Talk:Eudonia minusculalis

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lepidoptera Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of butterflies and moths on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LepidopteraWikipedia:WikiProject LepidopteraTemplate:WikiProject LepidopteraLepidoptera articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Correct current name of species

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I have been unable to find any paper supporting the moving of this species into the Eudonia genus. Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd at present refers to this species as Scoparia (s.l.) minusculalis. It may be that this species is within the Eudonia genus but unless a citation supporting this statement can be found or given, I propose to move this page back to "Scoparia minusculalis". I would be extremely grateful if other editors could assist me in finding any citation for the name Eudonia minusculalis.--Ambrosia10 (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I can't find anything online except for http://www.terrain.net.nz/friends-of-te-henui-group/moths/scoparia-minusculalis.html which mentions Eudonia minusculalis as a synonym for Scoparia minusculalis but gives no source for that information. Ruigeroeland moved it in 2013. Perhaps he'll remember something. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 03:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I probably based it on the info from this site: http://globiz.pyraloidea.org/Pages/Reports/TaxonReport.aspx Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic