:

c16 is Pinus ponderosa ssp. scopulorum; leaves long, in 2s and 3s, not short and 5s. Planted (so red X) in a row beside houses.
c17 is Pinus ponderosa ssp. scopulorum, an aborted immature cone; cone scale spines stout, not slender bristles.
c18 is Pinus contorta ssp. latifolia; leaves short, but in 2s, not 5s.
c19 is Pinus mugo; leaves short, but in 2s, not 5s; cones without bristles or spines. Planted in a garden, red X.
c20 is Pinus edulis; small cones with few scales, altitude too low for Pinus aristata.
c21 is Pinus edulis; small cones with few scales, altitude too low for Pinus aristata.
c22 is Pinus flexilis; leaves in 5s, but too long for Pinus aristata, and without white resin spots.
c23 is Pinus ponderosa ssp. scopulorum; cone scale spines stout, not slender bristles. Just because it is growing on Bristlecone Drive doesn't make it a Bristlecone!

At last!!

c24 Verifying this one is Pinus aristata, and wild too.

A stack more in gardens in Denver and Colorado Springs, I'll leave them till tomorrow! Thanks! - MPF (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

all done. Rudolphous (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Super, thanks! Here's the rest of the extralimital Pinus aristata:

Correct ID, but cultivated, red X:

c24 same tree as c12 above
c25 cinema car park
c26 garden
c27 garden
c28 at Fort Collins Botanical Garden
c29 garden
c30 garden
c31 garden
c32 garden
c33 garden
c34 at Buffalo Bill Museum
c35 at Buffalo Bill Museum (same tree as above)
c36 at Buffalo Bill Museum (same tree as above)
c37 at Genesee Mountain Fitness shop car park
c38 in Kittredge Community Park
c39 yes, planted in a garden
c40 garden
c41 beside 'Running Fox' trail in extensive mixed urban planting scheme
c42 roadside planting scheme
c43 young tree planted in a public park
c44 young tree planted by US Postal Service office
c45 young tree planted at Air Force Academy grounds
c46 in 'Garden of the Gods' park
c47 garden
c48 garden
c49 garden
c50 young tree planted in a public park
c51 young tree outside of suitable habitat beside trailhead car park, highly likely planted; 5 obs of this single tree
c52 as above
c53 as above
c54 as above
c55 as above

Correct ID, but location implausible: red X for 'Location is accurate'

c56 no sign of it or any other conifer at the marked location (open semidesert).

Misidentified; wild unless otherwise stated:

c57 is Pinus flexilis; unarmed cones with terminal umbos, no resin spots on foliage.
c58 is Pinus flexilis; unarmed cones with terminal umbos, no resin spots on foliage.
c59 is Pinus flexilis; unarmed cones with terminal umbos, no resin spots on foliage.
c60 is Pinus flexilis; broad juvenile leaves a white pine character, and this is the only white pine in the region.
c61 is Pinus contorta ssp. latifolia; needles short, in pairs not 5s
c62 is Pinus ponderosa, squirrel stripped cone.
c63 is Woody Plants sp. (unidentifiable dead wood!) tag 'Recent evidence of an organism' as red X!
c64 is Pinus ponderosa ssp. scopulorum, an aborted immature cone; cone scale spines stout, not slender bristles.
c65 is Pinus ponderosa ssp. scopulorum, an aborted immature cone; cone scale spines stout, not slender bristles.
c66 is Pinus ponderosa ssp. scopulorum, an aborted immature cone; cone scale spines stout, not slender bristles. Planted in garden, red X.
c67 is Pinus ponderosa ssp. scopulorum, leaves long, in 2s and 3s, not short and 5s; cone scale spines stout, not slender bristles.
c68 is Pinus ponderosa ssp. scopulorum, leaves long, in 2s and 3s, not short and 5s.
c69 is Pinus mugo planted at Pueblo Zoo; red X.
c70 is Juniperus scopulorum; typical juniper foliage, and the abundant local native
c71 is Cercocarpus sp.; small broad leaves.

A much longer list than I'd hoped! Many thanks! - MPF (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

all done, great work. Rudolphous (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! I see c56 has come back with a possible explanation for the odd location, could you respond as follows, please: "Thanks! Unfortunate that has happened. Can you remember where you were when you saw this? Presumably somewhere high in the mountains to the west; perhaps Taos Ski Valley where several of your other records in the days immediately before are from?"

- MPF (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Another reply, to which to add: "Could you move it to there, please? Then it can be retagged as 'correct location', Thanks!"

And now some extralimital Pinus palustris for their red X, please :-)

c72 in Tulsa Botanic Gardens.
c73 in Mt Cuba Botanic Gardens; no sign of any potential parent tree on satellite view, so safe to say planted, not wild.
c74 red X for location: no sign on either street view or satellite view (and even if it exists nearby, is in an urban area, so can presume planted).
c75 with planting marker post, so planted.
c76 with planting plaque, so planted; next 4 are all same individual
c77 as c76
c78 as c76
c79 as c76
c80 as c76
c81 planted in a garden
c82 same tree as c81
c83 same tree as c81
c84 only one left as of 2021 street view. Have to presume planted, as out of range and no seed source, and close to a car park so an easy spot for 'guerilla gardening'.
c85 collected cone; no to 'Recent evidence of an organism'
c86 planted in a cage
c87 is Pinus elliottii - needles too short and slender for P. palustris.
c88 agree with @jimbean Pinus elliottii (likely var. densa); as originator has opted out of community ID his ID can't be changed, so put X for 'Evidence of organism' :-)
c89 ditto to c88 as Pinus elliottii var. densa

And Pinus lambertiana:

c90 is Araucaria heterophylla, cultivated X
c91 same tree as c90
c92 is Pinus strobus, cultivated X
c93 is Pinus strobus (local native, probably wild)
c94 is Picea abies, planted in garden (see street view)

Many thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

all

Done Rudolphous (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Revisiting a couple of Picea rubens from earlier:

r1 in Japan: it does not fit any Japanese native Picea; my best guess is cultivated Picea abies; it fits OK on foliage, and is generally the most widely cultivated spruce globally. Red X.
r54 since the observer has not corrected the lat/long transposition, could you tag red X for 'Location is accurate' with a note to @vilseskog that it can be retagged if the details are corrected!

And a couple of new Picea rubens:

r55 is cultivated Picea abies; needles too long for P. rubens.
r56 is a Juniperus × pfitzeriana cultivar; red X of course!

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addenum: c88 and c89, the originator has changed the identities now to agree with everyone else, so the 'Evidence of organism' can be re-ticked green now please :-) MPF (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Super, thanks! Yet no sooner than all the 'junk' Picea rubens are cleared, two more appear . . . (it really seems to be a random "hope this works" species!!):

r57 is cultivated Picea pungens
r58 is cultivated Picea glauca

More later . . . :-) MPF (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some more misidentified Pinus lambertiana:

Pl1 location is wrong; photo shows montane old-growth forest, map shows suburban housing.
Pl2 location is wrong; photo shows montane forest, map shows suburban housing & farmland.
Pl3 identity is correct, but location is wrong; photo shows a collected cone indoors, location is urban.
Pl4 identity is correct, but location is wrong; photo shows a collected cone indoors, location is urban.
Pl5 identity is correct, but location is wrong, altitude much too low.
Pl6 is Pinus sabiniana - long needles in 3s, smooth bark.
Pl7 is Pinus sabiniana - long needles in 3s (not 5s as @andersonpacific says!) and with persistent needles sheaths, smooth bark.
Pl8 is Pinus ponderosa, cultivated - long needles, plated bark.
Pl9 is Cedrus deodara, cultivated - short needles in clusters.
Pl10 is Pinus canariensis, cultivated (very popular Calif coast ornamental tree) - very long needles in 3s, woody cone.
Pl11 is Cedrus deodara, cultivated - short needles in clusters.
Pl12 identity is correct, but is cultivated: bonsai wire wrapped round stems for shape training.
Pl13 is Picea breweriana, cultivated in Tilden Regional Parks Botanic Garden.
Pl14 is Pinus radiata (cultivated) in photo #1, Sequoia sempervirens (probably cultivated) in photo #2.
Pl15 is Pinus halepensis (probably naturalised; invasive in Calif) - short needles in 2s.
Pl16 is Cedrus atlantica pollen cone; verified from trees visible on street view.
Pl17 is Sequoia sempervirens, cultivated.
Pl18 is Pinus canariensis, cultivated (very popular Calif coast ornamental tree) - very long needles in 3s.
Pl19 is Pinus canariensis, cultivated (very popular Calif coast ornamental tree) - very long needles in 3s.
Pl20 is Pinus halepensis (probably naturalised; invasive in Calif) - short needles in 2s.
Pl21 is Cedrus deodara, cultivated - short needles in clusters.
Pl22 is Cedrus deodara, cultivated (christmas tree!) - short needles in clusters.
Pl23 is Pinus canariensis, cultivated (very popular Calif coast ornamental tree) - squirrel-stripped cone.
Pl24 is Pinus canariensis, cultivated (very popular Calif coast ornamental tree) - cone; tree verified from street view.
Pl25 is Pseudotsuga macrocarpa (wild); similar crown form but foliage very different.
Pl26 is Pinus coulteri (wild); distinctive crown form.
Pl27 identity is correct, but agree with @grmorrison, safe to say cultivated; no mature trees nearby.
Pl28 identity is correct, but location is dubious: 10 km away from all the other records, and 300-500 m lower altitude.

And a few Pseudotsuga macrocarpa, please:

BDF1 is Larix decidua, cultivated.
BDF2 is Pseudotsuga menziesii, cultivated.
BDF3 is Pseudotsuga menziesii, collected cone indoors, location wrong, no sign of source tree on street view.
BDF4 is Picea abies, cultivated (obvious forestry plantation on satellite view).
BDF5 is a Pinus species, squirrel-stripped cone; most likely Pinus coulteri, as several present locally on street view.
BDF6 is correct, but as noted, washed down by river; thus 'Recent evidence of an organism' needs to be red X.

Thanks! MPF (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

all

Done Rudolphous (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Congo-Brazzaville photographs taken on DATE[edit]

It looks like this bot keeps recreating Category:Congo-Brazzaville photographs taken on DATE categories. Example: Category:Congo-Brazzaville photographs taken on 2002-08-10. These should be Category:Republic of the Congo photographs taken on DATE. Example: Category:Republic of the Congo photographs taken on 2002-08-10. - Jmabel ! talk 00:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the issue (diff). Best regards, Rudolphous (talk) 06:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How does that fix the issue going forward? (I spent about half an hour fixing a bunch of these earlier today.) - Jmabel ! talk 07:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear you had to spend half an hour on this. I map the country Congo-Brazzaville (which is how it is named in open streetmap) into Republic of the Congo. I'm now doing some inaturalist pictures and will check each category it creates. Next time you can also ping me if something is wrong then I will take care of it. Rudolphous (talk) 07:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guam[edit]

Thanks applied a fix for this. Rudolphous (talk) 07:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Croix[edit]

Similar problem at Category:United States (USVI Saint Croix) photographs taken on 2003-12-11 and Category:United States (USVI Saint Croix) photographs taken on 2004-01-05. I don't know what would be right in this case, so I can't fix it for the existing photos & categories, but these categories invoke a nonexistent template. - Jmabel ! talk 00:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also applied a fix for this. Rudolphous (talk) 07:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SBA[edit]

I don't even know what "location=SBA" is supposed to mean, but please have a look at Category:SBA photographs taken on 2013-07-28 and Category:SBA photographs taken on 2008-12-09. I suspect these categories should be deleted, and the locations in the relevant files should be edited, but I don't know what the location ought to be. - 02:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

This is cyprus and categorized liked this. Rudolphous (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

French Antarctic Territories[edit]

More of the same:

Jmabel ! talk 07:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I categorized these pictures to France, since the island belongs to this country. Rudolphous (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

realistic locations[edit]

Hi. Your bot did this and it isn't a location, just something semi descriptive. Not certain how or why it did that, however, it has done it a couple of times to a series of files. Would you so kind to explore what is happening and amend so it is not repeated. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, will come back on this. Rudolphous (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was in OSM (open street map) but is already fixed by them. This was their previous response and this is how it looks now. To prevent this kind of issues I will add a whitelist for countries in order to let it only use valid ones. Rudolphous (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More iNat, please :-)[edit]

Some Pinus canariensis claims, part 1, please:

CIP1 - correct, but cultivated.
CIP2 - correct, but cultivated.
CIP3 - correct, but cultivated.
CIP4 - correct, but cultivated.
CIP5 - correct, but cultivated.
CIP6 - correct, but cultivated.
CIP7 - correct, but cultivated.
CIP8 - Pinus ponderosa, cultivated.
CIP9 - Pinus ponderosa, cultivated.
CIP10 - Pinus ponderosa, cultivated.
CIP11 - Pinus arizonica, wild.
CIP12 - Pinus ponderosa, cultivated.
CIP13 - American Hard Pines (Pinus sect. Trifoliae), a Mexican native species. @Pinidae might know which.
CIP14 - Pinus taeda, cultivated.
CIP15 - Pinus taeda, cultivated.
CIP16 - Pinus taeda, cultivated.
CIP17 - Pinus taeda, cultivated.
CIP18 - Pinus taeda, cultivated.
CIP19 - Pinus taeda, cultivated.
CIP20 - American Hard Pines (Pinus sect. Trifoliae), cultivated.
CIP21 - Pinus brutia, cultivated.
CIP22 - Pinus brutia, cultivated.
CIP23 - Pinus brutia, cultivated.
CIP24 - Pinus patula, cultivated.
CIP25 - Flowering Plants (no pines in the photo!)

MPF (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Super, thanks! And part 2:

CIP26 - Pinus tabuliformis, cultivated.
CIP27 - Pinus ponderosa, cultivated.
CIP28 - correct, but cultivated.
CIP29 - correct, but cultivated.
CIP30 - correct, but cultivated.
CIP31 - correct, but cultivated.
CIP32 - correct, and looks like a self-sown tree, so wild.
CIP33 - correct, and looks like a self-sown tree, so wild. Interesting wildfire survival, too.
CIP34 - Pinus roxburghii, wild.
CIP35 - Abies densa over to the right; no pines visible.
CIP36 - Pinus yunnanensis, cultivated.
CIP37 - Pinus massoniana, probably a plantation but could be wild.
CIP38 - Pinus massoniana, cultivated (urban) but potentially wild.

MPF (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Super, thanks!

On b68, if you could reply: Muchas gracias!
On CIP29 I fear you forgot to give it a red X for planted!
One other response, CIP33, if you could copy this reply, please: @albertocapuano - grazie! Yes, a tree that has uniquely evolved immunity to volcanic eruptions :-). I had checked the area on satellite and street views; the area is a Riserva Naturale, where it is very unlikely anyone would plant Pinus canariensis, but it is immediately adjacent to the Tivoli Gardens & Parco Villa Gregoriana, where many exotic trees are cultivated, and would shed seeds across the road into the Riserva. The dead pines in the photos are all Pinus pinea, also likely self-seeded from the Tivoli Gardens. On satellite view, the young pines on the Riserva are randomly scattered, and have very much the appearance of natural seeding, not planting. Pinus canariensis is also well documented for self-seeding capacity in Mediterranean climates (mainland Spain, southern France, California, South Africa, etc.). So I am very confident this is self-sown, and not a planted tree.

Thanks! MPF (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Could you add a green tick 'Wild' for CIP33? I think that will over-ride the negative X on that one :-) A few for tonight, please:

Pps1 - photo 1 is a Picea abies cone (best as the headline name), photo 2 an Abies alba tree!
Pps2 - Pinus peuce, cultivated.
Pps3 - cultivated.
Pps4 - cultivated.
Pps5 - cultivated.
Pps6 - cultivated.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Pps1 still needs a name ID please; Picea abies for the first pic :-) And a few more tagged P. pseudostrobus:

Pps7 - Pinus sp., but not P. pseudostrobus; whatever it is, definitely cultivated ('European Garden') so red X
Pps8 - cultivated (SF Botanical Garden).
Pps9 - Pinus canariensis, highly likely cultivated (dense urban area, and a mature tree probably too old to be self-sown).
Pps10 - Pinus canariensis, cultivated (obvious on street view!).
Pps11 - Pinus canariensis, young trees, very good candidate for self-sown, invasive in natural grassland, so green tick for wild this time.
Pps12 - Pinus canariensis, young trees, again highly likely self-sown, invasive in natural grassland, so green tick for wild again.
Pps 13 - Pinus arizonica, presume wild.

And so, on to Pinus arizonica and some other assorted:

Paz1 - Class Magnoliopsida. No idea what, but definitely a dicot! Also cultivated, too. Note: a new addition; if someone else gives a better ID than mine before you get to it, don't bother to add mine. But needs that red X for sure :-)
Paz2 - Pinus montezumae. Cones too large for P. arizonica. Wild.
Pdev1 - Pinus taeda, cultivated.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! A selection of odds and ends, please:

d1 - Pinus elliottii (shoots too slender for P. canariensis), cultivated street tree (shows much better on street view)
d2 - Pinus montezumae (species). Note "var. carrierei" does not exist, can you ask admin to delete this "variety", please!
d3 - Cronartium conigenum. The cone of an unidentifiable pine (possibly, but not definitely, Pinus oocarpa), infected by this fungus.
d4 - identity is correct; cultivated (a well-known planted specimen!).
d4a - same tree as d4.
d5 - identity is correct; cultivated (Bedgebury Pinetum [botanical garden]).
d6 - Pinus Section Quinquefoliae (White Pines); cultivated.
d7 - Pinus roxburghii (local native).
d8 - Pinus roxburghii (local native).
d9 - Pinus elliottii; cultivated: forestry plantation. An important forestry crop species in China.
d10 - Pinus strobus (local native).
d11 - Pinus sp., but not Pinus montezumae; cultivated: forestry plantation.
d11a - same trees as d11.
d12 - Pinus sp., but not Pinus montezumae; cultivated: forestry plantation.
d13 - Pinus montezumae is correct; cultivated in garden of Anchor Bay Store (verified from street view).
d14 - @lingjing is correct, a Pinus canariensis cone; verified from street view, a long line of planted specimens.
d15 - Pinus montezumae is correct; cultivated in Ruth Bancroft Garden & Nursery.
d16 - Pinus halepensis (smooth cone, needles in pairs). Likely cultivated, but potentially naturalised invasive; huge location uncertainty makes checking impossible!
d17 - Pinus canariensis; cultivated beside car park (verified from street view).
d18 - Pinus canariensis; multiple cultivated mature trees (no sign of regeneration in photos or on street view).
d19 - Pinus canariensis; young plant, can't tell if planted or self-sown.
d20 - Pinus canariensis; young tree, self-sown green-tick wild.
d21 - Pinus canariensis; cultivated in park (verified from street view).
d22 - Pinus canariensis; cultivated on school grounds.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All done! Rudolphous (talk) 07:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Starting a new set below :-) MPF (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Foto van Atropa belladonna[edit]

Hallo Rudolphous, Ik vrees dat deze plant https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20210731_Hortus_botanicus_Leiden_-_Unidentified_Solanoideae.jpg geen wolfskers is, maar gewoon een zwarte tomaat. Bekijk eens goed de stengel en de bladeren. Ook zijn de vruchten bij de wolfskers niet is trossen gegroepeerd. JulieBingen (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dit was in de systeemtuin van Hortus Botanicus Leiden. Ik denk inderdaad dat ik twee planten (wolfkers en tomaat) door elkaar heb gehaald omdat deze dicht bij elkaar stonden omdat dit ook dezelfde orde is. Ik heb een verwijziging naar iNaturalist toegevoegd, daar een aantal mensen gepinged en op commons een aantal wijzingen doorgevoerd. Zodra ik meer zekerheid heb over de soort zal ik nog een paar wijzigingen doen. Hartelijk dank voor de melding. Rudolphous (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Het is inderdaad een Solanum lycopersicum. Rudolphous (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

iNat, the next generation[edit]

Just a few Pinus cembra observations from this evening, please:

d23 - Araucaria columnaris, cultivated.
d24 - like @saramykknen says, bark alone is asking a bit much; however, the tree is visible on street view (just!) and confirms the ID as Pinus cembra . . . and also shows it is cultivated in a garden, so red X.
d24 - correct ID, but again, a mature cultivated tree.
d25 - correct ID; a young cultivated tree planted in a lawn.
d26 - an interesting one: correct ID; an old tree outside the species' native range so may be planted, but I can't prove it!
d27 - Pinus nigra, cultivated.
d28 - Pinus nigra, likely cultivated but not definitely so (@chimu counted the needles right, but got the wrong deduction; P. cembra is 5s).
d29 - Pinus sect. Quinquefoliae (White Pines) but not P. cembra (needles too long and slender); could be in a plantation but more likely self-sown from in a garden in Verbania.

All the other Pinus cembra observations outside of the species' native range in Scandinavia are well-documented invasive regeneration. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

A bird for a change:

d30 - Arctic Tern; note the narrow black trailing edge on the underside of the primaries (visible in 2nd photo), a character of Arctic Tern that is absent in Roseate Tern.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some Pinus densiflora today, please...

d31 - cultivated red X and location red X: no Japanese palaces in Tampa, Florida :-)
d32 - Pinus elliottii, cultivated (needles much too long for P. densiflora).
d33 - Pinus contorta, newly planted (resinous buds).
d34 - Pinus tecunumanii, local native, needles in 4s-5s, plus old cone at left.
d35 - species correct, but a variegated cultivar, so planted.
d36 - species correct, but a cultivar, so planted.
d37 - Pinus sylvestris: needles short, glaucous; cones reflexed down shoots.
d38 - Pinus sylvestris: needles short, glaucous.
d39 - Pinus strobus; from the dense growth, a dwarf cultivar, so planted. Not visible on street view at tagged location.
d40 - Flowering plants. No pines visible in the photo!
d41 - species correct, but collected material with no context details; not visible on street view; location red X.
d42 - Pinus halepensis (local native): smooth bark, slender needles.
d43 - species probably correct, but planted in park.

d44 - a group of 10 people all recorded the same tree on the same day... these school class assignments can be a pain!
- d44a - species correct, but a variegated cultivar, planted beside a car park.
- d44b - as d44a
- d44c - as d44a
- d44d - as d44a
- d44e - as d44a
- d44f - as d44a
- d44g - as d44a
- d44h - as d44a
- d44i - as d44a
- d44j - as d44a

d45 - species correct, but a cultivar, so planted.
d46 - Flowering plants. No pines visible in the photo. Photo also does not match mapped urban location.
d47 - Pinus strobus (local native); needles in 5s not 2s, smooth bark.
d48 - Pinus radiata, cultivated; needles in 3s not 2s. Photo also does not match mapped urban location.
d49 - species correct; planted on Nanjing Forestry University campus.
d50 - species correct; planted in Central Park.
d51 - species correct; planted in Central Park.

d52 - verify; mapped native at this location.
d53 - verify; mapped native at this location.
d54 - verify; mapped native at this location.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! d35 and d45 still need red X please :-) MPF (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all done. Rudolphous (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Super, thanks! And now on to some Pinus pinea...

d55 - Cedrus deodara, cultivated.
d56 - a Picea abies cultivar, cultivated.
d57 - correct, but cultivated.
d58 - correct, but cultivated.
d59 - Pinus nigra, cultivated (confirmed from street view).
d60 - Pinus halepensis, cultivated (confirmed from street view).
d61 - Flowering plants. No pines visible in the photo. Photo also does not match mapped urban location.
d62 - Pinus taeda (local native); cone too slender for P. pinea, and spines on cone scales.
d63 - Flowering plants. No pines visible in the photo. Photo also does not match mapped urban location.
d64 - A juniper, very likely Juniperus virginiana; cultivated.

d65: 7 observations of the same tree:
- d65a - Pinus halepensis, old (100+ years) cultivated tree (needles too short and slender, and bark on branchlets too smooth, for P. pinea). Planted (likely by St. Edwards University) long before nature reserve established.
- d65b - ditto
- d65c - ditto
- d65d - ditto
- d65e - ditto
- d65f - ditto
- d65g - ditto

d66 - Pinus halepensis, cultivated.
d67 - correct, but cultivated: @victry please remember 'planted' = 'organism is NOT wild'!
d68 - Juniperus spp., and flowering plants. No pines visible in the photo.
d69 - Pinus brutia ssp. eldarica, cultivated.
d70 - Pinus brutia ssp. eldarica, cultivated.
d71 - Pinus brutia ssp. eldarica, cultivated.
d72 - Pinus brutia ssp. eldarica, cultivated.
d73 - Pinus brutia ssp. eldarica, cultivated.
d74 - Pinus halepensis, cultivated.
d75 - Pinus elliottii, invasive self-sown from mature trees nearby (e.g. some visible on street view to the southwest).
d76 - correct; seedling, growing among numerous old Pinus pinea cones, so likely self-sown from nearby mature planted tree.
d77 - Pinus douglasiana (local native)
d78 - Pinus sp., not P. pinea (small cones visible on street view); cultivated.
d79 - Flowering plants. A deciduous tree, not a pine (leafless in winter on street view!).

More tomorrow! Thanks :-) MPF (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And as promised :-)

d80 - mixed: photos 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 Pinus pinea, photos 4, 6 Pinus halepensis. Checked on street view, there is one mature cultivated Pinus pinea, two mature cultivated Pinus halepensis, and also two young self-sown invasive Pinus halepensis (in the ditch beside the footbridge).
d81 - Pinus pinea, cultivated.
d82 - Pinus densiflora.
d83 - Pinus densiflora, cultivated.
d84 - Casuarinaceae (sp.), cultivated.
d85 - Flowering plants. Not a pine. Cultivated.
d86 - Flowering plants. Not a pine.
d87 - Eurasian, Red, and Tropical Pines (not Pinus pinea). Location red X as photo (lake & islands) does not match satellite view (paddy fields).
d88 - Pinus massoniana, cultivated.
d89 - Flowering plants. Not a pine. Cultivated.
d90 - Pinus thunbergii, cultivated in formal Japanese garden.
d91 - Pinus densiflora, cultivated.
d92 - Juniperus chinensis, cultivated.
d93 - Casuarinaceae (sp.), cultivated.
d94 - Casuarinaceae (sp.), cultivated.
d95 - Casuarinaceae (sp.), cultivated.
d96 - Platycladus orientalis, cultivated.
d97 - Flowering plants. Not a pine. Cultivated.
d98 - Flowering plants (at least 3 different species!). Not a pine. Cultivated.
d99 - Pinus kesiya (local native).

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also a few more for Oceanf:

O1 - confirm Pinus sabiniana.
O2 - confirm Sequoia sempervirens for pics 1 and 2; in pic 3 the central tree is Pseudotsuga menziesii ssp. menziesii (but also some Sequoia sempervirens over towards the right edge).
O3 - confirm Alnus rubra.
O4 - confirm Alnus rhombifolia.
O5 - fairly sure this is Holcus lanatus (native for me, invasive for you!).
O6 - I'm thinking Salix lasiandra from the glossy leaves.
O7 - confirm Populus trichocarpa.
O8 - confirm, even though it is a little past its 'Best before' date 😱😂

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Think I did all. Rudolphous (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Couple of red Xs missing, from d58 and d80, and a few that I missed or are new, please:

d100 - Casuarinaceae (sp.), cultivated.
d101 - Pinus patula, cultivated.
d101 - Pinus taeda, note spines scales and needles in 3s; cultivated at Arkansas State University.
d102 - Pinus halepensis. I don't doubt that P. pinea can be invasive in South Africa, but these are (a) close to mature P. halepensis, and (b) look like it, with slender shoots and leaves. Both species show prolonged retention of glaucous single juvenile leaves, so that doesn't distinguish. I also checked on street view, and while views are limited, I couldn't see any definite P. pinea nearby, but lots of P. halepensis, most of them coning profusely.
d103 - Pinus pinaster; likely invasive.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also done and merry X-mas and good 2024 for you. Rudolphous (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Super, thanks, and all the best for Christmas for you too 😊 MPF (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 😊 Rudolphous (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A response for d67, please: @ victry - thanks! Unfortunately, iNaturalist's default settings are for ticked as wild. If something isn't wild, you have to put an X for 'Organism is wild' proactively, and it is very easy to overlook this. It's a big problem!

A response for d102, please: @ tonyrebelo - I fear I was too brief, so what I said wasn't fully clear and you misunderstood what I said; more clearly, it should read "these saplings are (a) growing close to several mature P. halepensis, and (b) look like P. halepensis saplings, with slender shoots and leaves..."

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Though I fear you copied the same reply (for d102) into both 😱 d67 and d102! - MPF (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, is now correct. Rudolphous (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks!

Another for Oceanf:

O9 - @ oceanf the distortion is caused by Aster Yellows Phytoplasma (Phytoplasma asteris): worth duplicating the observation and adding it to that, too, as it is much rarer than Erigeron canadensis! -

MPF (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Oceanf has duplicated it, so now:

O10 - confirm Phytoplasma asteris

Also another bird, please:

d104 - Streptopelia decaocto. The silhouette is fine for Eurasian Collared Dove, which is frequent in this area; no reason to believe it is a rare bird that only occurs over 1500 km away.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 12:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:According to Exif data edits breaking template syntax[edit]

Hello, could you have a look at the code that made edits like this one? In that case the bot's insertion is at the wrong bracket level and causes the displayed error. A few more cases show up in Category:Pages using Complex date template with incorrect parameter. I'm writing just in case the code might still be in use(?) to avoid the errors in the future. Thanks for having a look if necessary. --Marsupium (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out Rudolphous (talk) 07:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you for noticing and fixing the few cases! --19:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC) Marsupium (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some more iNat, please![edit]

More Pinus pinea, these misidentified:

e1 - Pinus sylvestris (local native)
e2 - Pinus halepensis, from the slender shoots and needles, and confirmed from street view (group planted in a park)
e3 - Pinus halepensis, from the small cones and slender shoots and needles; group planted in a park

These all correct identity, but all red X cultivated:

e4
e5
e6
e7
e8
e9
e10
e11
e12 - planting label shows on street view!
e13 - from street view, a roadside group of 8 young trees: a nice idea by someone, but definitely planted!
e14
e15 - in a plantation
e16 - in Baha'i garden
e17 - in Baha'i garden
e18

And correct identity, self-sown invasive:

e19 - oldest trees likely planted, but multiple younger self-sown trees (including e20 next below)
e20 - germinating seed
e21 - nobody would be foolish enough to plant it there (!!), so self-sown. From satellite view, there are mature trees present in the cemetery across the road for a seed source.
e22 - correct identity

Thanks! MPF (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! e2 and e3 need red X, please :-)

3 new please:

e23 - Pinus montezumae is correct, but as it is planted, @ asabspade please remember to add a red X at 'Organism is wild', otherwise iNat defaults to calling it wild.
e24 - Abies religiosa: this is a typical Abies seed not a Pinus; and A. religiosa is the abundant local native species.
e25 - Pinus leiophylla: persistent seed scales with an umbo; small size excludes other local Pinus species.

Thanks! MPF (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done and maybe you want to write something on d104 Rudolphous (talk) 06:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! For d104:

@ johnallcock Agree it is not identifiable. But a bit of history on why I added Eurasian Collared Dove: I found this observation while looking to see if there were any new Burmese Collared Dove photos with a Wiki Commons-compatible license. This record showed up as Burmese Collared Dove, _despite_ the two subsequent 'Family Columbidae' determinations. What was important to me was to get it thrown out of the mapped Burmese Collared Dove search results (as an obvious inaccurate record), and the only way to do that, was to give it a species-level determination, as generic or familial determinations would not shift it; it would remain at the finest-level distinction given, however implausible that might be. I selected Eurasian Collared Dove as the species' closest relative in the near area, without realising its distribution within Hong Kong was so finely tuned (the same does not apply in UK or Europe: a few km is well within normal dispersal range). I'd be perfectly happy to switch to Spotted Dove if that fits better, just so long as there is at least one different _species-level_ determination to stop it reverting to the original implausible species-level determination of Burmese Collared Dove.

- MPF (talk) 12:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year! First of a fresh set, please :-)

e26 - Pinus elliottii: needles in mixed 2s and 3s. Street planting X.

Pinus leiophylla

e27 - Pinus elliottii, a popular ornamental and forestry tree in southern China. Likely planted at kindergarten, but not definitely so.
e28 - Pinus sylvestris, planted in urban park X.
e29 - Pinus sylvestris, local native species.
e30 - Pinus halepensis, planted in suburban park X.
e31 - Pinus nigra, row of planted street trees X.
e32 - Pinus patula, invasive regeneration. Long, glossy green pendulous needles.
e33 - Pinus brutia ssp. eldarica, planted beside chapel X. Note needles in 2s (not 3s-5s), with persistent sheaths and twisted; and broad-based, forward-pointing cones. A popular ornamental tree in this region.
e34 - Pinus brutia ssp. eldarica, planted in urban park X. Note needles in 2s (not 3s-5s), with persistent sheaths and twisted. A popular ornamental tree in this region.
e35 - Pinus ponderosa ssp. brachyptera, local native. Long, stout needles with persistent sheaths.
e36 - Pinus ponderosa ssp. brachyptera, local native. Long, stout needles with persistent sheaths.
e37 - Pinus canariensis, planted X. Needles much too long for P. leiophylla.
e38 - Pinus canariensis, planted X. Needles much too long for P. leiophylla (or for Afghan Pine, for @ dlux241 ).
e39 - Pinus ponderosa ssp. brachyptera, local native. Stout needles (shorter than normal for this, due to evidently harsh site conditions) with persistent sheaths.
e40 - verify Pinus leiophylla ssp. chihuahuana; wild. Currently the northernmost genuine observation on iNat. More observations close to the northern limit:
e41 - verify
e42 - verify
e43 - verify
e44 - verify

Pinus heldreichii (this little set should get you established as the top identifier of this species 😊):

e45 - Pinus heldreichii is correct; planted in botanical garden X.
e46 - Pinus heldreichii is correct; planted in botanical garden X.
e47 - Pinus heldreichii is correct; planted in garden X.
e48 - Pinus heldreichii is correct; planted in Zoo Praha X.
e49 - Pinus nigra, local native; bark is wrong for Pinus heldreichii.
e50 - Pinus heldreichii verify, native (and a spectacular specimen!). Although close to e49 (about 1.5 km), at much higher altitude.
e51 - Pinus heldreichii verify, native.
e52 - original ID of Pinus nigra is correct; local native; bark is wrong for Pinus heldreichii.
e53 - Pinus peuce, wild. Crown shape fits this better.
e54 - mixed set Pinus peuce (photos 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, and central tree in 4) and Pinus heldreichii (photos 5, 6, and tree to left in 4).
e55 - verify
e56 - verify
e57 - verify
e58 - verify
e59 - verify
e60 - verify
e61 - verify
e62 - verify
e63 - verify
e64 - verify
e65 - verify
e66 - verify
e67 - verify
e68 - Pinus nigra, local native; bark is wrong for Pinus heldreichii.
e69 - Pinus nigra, local native; cones are wrong for Pinus heldreichii.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC) Plus a few more, please:[reply]

e70 - Pinus peuce, first time was right!
e71 - verify
e72 - verify
e73 - verify
e74 - verify
e75 - verify
e76 - verify. An odd situation for one to be growing, but looks natural, colonising heavily disturbed ground at lower altitude near to natural populations (I have seen similar happen in Bulgaria). Still present 2021 on street view.
e77 - verify (for @albertocapuano yes, definite P. heldreichii!), but I think this one is planted (red X). @giuseppecosenza can you pinpoint its location in better detail, per favore? I was not able to find it on street view, but the area to search is very large! On street view in the area, I could only find P. halepensis and P. pinea, all obvious planted trees, no natural Pinus.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year too!, did them all. Rudolphous (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you want to give an answer on e77 ? Rudolphous (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Yes, for @albertocapuano, the very smooth bark on the stems, combined with the stiff, upcurved leaves and the size and shape of the cones; no other pine shows this. Pinus halepensis can have similarly smooth bark, but has very different foliage character, and persistent, usually serotinous cones.

Looking through the updated P. heldreichii observations list, two I missed before:

e78 - verify
e79 - verify

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And for @albertocapuano's new question: obviously it is impossible to be 100% certain, but the balance of probability very strongly favours planted. In its first few years, Pinus heldreichii is a very poor competitor with fast-growing lowland vegetation, so its establishment without human aid requires highly specialised conditions. This can be seen in this example where bare sand is present for multiple years (see street view historical footage), but not in this case, where it is growing in a field boundary mixed with dense grasses, Opuntia, Ficus carica, etc. Also, the nearest potential native seed source is much further away in this case. And there is the example of other Pinus species (P. halepensis, P. pinea) planted by local farmers in similar situations nearby. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding my responses! The link to the other observation (e76 above) hasn't worked, unfortunately! - MPF (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ... there were three links not two, added the 3rd link now. Rudolphous (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And following from alexander1908's request (on e70), on to Pinus peuce, where a shockingly low % of the observations are verified 😳:

e80 - verify
e81 - verify
e82 - verify
e83 - verify
e84 - verify
e85 - verify
e86 - verify
e87 - verify
e88 - verify
e89 - verify
e90 - verify
e91 - verify
e92 - verify
e93 - verify
e94 - verify
e95 - verify
e96 - verify
e97 - verify
e98 - verify
e99 - verify
e100 - verify
e101 - verify
e102 - verify
e103 - verify
e104 - verify
e105 - verify
e106 - verify
e107 - verify
e108 - verify
e109 - verify
e110 - verify

That's all the native-area Pinus peuce without a second identification, except for 3 where the photo quality was abysmal :-)) Apart from those 3 uncertain, all were correctly identified. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! On e54, could you ask @josef_placek to split the photos into two observations, best done now by removing photos 5, 6 to a new Pinus heldreichii - MPF (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done 17:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC) Rudolphous (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back to e77, for @albertocapuano's latest point: "Balance of probability _is_ how to do science, after weighing up the evidence. What is your evidence for accepting this as a wild, naturally-occurring individual?"
- Done Rudolphous (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three Pinus nigra misidentified as P. heldreichii:

e111 - is Pinus nigra from its vertically fissured and plated bark pattern. @greek_cicada_project unfortunately it is not as simple as "Pinus heldreichii ... replaces Pinus nigra above 1200 m ASL", there is a large overlap between about 1000–1500 m (exceptionally 1800 m) where both can occur and they need to be identified individually.
e112 - is Pinus nigra from its rough shoots.
e113 - is Pinus nigra. A very tough one to decide due to the low image quality, but the immature cones, where visible against a foliage backdrop (not silhouetted aginst the sky), are green (as in P. nigra), not dark blue (as in P. hedreichii). Unfortunately the bark texture is not accurately determinable!

And the reverse:

e114 is P. heldreichii, classic bark pattern and long needle retention.
e115 is P. heldreichii, typical cones and foliage.
e116 is P. heldreichii, typical bark, cones and foliage.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops on 114-115, wrong name added, can you correct, please!! - MPF (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Decided to tackle those last 3 "Pinus peuce", because on closer looking, 2 of them definitely aren't!:

e117 - Pinus sylvestris from the orange-brown bark on the upper branches (grey in P. peuce), crown shape, and short needles.
e118 - Pinus sylvestris from the orange-brown bark on the upper branches (grey in P. peuce), crown shape, and short needles.
e119 - Pinus sp., unidentifiable. Lack of any visible long pendulous cones suspicious for P. peuce; impossible to exclude e.g. P. nigra without much better photos.

And, back to Pinus pinea:

e120 - Magnoliophyta (sp.). A broadleaf shrub, definitely not a pine; sorry, not sure what it is though!
e121 - identity is correct; an even-aged plantation, not wild, though. X.
e122 - Pinus halepensis, from bark, finely twiggy crowns, and small cones. Mature trees likely planted, but at least one younger tree (foregrounf half-left) could easily be self-sown.
e123 - Pinus halepensis, from bark, finely twiggy crowns, and small cones. Mature planted tree in public park, X.
e124 - identity is correct; in an even-aged mixed-species plantation (from street view, mostly Pinus halepensis, some P. pinea and some Cupressus sp.), no evidence of regeneration, so X.
e125 - identity is correct; old planted ornamental tree, X.
e126 - identity is correct; group of 4 old symmetrically planted trees at 'Miradouro Pico dos Barcelos'; 5th younger tree (left edge of photo) looks very out of place in planting scheme, so likely from self-sown seed from the original 4 (thus, green tick for wild). Marker needs moving 200 m ESE (checked from street view photos).
e127 - identity is correct; group of planted trees by cultivated ground (old pine nut orchard?).
e128 - identity is correct; group of planted trees by cultivated ground (old pine nut orchard?).

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few for tonight, please:

O11 - verify, for @oceanf

e129 - Pinus pinea, cultivated X. Not identifiable from the photos here, but easy from street view footage!
e130 - Pinus strobus is correct; planted tree in Calderstones Park collection X.
e131 - Pinus wallichiana, cone too large for P. strobus; planted tree in garden in Croxteth Park X.
e132 - Pinus wallichiana, leaves too long and dense for P. strobus; planted tree in garden X.
e133 - White Pines (Section Quinquefoliae) but not P. strobus (best guess Pinus reflexa, but numerous other options in this major botanical collection); for @erikamitchell, yes, planted, in Castle Howard Arboretum X.
e134 - White Pines (Section Quinquefoliae) but not P. strobus; for @erikamitchell, yes, planted, in Treborth Botanic Garden X.
e135 - White Pines (Section Quinquefoliae) but not P. strobus (best guess Pinus wallichiana); plantation (trees in straight lines!) X.
e136 - Pinus sylvestris, planted in mixed amenity plantation X.
e137 - Pinus strobus is correct. Although obscuring makes checking on street view impossible, must still presume planted tree X as (for @erikamitchell 's query) Pinus strobus almost never self-sows in UK climate.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 07:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Some new Pinus leiophylla:

e138 - verified, and can add as subspecies Pinus leiophylla ssp. chihuahuana. A good record, good photo selection!
e139 - Pinus ponderosa ssp. brachyptera, local native. Longer, stouter needles, and cone with stout umbo spines (compare 183156743 !).
e140 - Pinus ponderosa ssp. brachyptera, local native. Longer, stouter needles.
e141 - Pinus elliottii. Popular forestry species in Brazil, presume cultivated X. Location (500 km offshore in the Atlantic with 1000 km uncertainty ring) is unhelpful so X for that too.
e142 - Hard Pines (subgenus Pinus). Silhouette with no useful detail, but needles too long for Pinus leiophylla; numerous alternative options. Presume cultivated, as outside the range of any native pine X.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Time to start a new header so the section doesn't get too long :-)) MPF (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And more iNat, please![edit]

A crack at some Pinus roxburghii claims:

f1 - White Pines (Section Quinquefoliae); in planting cage at South Carolina Botanic Garden, so X.
f2 - Pinus canariensis; street planting (from street view), X.
f3 - Pinus patula; slender shoots with pendulous needles. Street planting, X.
f4 - Pinus bhutanica; long slender cones; long pendulous needles. Wild.
f5 - Pinus bhutanica; smooth shoots; long pendulous needles with deciduous sheaths. Wild.
f6 - Pinus wallichiana; long slender cones; shorter, less pendulous needles. Wild.
f7 - Pinaceae. Nothing identifiable in this photo, not even clear which of the many distant trees the observation refers to.
f8 - Pinus kesiya; local native, smaller cones.
f9 - Eurasian, Red, and Tropical Pines (Section Pinus). Not P. roxburghii; best guess Pinus kesiya, but not definitely so.
f10 - confirm, but planted X in Baranas Hindu University gardens.
f11 - confirm, but planted X in Jagmandir Gul Mahal Temple garden.
f12 - Subgenus Pinus. Planted X in Melghat Botanical Garden. Experimental plantation in a botanical collection with numerous possibilities; does not match P. roxburghii on foliage or bark.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some more, please! Abies procera outliers away from main areas (this species is commonly naturalised in northern UK and Denmark; f24 below an example):

f13 - Abies cilicica from leaf arrangement and stomata pattern; obvious cultivated tree in urban lawn X.
f14 - Abies procera is correct; planted ornamental tree at ski resort X (on street view, numerous other labelled exotics planted nearby).
f15 - Abies procera is correct; planted ornamental tree X.
f16 - Abies nordmanniana from leaf arrangement. One of a line of 10 planted trees on satellite view; X.
f17 - Abies procera is correct; planted in forestry plantation X.
f18 - Abies procera is correct; planted in forestry plantation X.
f19 - Picea abies; note leaves on pulvini on twig. Planted ornamental garden tree on street view, X.
f20 - Abies procera is correct; planted X. @ stevehunter, andrewtree - with planted trees, please remember to add X 'No' to 'Organism is wild' (this needs to be done proactively, as the default is wild!).
f21 - Abies procera is correct; looks to be self-sown young tree among older forestry plantation, rather than deliberately planted.
f22 - Abies procera is correct; suspect, but can't prove, a planted tree (looks like one left behind after a plantation felled).
f23 - Abies procera is correct; planted in urban public park X.
f24 - Abies procera is correct; @steinm very likely self-sown: this species regenerates readily in Denmark's climate, and there are mature planted trees nearby ([1]) for a seed source.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A return to e138, for @latacat: Thanks! It is subsp. chihuahuana because the needles are in 3s; in subsp. leiophylla the needles are mostly in 5s. Also, the location, at the northern end of the species' range: only subsp. chihuahuana occurs in USA and northern Mexico, while subsp. leiophylla is at the southern end, well south in central/southern Mexico. Hope this helps! MPF (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today's set, please!

f25 - definitely a Pinus strobus cone; map location places it in a garden, so presume planted, not wild. X.
f26 - certainly fits Pinus strobus rather than any local native white pine. Needs more context, though - was it in a wild area, or in someone's garden? Was it planted, or self-sown from a planted tree? @dysm making the record obscured doesn't help, can you show the exact location, please!
f27 - Pinus peuce, broad-based cone with no narrow reflexed basal scales. Invasive species in Finland.
f28 - probably Pinus peuce, but other white pines possible; not Pinus strobus, the glaucous stomatal bands too bright white for that. Self-sown seedling; can the parent tree be located nearby for photos of the cones?
f29 - Pinus strobus, mature planted trees (presumably experimental forestry) and also self-sown saplings from them, so invasive.

Just these few as iNat seems to have crashed for the moment! - MPF (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few Cyanocitta stelleri subspecies for a change, please!

f30 - Cyanocitta stelleri frontalis: the expected subspecies at this location, and it looks to match it well too. Well out of range for carbonacea (Bay area).
f31 - Cyanocitta stelleri stelleri: the expected subspecies at this location, and it looks to match it well too. Well out of range for frontalis (central Oregon southwards).
f32 - Cyanocitta stelleri annectens: the expected subspecies at this location, and it looks to match it well too. Out of range for frontalis (central Oregon southwards).

f33 - Cyanocitta stelleri carbonacea: the expected subspecies at this location, and it looks to match it well too. Out of range for nominate stelleri (mid-Oregon coast northwards).
f34 - Cyanocitta stelleri carbonacea: the expected subspecies at this location; out of range for nominate stelleri (mid-Oregon coast northwards).
f35 - Cyanocitta stelleri carbonacea: the expected subspecies at this location; out of range for nominate stelleri (mid-Oregon coast northwards).
f36 - Cyanocitta stelleri carbonacea: the expected subspecies at this location; out of range for nominate stelleri (mid-Oregon coast northwards).
f37 - Cyanocitta stelleri carbonacea: the expected subspecies at this location; out of range for nominate stelleri (mid-Oregon coast northwards).
f38 - Cyanocitta stelleri stelleri: the expected subspecies at this location; out of range for frontalis (further inland).

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to hear again from you. They are all

Done Rudolphous (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Been busy sorting out all of Commons' own Cyanocitta stelleri pics the last few days! - MPF (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few more, please!

f39 - Pinus sect. Quinquefoliae, not identifiable from these photos or from street view, but very unlikely to be P. armandii; planted beside car park, X.
f40 - Flowering plants; unidentifiable dead / dying tree; from bark, not a pine. Note background trees include Pinus kesiya.
f41 - Pinus massoniana, local native; needles in 2s not 5s.
f42 - photo 1 Pinus radiata (needles in 3s), photo 2 Pinus pinea (needles in 2s); cultivated X.
f43 - identity probably OK, but definitely cultivated X.
f44 - identity OK, but definitely cultivated X.
f45 - Pinus sylvestris (short needles in 2s, small cones); planted on school grounds X.
f46 - Pinus sect. Pinus, not further identifiable; cultivated in Batumi Botanical Garden X.
f47 - Pinus strobus; needles too sparse and short for P. koraiensis; planted in garden X.
f48 - Abies koreana (Korean Fir not Korean Pine!!); planted in garden X.
f49 - Pinus strobus; needles too sparse and short for P. koraiensis; local native, wild.
f50 - Sciadopitys verticillata; planted in garden X.
f51 - Photos 1-4 Pinus thunbergii; needles in 2s, white buds; local native. Photo 5 is Abies koreana, native on this island but likely planted at this low altitude (280 m, only wild above 1000 m).
f52 - identity correct; planted in Gorodskoy Park, X (not native on Sakhalin).
f53 - identity correct; young plants in shaded site, so although not native on Sakhalin, these are probably self-sown from older cultivated trees.
f53 - identity correct, but planted on manicured roadside, X (not native on Hokkaido).
f54 - identity correct, but planted, X (not native on Hokkaido). Mapped location (a car park) is slightly out; from street view they are about 150 m NE.
f55 - identity correct, but planted in urban park (Maruyama Park), X (not native on Hokkaido).
f56 - identity correct, presume cultivated X (not native on Hokkaido). Harvested cones, with no evidence of location of source trees.
f57 - Larix sp., cultivated in forestry plantation X.
f58 - verify Pinus koraiensis; native in this small area of central Japan.
f59 - Pinus reflexa; cultivated X. Not found on street view within the green uncertainty ring, so location also doubtful.
f60 - Sambucus racemosa subsp. pubens (subspecies native in N America per POWO)

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 05:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! For f40, for @thierrycordenos and @bernhard_hiller, no, not Pinus kesiya or any other pine, the bark is wrong for a pine. Compare e.g. observation 157034841 - MPF (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One for this afternoon (probably more later!), please:

f61 - Juniperus communis (local native species)

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only one more tonight!

f62 - this is the cultivar Abies koreana 'Silberlocke', and therefore cultivated, not wild, so red X.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few more, please!

f63 - Pinus ayacahuite; cones too slender and thin-scaled for P. lambertiana. Agree, planted, so red X.
f64 - Pinus ponderosa ssp. ponderosa (North Plateau Ponderosa Pine). @chrise note that this subspecies of Pinus ponderosa has dark purple immature cones (unlike its other subspecies); compare e.g. observation 6927661. Cones too small and needles too short for P. jeffreyi. An old tree, so planted (red X). No sign of any pines on google maps at the marked location, but a planted shelterbelt 5 km NNE at Homestead Campsite -44.7770639, 169.8893009 is all Pinus ponderosa (pic at https://www.google.com/maps/@-44.7770639,169.8893009,3a,75y,339.33h,105.67t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipOr2oaVq2U7lbHKa97lyYjVnxoKyQ1MVYqpPorN!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipOr2oaVq2U7lbHKa97lyYjVnxoKyQ1MVYqpPorN%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi0-ya30.219397-ro-0-fo100!7i8000!8i4000?entry=ttu ) and presumably includes this tree. Also @chickeroni the needles are in 3s, not 2s, so not P. nigra.
f65 - Pinus pinaster. Note needles stout, and in 2s, not 3s.
f66 - Pinus ponderosa. Agree with @jimh123 out of range for P. arizonica.
f67 - Pinus canariensis. Note epicormic shoots with glaucous juvenile foliage, and thickly woody cone scales. Cultivated in suburban Tempe, X.
f68 - Pinus peuce. Needles too long for P. parviflora, and not strongly glaucous. Planted in garden, X.
f69 - Pinus sylvestris. Needles in 2s not 5s, typical P. sylvestris cones. Forestry area, so probably red X.
f70 - identity correct; planted in Enemærkets Hostahave garden X.
f71 - identity correct; planted in garden X.
f72 - identity correct; planted in garden X.
f73 - identity correct; planted in college campus X.
f74 - identity correct; planted in botanical garden X.
f75 - identity correct; planted in business park X.
f76 - identity correct; planted in garden X.
f77 - identity correct; planted in business park X.
f78 - identity correct; planted in botanical garden X.
f79 - Eurasian, Red, and Tropical Pines (Pinus Section Pinus). Needles in 2s, not 5s. Planted in garden X.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Tonight's set, please:

f80 - Pinus patula; needles strongly pendulous, cones small, persistent. Cultivated at monastery; X.
f81 - Pinus patula; needles strongly pendulous, cones small. Cultivated at temple; X.
f82 - identity correct; irrigated newly planted tree; X.
f82 - identity correct; planted urban tree; X.
f83 - Pinus taeda; smaller cones with prickles on scales (just visible!), needles too short. Planted in lawn; X.
f84 - Juniperus virginiana, dead.
f85 - Juniperus sp., long dead; planted in pot, X. Photo 2 (Hosta sp.) does not belong! Location (offshore in Gulf of Mexico!) is wrong too.
f86 - Pinus virginiana; needles in 2s not 5s, cones with numerous small scales. Planted in garden; X.
f87 - Pinus strobus; in Central Park 'Native Meadow'; probably planted, but potentially self-sown from older planted trees nearby.
f87 - identity correct; planted in Arnold Arboretum X.
f88 - identity correct; planted in garden X.
f89 - identity correct; planted in garden X.
f90 - identity correct; planted in garden X.
f91 - identity correct; planted in garden X.
f92 - identity correct; planted in garden X (likely same tree as f91).
f93 - identity correct; planted in garden X.
f94 - identity correct; can presume planted; age at least 30 years, probably more as older growth has repeated shearing damage (tight knot of branches in photo 7 - likely a gardeners' attempt to create a bonsai-style tree) until 18-20 years ago (branch whorl count) when it was allowed to start normal growth. X.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And more please!

f95 - identity correct; planted in garden X.
f96 - identity correct; planted in garden X.
f97 - identity correct; planted in garden X.
f98 - identity correct; planted in garden X.
f99 - identity correct; planted in garden X.
f100 - identity correct; planted in car park X.
f101 - identity correct; planted in car park X.
f102 - identity correct; planted in business park garden X.
f103 - identity correct; planted in community formal garden X.
f104 - identity correct; planted in Gwangju Airport car park X.
f105 - identity correct; planted in garden X.
f106 - identity correct; planted in Ogimachi Castle garden X.
f107 - identity correct; likely planted in garden X.
f108 - identity correct; planted in garden X.
f109 - identity correct; planted in garden X.

f110 - Pinus densiflora; needles in 2s not 5s. Planted in cemetery X.
f111 - Pinus thunbergii; needles in 2s not 5s. Planted in Imperial Palace gardens X.
f112 - Pinus thunbergii; needles in 2s not 5s. Planted in industrial estate on reclaimed land X.
f113 - Pinus thunbergii; needles in 2s not 5s. Planted in Futako-Tamagawa Park X.

f114 - Comment: could be Pinus koraiensis (チョウセンゴヨウ)? Needles very long for P. parviflora. Cones would help.

f115 - verify, and wild; @keitawatanabe would you be willing to change the photo license to cc-by or cc-by-sa so it can be added to Wiki Commons? There are very few photos of this species in the wild!
f116 - verify, and wild; @keitawatanabe would you be willing to change the photo license to cc-by or cc-by-sa so it can be added to Wiki Commons? There are very few photos of this species in the wild!
f117 - verify, and wild; @belvedere04 would you be willing to change the photo license to cc-by or cc-by-sa so it can be added to Wiki Commons? There are very few photos of this species in the wild!
f118 - verify, and wild; @belvedere04 would you be willing to change the photo license to cc-by or cc-by-sa so it can be added to Wiki Commons? There are very few photos of this species in the wild!
f119 - verify; unable to say if natural or planted as location not checkable.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super, thanks! A few missed their red X (the second f82 [big 'Ooops' on my part to have two f82s!!], f83, f98, f99). Thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Missed this one as it doesn't show on the map: f120 - identity correct; planted in garden X. - MPF (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 07:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahnenforschung Karl wilde[edit]

bitte deshalb bei mir melden 2003:DB:FF1E:2A19:B2DA:4BA8:553F:FF69 18:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

? Rudolphous (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Son of iNat[edit]

Some more from iNat, please!

g1 - Eurasian, Red, and Tropical Pines (Section Pinus). Definitely an east Asian species, not a Mexican import; either P. tabuliformis or P. densiflora, not distinguishable from these photos.
g2 - Pinus roxburghii; thick, woody cone scales; cultivated X.
g3 - Pinus sylvestris; local native.
g4 - Pinus nigra; needles in 2s not 3s to 5s, cone typical P. nigra. Planted in lawn, X.
g5 - Pinus subgenus Pinus. Not identifiable at this age. Pine seeds can easily blow long distances (several hundred metres), there is no guarantee it is from the tree it was below; also, as pines are strongly outcrossing, a sole specimen of a species will produce few if any viable seed unless there are close relatives it can hybridise with. A look on street view reveals numerous specimens of Pinus radiata and Pinus nigra within seeding range; either of these is a much higher likelihood of being the parent of this seedling.
g6 - Pinus durangensis; cone fits this better.
g7 - Pinus cooperi; immature cones green not purple; also local native on Cerro Mohinora, which P. hartwegii is not.
g8 - Pinus cooperi; immature cones green not purple; also local native on Cerro Mohinora / Guadalupe y Calvo, which P. hartwegii is not.
g9 - Pinus cooperi; local native in Guadalupe y Calvo area, which P. hartwegii is not.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Different question, do you know what species this is? Rudolphous (talk) 07:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Looks like g4 got missed :-) also something gone wrong with Cerro Mohinora and Guadalupe y Calvo on g8 and g9 (hit by an auto-translator that didn't recognise they were place names?). Redpolls are tricky as they intergrade so much (likely that all 3 will be lumped back into one species eventually!), but my reaction to this bird would be Acanthis flammea rather than A. cabaret, because of the overall pale appearance, and in particular the white, not buffy, greater covert wingbar. Compare File:Acanthis cabaret 4 East Chevington.jpg (and also ##1-3 and 5 in the same set). Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed i missed some of the proposed changes. Many thanks for the solid ID and explanation. Rudolphous (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Another school or college group, 6 observations of the same tree all on the same day . . .

g10a, g10b, g10c, g10d, g10e, g10f - Pinus reflexa cultivar 'Vanderwolf's Pyramid', planted X.

Others:

g11 - Pinus wallichiana; cones with downcurved scale apex, not reflexed; cultivated X.
g12 - agree Pinus monticola from the cone.
g13 - comment: what white pines have been planted locally that it could seed from? On these photos, could as easily be Pinus peuce as P. monticola; will need to wait for cones to identify.
g14 - Pinus halepensis from the crown shape. Planted tree, X.
g15 - Pinus canariensis from the long pendulous needles and large clusters of pollen cones. Planted tree, X.
g16 - Sequoia sempervirens from the bark and crown shape. Planted tree, X.
g17 - Pinus lambertiana, local native (P. monticola does not occur in this area).
g18 - Pinus lambertiana, local native (P. monticola does not occur in this area).
g19 - Pinus lambertiana, local native (P. monticola does not occur as far south as Kern Co.).
g20 - Pinus lambertiana, local native (P. monticola does not occur as far south as Kern Co.).
g21 - verify (cone is definite); southernmost native observation.
g22, g23, g24, g25, g26, g27, g28 - all verify (a nice cluster of good records close to the southern limit of the species).

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5 new Pinus peuce obs., all verify, please: g29, g30, g31, g32, g33; and one new Pinus heldreichii, ditto: g34 - MPF (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Rudolphous (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks! Some new, please:

g35 - Pinus pumila; agree with @oleg_kosterin definitely this from cone structure. Impossible to say whether wild or cultivated, given the very large location uncertainty.
g36 - white pines (Pinus sect. Quinquefoliae), but not P. sibirica as shoots slender and glabrous or at most finely pubescent, not densely pubescent. Suburban site, so likely cultivated X.
g37 - white pines (Pinus sect. Quinquefoliae), but not P. sibirica as shoots slender and glabrous or at most finely pubescent, not densely pubescent. In a garden, so likely cultivated X.
g38 - white pines (Pinus sect. Quinquefoliae), most likely either Pinus cembra or Pinus peuce, both of which are more abundant as seed sources in Sweden. Pinus sibirica would not be able to colonise cross the Gulf of Bothnia (Bottniska viken) from Finland. From street view, there are two white pines about 30-50 m WSW of this seedling; they could well be the seed source, and should be checked for identity.
g39, g40, g41 - comment: more likely to be Pinus cembra; this species has a long history of cultivation in Sweden, while Pinus sibirica does not (unlike Finland, where it was widely planted when Finland was under Russian occupation). The only reliable distinction is to count the resin canals in the needles (2 in P. cembra, 3 in P. sibirica).
g42 - confirm (more likely than Pinus cembra given Lithuania's history of Russian occupation); a planted tree about 50 years old X.

Last, a return to g5: a harsh response, given that the postulated parent tree (observation 51268762 ) is itself of uncertain identity, let alone no mention of other potential source species (a botanic garden with a dedicated pinetum: how many other pine species are in it? 20? 30? 50? I couldn't find any published species stock list). Am I right that you are getting Pinus hartwegii formally listed in NZ as an invasive species, and having all existing specimens removed, on the basis of a single seedling that might (or might not) be from a tree that might (or might not) actually be Pinus hartwegii? As an aside, has anyone kept any cones from the old tree? They would help to identify it.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addenum: just noticed e131 has some follow-up; could you reply to add: "@croxvols @andrewtree with a ~30 cm cone, this is definitely Pinus wallichiana, which is frequently planted as an ornamental tree in Britain. Pinus strobus can be excluded as its cones are only 8-16 (exceptionally 17) cm long. Only two other white pines in UK cultivation can have 30 cm cones (P. ayacahuite, P. lambertiana), and both are much rarer, and have different cone scale shapes. Apologies for the delayed reply!" - MPF (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also e69; for @okrimub and @albertocapuano - "this is a completely typical Pinus nigra cone; as you correctly showed with links before, the cone scale stems are different colours. There is nothing here to indicate a hybrid; additionally, while the hybrid “Pinus x nigradermis” has been claimed, it has never been verified, there is no genetic evidence for hybrids between these two species." Thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And two more new please :-)

g43 - Pinus parviflora, cones persistent not falling; cultivated X.
g44 - Picea breweriana is correct; cultivated X.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you want to react on g39 and g40. Rudolphous (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! To 39 & 40: Stort tack! I had not seen this information before, the information I had was from further south in Scandinavia where there is only P. cembra cited. It will still be interesting to see the resin canal counts, but this makes me happy with P. sibirica after all.

- MPF (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few more, please!

g45 - Pinus sylvestris; short glaucous leaves and small cones. Likely invasive, an odd place to plant a tree deliberately.
g46 - Pinus ponderosa; cones near-symmetrical, and soon falling, not long-persistent on the branches. From street view, both mature planted trees and younger invasive specimens present at the site.
g47 - Pinus ponderosa; cones near-symmetrical, and soon falling, not long-persistent on the branches. Planted trees in the photo, but scattered small young plants evident close by on satellite view, so also invasive.
g48 - Pinus contorta; short green leaves in 2s. Invasive.
g49 - Pinus elliottii; narrow cylindrical symmetrical cone with thin scales. Evidently a drifted tideline cone; no pines nearby on street view. An urban harbour, so most likely cultivated origin.
g50 - Pinus pinaster, local native; symmetrical cone with stout scale umbos.
g51 - Pinus nigra; leaves dull green, in 2s not 3s. Planted in garden, X.
g52 - Alnus glutinosa, @jmgrinde is correct (if he could add his ID too, that would help!).
g53 - Pinus sylvestris; short glaucous leaves in 2s. In a village, so likely planted X.
g54 - Pinus nigra; small cone, long dull green leaves in 2s not 3s. Probably planted, but could be self-sown.
g55 - Pinus nigra; long dull green leaves in 2s not 3s. Probably planted, but could be self-sown.
g56 - Pinus sylvestris; short glaucous leaves in 2s. Self-sown on unmanaged heathland.
g57 - Pinus seedling, not P. radiata (not hardy in this area); most likely P. nigra or P. sylvestris but other species possible.
g58 - Pinus mugo; small cones, short green leaves in 2s.
g59 - Pinus sylvestris, local native (distant on hillside); P. radiata not winter-hardy in this area.
g60 - Pinus radiata (cultivated, X) in photos 1(right), 2, 3, 5, 6; Pinus brutia (local native) in photos 1(left), 4, 5.
g61 - Pinus brutia (local native); leaves in 2s not 3s.
g62 - Pinus brutia; symmetrical reddish cone; cultivated (urban street trees) X.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another reply for g5 please: "😂😂 Thanks for the clarification!"

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few Abies (or not!!) for tonight please:

g63 - Cupressus lusitanica, plantation (X). Curious, why suggest a species from the coldest subarctic to be in tropical Kenya?
g64 - Araucaria sp., cultivated X.
g65 - Araucaria sp., cultivated X.
g66 - Araucaria sp., cultivated X.
g67 - Cupressus macrocarpa, invasive.
g68 - Seed plants. Bark does not fit an Abies species; no other information.
g69 - Abies alba; likely planted, needs more photos of the whole tree and a more detailed location for context.
g70 - Abies pinsapo, cultivated X.
g71 - agree Abies pinsapo var. pinsapo, obvious cultivated tree X.
g72 - Abies concolor, from street view, avenue of planted street trees X.
g73 - Abies nordmanniana; planted in Istanbul Teknik University gardens X.
g74 - Euphorbia cyparissias: a non-conifer that looks like a conifer!
g75 - Picea sitchensis; sharp needles on pulvini, glaucous undersides. Looks like an invasive sapling.
g76 - Abies nordmanniana; planted in a garden X.
g77 - Abies nordmanniana; planted in a garden X.
g78 - Abies alba; leaves pectinate, but not long enough for A. grandis. Self-sown naturalised.
g79 - Abies alba; leaves pectinate, but not long enough for A. grandis. Self-sown naturalised.
g80 - Abies nordmanniana, christmas tree plantation X. By far the commonest Abies in christmas tree crops in N Europe.
g81 - Abies alba plantation, X.
g82 - Picea abies seedling with old Picea abies cones beside it. Self-sown naturalised.
g83 - move to high latitudes, and at last, a genuine Abies sibirica! Looks to be a young tree self-seeded from older trees behind.

I expect the Abies sibirica in Sweden and Finland will also be correct as it is a naturalised species there, but it'd take too long to do them all! Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops on g63! C. lusitanica (a common plantation species in Africa), not C. torulosa! Think iNat may have it as "Hesperocyparis" now - MPF (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done found the name for g63. G73 and G74 have the same observeration number. Rudolphous (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Arrgh, yes, g74 should be g74 this one!! Also forgot to mention before, g68 wants an X for cultivated as it is growing in a mown lawn. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A response on g49, to reply please: "Thanks! Yes, I'm sure it is Pinus elliottii, the cone is very distinctive; compare e.g. observations 197012971, 196799951, 196465575, 197820841. How it got there is anyone's guess; another possibility is a dumped christmas decoration, as cones of this species feature quite heavily in the global christmas decoration trade (probably mostly sourced from forestry plantations in China!). I often see them in christmas wreaths in shops."

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've added a note on my user page to help others wondering about the link to my page :-) A few more for tonight, please:

g84 - verify; cone in photo 3 is diagnostic, seedling is being invasive, so yes, it should be added to the "NZ Wilding Conifers" list. Widely invasive in other warm temperate areas, notably southern China, Brazil.
g85 - verify, but is seeds bought in a shop; X for 'Recent evidence of an organism' I guess.
g86 - Picea glauca; note pulvini on shoot. One of the more commonly planted conifers in Greenland. Planted next to a house, X.
g87 - Picea x lutzii, planted in shelterbelt, X. The most important forestry species in Iceland.
g88 - Picea x lutzii, planted in shelterbelt, X. The most important forestry species in Iceland.
g89 - Picea x lutzii; note the sharp needles on pulvini (little 'peg' at the base of each needle). Invasive seedling.
g90 - Picea x lutzii, planted in shelterbelt, X. The most important forestry species in Iceland.
g91 - Picea abies; greener and shorter needles than P. x lutzii, and looking (by comparison) poorly adapted to the Icelandic climate. Forestry planting, X.
g92 - Abies koreana; planted in a garden X.
g93 - Abies alba; planted in shelterbelt, X.
g94 - verify Abies nordmanniana, and looking very healthy and vigorous, but obvious planting in a garden X.
g95 - Abies nordmanniana, cultivated X.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Just a few "verifies" for tonight please, agree with Picea × lutzii for these: g96, g97, g98, g99, g100, g101, g102, g103, g104. All native wild. - MPF (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Some from northern India (& 1 in Thailand) tonight, please . . .

g105 - Pinus roxburghii; thick woody pyramidal cone scales. Terai lowland, unsuitable for natural pine growth, so cultivated X.
g106 - Pinus roxburghii; as temporary transient washed down by river, 'Recent evidence of an organism' = X.
g107 - Pinus roxburghii. Obvious planted tree at Taj Mahal, X. @yoavdanielbarness - "Pinus longifolia" is an invalid name which has been applied to both Pinus palustris and Pinus roxburghii; in Indian usage, it applies to the latter, not the former.
g108 - Pinus roxburghii; large cones with thick woody pyramidal cone scales. Obvious planted tree, X.
g109 - Eurasian, Red, and Tropical Pines (Section Pinus); from the cone structure, an east Asian pine (best guess Pinus tabuliformis, but not definitely this), not an American species. Planted in urban area, X.
g110 - Pinus elliottii; cultivated at Dehra Dun Forest Research Institute, X.
g111 - tied to planting stake, so planted, X.
g112 - Pinus roxburghii, in poor health; stem structure too stout for P. patula. Planted in garden, X.
g113, g114, g115, g116, g117, g118, g119, g120, g121, g122, g123, g124, g125, g126, g127, g128, g129, g130, g131, g132 - all verify, wild [or at least within native area - some may be planted trees, but giving all these the benefit of the doubt within their native area].

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And a response for g85 - "Thanks for the confirmation! I could tell by the polished appearance of the seeds, they are not fresh from a cone :-)" - MPF (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Space station photographs[edit]

Hello Rudolphous! I was looking into the “ISS photographs taken by date” and I was wondering: would it be possible to use your bot to make similar categories for the Skylab and Mir space stations? And for a “test drive” before the future Artemis program, it could be interesting to see if the same thing could be made for the Apollo astronauts photographs taken at Moon surface (or for any crewed mission that didn't go to any space station at all). Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically I can do that but not sure if there is consensus for this and a clear category to work on. For the ISS pictures I did, since they were already in the 'photographs taken on xx-yy-zz' categories and so numerous that they were hiding other pictures Rudolphous (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

iNaturalist the virgin[edit]

Some Pinus virginiana claims, please:

h1 - Pinus sylvestris, local native; with discoloured foliage due to growing in peat.
h2 - Pinus sylvestris, local native; with discoloured foliage due to growing in peat.
h3 - Pinus sylvestris, local native.
h4 - Pinus sylvestris, typical cone without umbo spines; local native.
h5 - Pinus sylvestris, typical cone without umbo spines; at location with naturalised population.
h6 - Pinus sylvestris; cultivated X.
h7 - Pinus sylvestris; cultivated X.
h8 - Pinus sylvestris, typical cone without umbo spines; cultivated X.
h9 - Pinus sylvestris; cultivated X.
h10 - Pinus contorta, asymmetrical cone; cultivated X.
h11 - Pinus nigra, old cone; from street view, cultivated in garden X.
h12 - Pinus sylvestris, self-sown young plant.
h13 - Pinus sylvestris; cultivated in garden X.
h14 - Pinus sylvestris, typical cone without umbo spines; local native but unsuitable habitat in a suburban garden, so likely cultivated X.
h15 - Pinus sylvestris; naturalised on heathland.
h16 - Pinus sylvestris; forestry plantation X.
h17 - Pinus sylvestris; local native but unsuitable habitat in a suburban garden, so likely cultivated X.
h18 - Pinus sylvestris; cultivated X.
h19 - Pinus sylvestris, typical cone without umbo spines; local native.
h20 - Pinus nigra, old cones; from street view, cultivated in garden X.
h21 - Pinus sylvestris, local native.
h22 - Pinus sylvestris; cultivated X.
h23 - Pinus sylvestris; forestry plantation X.
h24 - identity correct, but planted in garden X.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And a stray "juniper" please: h25 - Flowering plants. Not a juniper, or any other conifer.
Thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few for tonight, please!

Back to f5, could you tag @environeill to ask him reconsider his ID, please.
h26 - Pinus bhutanica, long pendulous leaves in 5s, long cylindrical cones.
h27 - Pinus bhutanica, long pendulous leaves in 5s, long cylindrical cones.
h28 - confirm Pinus bhutanica.
h29 - confirm Pinus bhutanica.
h30 - confirm Pinus wallichiana.
h31 - Pinus wallichiana.
h32 - Mixed; photo 1 is Tsuga dumosa, photos 2 & 3 are Abies densa.
h33 - Araucaria columnaris, cultivated X.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another stray juniper, please: h34 - verify Juniperus horizontalis; a popular ornamental plant, cultivated X. @buggsbalmer did you check the ornamental shrub bed between the car park and Joe Slovo House? From street view, it appears to be there, and is of course planted.
Thanks! - MPF (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you! Rudolphous (talk) 08:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Missed ## h25 and h34 :-)

Just one tonight please: h35 - Pinus patula; scaly orange-red bark, no glaucous tone to foliage, and small sessile (not pendulous) cones; cultivated X. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 07:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back for a few more after a rest :-)

h36 - Forsythia × intermedia; cultivated plant, flowering in March, with 2+ flowers per bud (F. europaea very rare in cultivation, flowers late April - May, only 1 flower per bud). X.
h37 - Forsythia × intermedia; cultivated plant, flowering in early April, with 2+ flowers per bud (F. europaea very rare in cultivation, flowers late April - May, only 1 flower per bud). X.
h38 - Forsythia sp.; cultivated plant on hotel terrace, with 2+ flowers per bud (F. europaea very rare in cultivation, only 1 flower per bud). X.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was ill and lost track a bit on this. Now they are done, thank you! Rudolphous (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Hope you are well soon 👍 MPF (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tonight's attack on extralimital Davidia, please!

h39 - identity correct; cultivated X.
h40 - identity correct; cultivated X.
h41 - identity correct; cultivated X.
h42 - identity correct; cultivated X.
h43 - Flowering plants. Slender lanceolate leaves, so not Davidia.
h44 - Flowering plants. Opposite leaves not alternate, so not Davidia.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you Rudolphous (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I fear on h44 you repeated h43's note (and didn't add an actual 'Magnoliophyta' ID for either :-)) Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. and corrected Rudolphous (talk) 06:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MPF: do you know what species this is? link. Rudolphous (talk) 06:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's Picea pungens; cultivated of course, and already tagged as such - MPF (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Rudolphous (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong cat[edit]

I know [2] is quite a while back, and I have no idea what triggered it, but it was definitely a wrong categorization. - Jmabel ! talk 22:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same story for [3]. - Jmabel ! talk 00:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Think this mapping was done with OSM (Open Street Map). Looks like the area was defined a little bigger than it should be. I changed a couple of others. Rudolphous (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 96,000 Public Domain Image Category[edit]

Dear Admin Rudolphous,

I am only one person and I have a busy life. There is no way I can review 96,000 images. My question simply is if the flickr bot stated the image on the flickrlink was licesned as PD-Mark at upload, is the image safe to pass or not...assuming the source flickr account has no issues with copyright violations.

For example: User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao uploaded Two images below but these images are now deleted at the flickrlink. However this and this says the images were PD-Mark at upload.

File:Jasper Blom Quartet 14 december 2011 Schuttershof Middelburg - Jasper Blom (50890659176).jpg

Secondly, you uploaded File:Kea. Nestor notabilis. (50767455993).jpg but the image was actually deleted at the source. I passed it and placed a message at the image talkpage saying the image was PDMark at upload. Did I have to do this, did I do something wrong or should I have just passed the image with no comment? Typing a comment takes time.

My basic question is are the 96,000 images in the above category safe for Commons to use if there are no copyright violation issues? If it is, than there is no need for me to type in {{PD-author-FlickrPDM}} {{Flickrreview}} to trigger a new review as I did in the images below: 1 or 2 , etc. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But, as an Admin you can order a bot to tag these 96,000+ images with {{PD-author-FlickrPDM}} {{Flickrreview}} It must be {{PD-author-FlickrPDM}} or the flickrbot will Not pass the image. The Category should be reduced by 80 to 90%. As for the images that are deleted at the flickr source, I have no idea what is the solution with this problem. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leoboudv, I'm not an expert on Public Domain. What you propose sound reasonable, but maybe good to discuss this on Commons:Bots/Work requests then people can react if this is really a good idea. Rudolphous (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thanks. Goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Klein_Leeuwenhorst[edit]

Klein Leeuwenhorst has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

JopkeB (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beste Rudolphous, Zou je alsjeblieft je licht nog willen laten schijnen over deze discussie? Er zijn twee categorieën voor wat lijkt op één onderwerp. Je hebt ze beide gecreëerd, dus ik hoop dat je me kunt vertellen of er verschillen zijn, of dat ze kunnen worden samengevoegd. JopkeB (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave a redirect[edit]

Hello Rudolphous. I hope you are well and it is good to see that you are still active. Please could I ask a favour? If you rename an image due to a change of identification, please could you leave a redirect from the old name to the new one? That would make it much easier for me to follow what is happening, and I think that the same thing applies for other users who may have a record of the image under its old name. Best wishes, Strobilomyces (talk) 11:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for doing it in the case of File:Lepista nuda (30177239025).jpg. Strobilomyces (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Normally if an ID is totally wrong and the image unused I move without leaving a redirect. But I can keep the old file as redirect from now on as you wish. Rudolphous (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

iNaturalist, April 2024[edit]

Hi Rudolphous, I've been busy in "real life" recently but here's a few more please!

h45 - Corthylio calendula calendula. Well out of range for ssp grinnelli (Pacific Northwest coastal temperate rainforests).
h46 - Corthylio calendula calendula. Well out of range for ssp grinnelli (Pacific Northwest coastal temperate rainforests).
h47 - Corthylio calendula calendula. Well out of range for ssp grinnelli (Pacific Northwest coastal temperate rainforests).
h48 - Corthylio calendula grinnelli. A good candidate for this subspecies, in range and in the breeding season.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no worries and good to hear from you again.

Done Rudolphous (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! One new today, please:

h49 - Leucothoe davisiae (compare this example close by).

ID credit for this one Scott Zona please; I just realised it wasn't Myrica hartwegii and passed my query on to Scott who ID'd it. Hope all's well! - MPF (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudolphous (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dagger of Princess Ita in 2023.jpg[edit]

Dear Admin Rudolphous,

Please review this image when you can. Thank you in advance. And goodnight from Canada. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Leoboudv, I think you can better ask an admin who is more experienced in Public Domain licenses. Rudolphous (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Rudolphous

Contents

iNaturalist request (2)[edit]

Picea rubens iNat errors[edit]

More Pinus remota![edit]

An interesting set in Finland[edit]

And disposing of some cultivated Picea breweriana[edit]

A few more, please![edit]

Category:Congo-Brazzaville photographs taken on DATE[edit]

Guam[edit]

Saint Croix[edit]

SBA[edit]

French Antarctic Territories[edit]

realistic locations[edit]

More iNat, please :-)[edit]

Foto van Atropa belladonna[edit]

iNat, the next generation[edit]

Template:According to Exif data edits breaking template syntax[edit]

Some more iNat, please![edit]

And more iNat, please![edit]

Ahnenforschung Karl wilde[edit]

Son of iNat[edit]

Space station photographs[edit]

iNaturalist the virgin[edit]

Wrong cat[edit]

This 96,000 Public Domain Image Category[edit]

Category:Klein_Leeuwenhorst[edit]

Please leave a redirect[edit]

iNaturalist, April 2024[edit]

File:Dagger of Princess Ita in 2023.jpg[edit]

Navigation menu

User talk:Rudolphous

iNaturalist request (2)[edit]

Picea rubens iNat errors[edit]

More Pinus remota![edit]

An interesting set in Finland[edit]

And disposing of some cultivated Picea breweriana[edit]

A few more, please![edit]

Category:Congo-Brazzaville photographs taken on DATE[edit]

Guam[edit]

Saint Croix[edit]

SBA[edit]

French Antarctic Territories[edit]

realistic locations[edit]

More iNat, please :-)[edit]

Foto van Atropa belladonna[edit]

iNat, the next generation[edit]

Template:According to Exif data edits breaking template syntax[edit]

Some more iNat, please![edit]

And more iNat, please![edit]

Ahnenforschung Karl wilde[edit]

Son of iNat[edit]

Space station photographs[edit]

iNaturalist the virgin[edit]

Wrong cat[edit]

This 96,000 Public Domain Image Category[edit]

Category:Klein_Leeuwenhorst[edit]

Please leave a redirect[edit]

iNaturalist, April 2024[edit]

File:Dagger of Princess Ita in 2023.jpg[edit]

Navigation menu

Search