Talk:Euglossa dilemma

With regard to the tag you added to the article, the original text says "Chemical analysis of male perfumes from populations in the Yucatan peninsula revealed that most tridentate individuals contained a set of highly characteristic compounds [2-hydroxy-6-nona-1,3-dienylbenzaldehyde (HNDB) isomers] as major perfume ingredients, whereas those compounds were completely absent in bidentate males." (Tridentate individuals = E. dilemma, bidentate individuals = E. viridissima)

I wrote in the article "Certain characteristic compounds present as main ingredients in these perfumes in E. dilemma were found to be absent in E. viridissima." Where is the error in this statement? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a part of taxonomy, the reason type and other specimens are so important. Scientists are wrong all of the time, or they get better infomation and have to change conclusions.

Among a number of other things, in the prior sentence you list something like plant sources--not what the article says. Either add the correct source to that sentence, then discuss the disagreement, or correct that sentence. Please discuss content on template or article talk page so interested editors can help out. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC))

Previous sentence amended. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Describing the perfume sources as environmental sounds as if it might include material of human origin such as paint, but the list in the article is "flowers and certain non-floral sources, e.g. fungus-infected wood, tree wounds, and faeces". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Environmental does not mean "human origin such as paint," but otherwise I don't know what that comment is about. As long as it is not plagiarized and is accurate, it should be fine corrected to show it is not just plant material. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC))