Angraecum.org is committed to correcting factual errors and making significant changes clear to readers. Our aim is to provide a reliable reference for Angraecum species, cultivation, identification, habitats, and botanical research. When published information is inaccurate, misleading, or insufficiently supported, we will review the issue and take appropriate editorial action.
This policy applies to species profiles, articles, tables, image captions, references, and information displayed through our website’s tools. Reports may concern scientific names, synonyms, plant identification, distribution, measurements, growing guidance, research findings, attribution, or other factual details. Suggestions that improve clarity or explain uncertainty are also welcome.
Please report a possible error through our Contact page. To help us assess it, include:
- The URL and title of the affected page.
- The statement, table entry, photograph, or caption concerned.
- A clear explanation of the suspected problem.
- The correction you propose, if known.
- Supporting references, publication details, or relevant observations.
A report does not need to be lengthy or professionally written. Specific information and a source we can examine are more useful than a general statement that a page is wrong. For image concerns, identify the photograph and explain whether the issue involves identification, attribution, or permission.
We assess reports against the available evidence. Review may involve checking the cited publication, comparing botanical references, examining the context of a quotation, or requesting further details. Where appropriate, we may seek specialist input. A submission prompts review; the resulting decision depends on what the evidence supports. If verification remains incomplete, we may qualify the statement or mark the issue as unresolved.
Scientific names require particular care. Botanical research can lead to changes in classification, and older publications may use names that differ from those accepted by a current reference. Kew’s Plants of the World Online explains this distinction in its treatment of historical information and current names. We will identify the taxonomic reference being followed and distinguish an original naming error from an update prompted by later research. Kew Science
When credible taxonomic sources disagree, we will explain the relevant difference where it affects the article. We will retain useful synonyms and historical context when appropriate. A newly published name or proposed classification will be assessed in relation to its evidence and the reference framework used on the page.
Cultivation reports also require context. Angraecum species occupy diverse habitats, and their growing requirements vary. A reader’s successful method may provide a valuable observation, but its relevance depends on factors such as species identity, temperature, light, growing medium, and watering conditions. We will correct unsupported generalizations and distinguish documented observations from broader recommendations. aos.org
Minor spelling, punctuation, formatting, and link repairs may be made without a separate correction note when they do not alter meaning. A spelling error that changes a scientific name, identification, measurement, or practical instruction will be treated according to its effect on the information.
A material correction changes the reader’s understanding of a fact, conclusion, identification, or recommendation. For these changes, we will add a visible note on the affected page stating the correction date, what was wrong, and what has been changed. The explanation should be specific enough for readers to understand the issue without reconstructing the earlier version.
Updates that add new evidence or bring information into line with later research will be described as updates when the original account was reasonably supported at publication. Corrections address errors in the published account. Where both occur, the change note will explain both. Publication and revision dates should accurately reflect the history of the page.
If a substantial part of a page cannot be supported, we may remove the disputed material, temporarily withdraw the page, or replace it with a notice while review continues. When an article is withdrawn because its central content is unreliable, we will explain the reason where practical. Image permission concerns may require an image to be removed during review.
Where an error appears in several places, we will aim to correct the underlying information and its affected displays. This may include related profiles, comparison tables, captions, or tool results. Correcting a single paragraph may leave the same error elsewhere, so related content forms part of the review.
We prioritize reports according to their likely impact, especially incorrect identifications, consequential cultivation guidance, and image concerns. Assessment time depends on the evidence and complexity involved. When a reply is needed, we may request clarification or explain the outcome.
Readers who believe a decision remains incorrect may submit additional evidence for reconsideration. Please refer to the original report and explain how the new material changes the assessment. We will not publicly credit a person reporting an error without their agreement.
We welcome good-faith scrutiny and thoughtful disagreement. Corrections are part of maintaining a reference that readers can examine, question, and use with greater confidence.