Talk:Nepenthes attenboroughii

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Abbreviation of generic epithets[edit]

Jeljen raises a valid point (see article history) in correcting the abbreviation N. back to Nepenthes. The rule that the genus name not be abbreviated applies at the beginning of sentences or when the genus is mentioned in isolation.

This rule is not applied consistently across the Nepenthes entries, and indeed only seems to be observed across Wikipedia in general for entries presided over by biologists - some consensus clearly needs to be reached among those individuals that most regularly edit the Nepenthes/carnivorous plant entries.Attenboroughii (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is standard practice then of course I would support its use across all Nepenthes articles (though I note that Clarke's Nepenthes of Borneo does not follow this convention; Nepenthes of Sumatra and Peninsular Malaysia does, however). I'm guilty of using the abbreviated form on most species pages; I'll fix these as I come across them, although it will take some time to correct all of these instances. mgiganteus1 (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

In line with certain other species of Nepenthes, I've added alternative pronunciations since American and English pronunciations are very divergent for this name.

A recent amendment of a fairly accurate pronunciation (for RP) was decisively labelled 'gibberish' and then replaced with a pronunciation of little value to anyone outside of the United States. I find this irksome as the replacement seems as nonsensical to me as the original must have to the editor, since I don't speak GA.

The British affectionately mock Americans for being unable to pronounce Edinburgh and Attenborough correctly, but that very issue affects this species; neither pronunciation is wrong, and both accents should be reflected where so great a difference exists. If there are issues with the implementation of the IPA itself, please remedy the technical issues without changing the pronunciation wholesale; add a separate, alternative pronunciation if necessary. These constant changes from one way of pronouncing to another are akin to editorial playground bickering, which is utterly pointless in the context of Latin pronunciation; Stearn gave the futility of this issue a whole chapter in his book Botanical Latin, do look it up if you are actively involved in this area.

So far, this species seems to be variously pronounced as ˌætɨn'bɜr.i:aɪ (a-ten-burr-ee-eye) [okay], ˌætɨn'brɨ.i:aɪ (a-ten-bruh-ee-eye) [??], ˌætɨnˈbroʊɡi.aɪ (a-ten-bro-gee-eye) [okay] and ˌætɨnbɛˈroʊɡi.aɪ (a-ten-be-ro-gee-eye) [okay]. I can only imagine it gets even more unusual in continental Europe. And they're all just fine, so without pointing fingers, please avoid such prescriptivism on Wikipedia. Attenboroughii (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean that your pronunciation was wrong, only that the transcription was meaningless, given the definitions of the IPA symbols at the key it was linked to. It's not a matter of GA vs RP, but of transcription sequences which AFAIK are not possible in either. I thought perhaps that someone had deleted a random element of it as an editing error. I can make sense of three of the four transcriptions you just gave, and have adjusted the IPA accordingly (though I'm not so sure of the last one), but I can't figure out what you mean by the second: /ɨ/ cannot receive stress, and uh cannot receive stress in an open syllableo, so I don't know which vowel it's supposed to represent. Can you give a more common word that has that same vowel?
Given speaker variation, would you choose any of them as more correct than the others? The article now pretty much covers the three transcriptions I could work out. kwami (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! It wasn't actually my pronunciation that was removed, but that of Jeljen. I just wanted to initiate discussion about this to clear things up. Thanks for amending the page - I think your current edit works nicely for all concerned. The first is a common international pronunciation, but I've heard the latter in the States. You're right, the second one is an error. Many thanks for your input Attenboroughii (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News[edit]

BBC News are so quick, aren't they. 91.110.190.226 (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Associated spike in pageviews. mgiganteus1 (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wording of Missionaries Discovery[edit]

The wording was changed by Mgiganteus to "The expedition was initiated after missionaries reported seeing giant Nepenthes on the mountain in 2000.". One concern with this sentence is that it might be interpreted by someone as that they told the Mcpherson group about this in 2000. But I haven't yet been able to verify that this is true. Their lost trek through the woods occurred in 2000 though the reference confirms this, but not the later point. The only other thing I'd mention is that only having this sentence leaves out too much of the interesting story concerning how the missionaries discovered it. Apparently, in 2000 two missionaries were trying to climb up to the summit to place a radio relay when they ended up getting lost in the uncharted jungle. They were stuck there for 13 days without food and had to be airlifted out. Some reports I read seem to imply that the missionaries themselves told the McPherson group while overs seem to imply that they heard about it from "reports".Chhe (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the story is interesting and should be included in full. The reason I edited the section is because I thought it was poorly worded such that it was difficult to understand after a single read-through. mgiganteus1 (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Video and rats[edit]

There is a video on Youtube that shows that the plant really can catch a rat. Can this be posted on the main article as it disputes one of the things that are said there?

Here's the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZfOYm7WcKc --john —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.42.233.122 (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not N. attenboroughii in the video, plus the video is likely copyrighted by someone other than the person who posted it to youtube. N. attenboroughii has never been observed capturing a rat. --Rkitko (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can second what Rkitko correctly states; Nepenthes attenboroughii has not, for one, entered cultivation, and that video has clearly been set up with a mouse and a cultivated specimen for the sake of making a rather cruel video. Secondly, as one of the individuals involved in the discovery, I am stating for the record that no mice, rats or any other species from the rodent family have been observed within the pitchers of this taxon, let alone in the habitat in which we discovered it. The claim that it traps rats is sensationalist media hyperbole taken quite out of context from a statement made by a fellow expedition member; that was, that the species is large enough to trap them, not that is does trap them. Other species have been observed as trapping rodents, but thus far, the number of such cases is small and very well recorded by those researchers who fastidiously document the in situ feeding habits of the genus. Attenboroughii (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6041241/Rat-eating-plant-discovered-in-Philippines.html?sms_ss=stumbleupon&at_xt=4de71a313511cc34,0 Sir David, himself, is quoted as having said: "This is a remarkable species the largest of its kind. I'm told it can catch rats then eat them with its digestive enzymes. It's certainly capable of that." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.194.226 (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nepenthes attenboroughii. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nepenthes_attenboroughii&oldid=1204245115"