Angraecum.org uses references to make important information traceable and open to examination. Our Sources & Citation Policy explains how we select evidence, connect it to published claims, and provide enough detail for readers to locate the material consulted. It applies to articles, species profiles, tables, tools, captions, and other reference content.
We select sources according to the question being answered. Taxonomic publications, regional floras, specialist monographs, herbarium records, and original research are important for botanical claims. Established botanical databases help organize names and related information. Cultivation guidance may also draw on recognized orchid organizations and documented specialist or grower accounts.
Source quality depends on expertise, methods, relevance, and context. A recent publication may provide new evidence, while an older work may remain essential to understanding a description or historical account. We assess whether sources are independent and whether their findings apply to the species, location, and circumstances discussed.
For accepted names and synonyms, Kew’s Plants of the World Online is a principal reference. Its content is linked to a taxonomic names backbone. The International Plant Names Index records nomenclatural and bibliographic information about published plant names. We distinguish these purposes when citing them. Relevant records should identify the name being discussed and the reference followed, especially where classifications differ. Kew Science
Citations should support the particular statement they accompany. A reference supporting a species’ distribution does not automatically support its cultivation requirements. Where a paragraph combines findings from different sources, their relationship to the claims should be clear. Precise measurements, identification features, research findings, disputed statements, and specific recommendations require appropriately detailed support.
We use inline links or numbered citations with a reference list, keeping the approach consistent within each page. Depending on the source, reference details should include:
- The author, editor, institution, or responsible organization.
- The publication or release year, where available.
- The title of the article, book, record, or dataset.
- The journal, publisher, edition, volume, issue, and relevant pages where applicable.
- A DOI, stable record identifier, or direct source URL.
- The dataset version, access date, or date checked when needed to identify changing information.
Books and historical publications should include page or plate references when these help readers verify the claim. Specimen-based information should identify the collection or record where available. Database citations should lead to the relevant record rather than only to a general homepage.
For downloaded or analyzed datasets, we follow the provider’s citation instructions and identify the data actually used. GBIF assigns DOIs to datasets and occurrence downloads, supporting attribution and reproducibility. Where relevant, we also describe the download date, filters, exclusions, or calculations that affect a published map, table, or summary. training.gbif.org
We cite the material we have actually consulted. If an account is available only through an abstract, translation, or secondary discussion, the wording and attribution should reflect that limitation. We may identify an original publication through a secondary source, but we must not imply that we examined its full text. Unverified bibliographic details must not be completed by guesswork.
Quotations must be accurate, limited to what is needed, and clearly attributed. Omissions or editorial additions should preserve the original meaning. Paraphrases must also retain the source’s qualifications and receive appropriate attribution. A translation should be identified where it affects interpretation. Image permissions and credit requirements are handled separately under our Image Credits standards.
Grower observations require enough context to establish what was reported. Where available, we identify the observer, plant identification, growing conditions, observation period, and outcome. Personal communications should be described as such and used with permission. We distinguish these accounts from controlled research and explain limitations on broader application.
Before publication, citations require human checking. References must exist, bibliographic details must match the work, and the cited material must support the associated claim. Search snippets, reference lists copied from other pages, and AI-generated bibliographies are leads for investigation. They do not establish that a source has been verified.
When a source has a correction, retraction, or material qualification, we assess its effect on the content that relies on it. Broken links should be repaired where possible using stable identifiers or clearly identified archived copies. Archive dates and access dates must reflect what was actually consulted. Sources that no longer support a statement require reassessment.
Readers can suggest a source, report an inaccurate reference, or challenge the interpretation of evidence through our Contact page. Please include the affected URL, the relevant claim or citation, and supporting details. Changes that correct published errors are handled under our Corrections Policy.