|
|
Post by kitkor on Jun 25, 2009 2:36:10 GMT
Hey folks, A curious issue popped up in Wikipedia-land today. An editor over there claimed that Dionaea was a tropical species and he had a copy of Darwin's Insectivorous Plants that says so. The editor in good standing says this volume has no identifying information (copyright date, edition number, etc.) and is from a Maryland library. He produced an image of the paragraph, image below:  Compare to Darwin's original 1875 edition (it's the same in the London and New York printings): link It's also the same in the 1876 German edition and the 1888 edition edited by Francis Darwin. Any ideas? I wonder if this is a more recent unauthorized edition. It doesn't really look hand typeset to me; there aren't, at least, any ligatures like the ae in Droseraceae. That's quite an error to introduce to a book like this. Maybe humor? Fraud? Hoax? Anyway, thought this was interesting... |
|
|
|
Post by scottychaos on Jun 25, 2009 11:47:45 GMT
Its unlikely Darwin himself made the mistake.. probably someone who wrote/edited whatever edition that contains the mistake, simply made an error and confused the VFT with something else.. the fact that the book has "no identifying information (copyright date, edition number, etc.) " makes it suspicious..how do we know its really a legit version of Darwins book then? Perhaps someone in the late 19th century assumed the reference to North Carolina *must* be wrong and "fixed" it! everyone (in the 1880's) knows such a plant must be from the Amazon right?  such a mistake could easily happen, especially back then.. and the book has been sitting on the shelf ever since.. well..its obviously wrong..its an interesting anomaly , but it should definately be removed from Wikipedia.. Scot |
|
|
|
Post by kitkor on Jun 25, 2009 12:14:30 GMT
the fact that the book has "no identifying information (copyright date, edition number, etc.) " makes it suspicious..how do we know its really a legit version of Darwins book then? Yeah, that was my suspicion, especially since every other version I can find out there says the correct information. You'd figure an error like this might have been propagated out through multiple books in a printing. Perhaps this one is unique in its error? The issue came up in a Wikipedia science helpdesk question. The user that owns this book piped up about believing it was a tropical species, then shared the image of the page. The incorrect information about it being native to South American rain forests has never been incorporated into any article. Sorry for the misunderstanding there! The article on Dionaea does need some work, though... |
|
|
|
Post by jfowler on Jun 25, 2009 20:17:37 GMT
Kitkor -- Perhaps Darwin didn't know, but Dionaea muscipula is also native to South Carolina, as well as North Carolina...
|
|
|
|
Post by ieatflys on Jun 25, 2009 22:26:26 GMT
Any body can write on wikipedia and we need to let Wikipedia's owners know otherwise they could be telling 100s of people a minut wrong facts.
ieatflys
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Jun 25, 2009 22:49:58 GMT
Just about everything I've reviewed on Wikipedia is not accurate, it is a worthless reference. What it is a starting point for doing your own research. If you copy stuff from Wikipedia, or use it as a source, your information is highly suspect.
I have fixed Wikipedia multiple times, but all my edits get removed and replaced with the errorous information I've previously removed. So sad, I don't even look at it anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by kitkor on Jun 26, 2009 0:35:04 GMT
Just about everything I've reviewed on Wikipedia is not accurate, it is a worthless reference. What it is a starting point for doing your own research. If you copy stuff from Wikipedia, or use it as a source, your information is highly suspect. I have fixed Wikipedia multiple times, but all my edits get removed and replaced with the errorous information I've previously removed. So sad, I don't even look at it anymore. This is not meant to be a thread on the verifiability of Wikipedia. I've actually worked quite hard in some areas to add accuracy. Regardless, this bit of information above is not "from Wikipedia" but from an editor who has a physical book in hand that contains an error. I was looking for what other people knew or thought about this edition, perhaps even someone who could help track it down. Just my curiosity. Now I wish I hadn't mentioned where this came from since we got sidetracked. |
|
such a mistake could easily happen, especially back then..
