Talk:Mechanitis

Unhelpful content

The statement "It has gained fame due to the metallic appearance of the cocoons of certain phenotypes." Without giving any indication of which phenotypes or where to find more information on why they appear metallic is really quite unhelpful.203.173.13.110 (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@203.173.13.110: Yes, a stub languishing here for 11 years. I will attempt to edit and add. After eleven years as a stub. I note that your comment is already 7 years old, Bruxton (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 08:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Mechanitis polymnia chrysalis

* ... that the chrysalises of the Mechanitis butterfly look like they are covered in shiny metal but they are actually coated with chitin? Source: Contrary to some comments online, these structures don't contain metal particles; they're made of chitin,

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/William Beauchamp Nevill

5x expanded by Bruxton (talk). Self-nominated at 17:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC).

• I'll be reviewing this one later today, but for the time being I'm a bit concerned about the reliability of the hook's source. If you could perhaps find a paper detailing the composition or perhaps the reflective properties that the chrysalis displays, that could be a good start. Ornithoptera (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
• In the meantime here is an article that covers the chrysalids of the genus Mechanitis. Ornithoptera (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ornithoptera: Thanks! It is tough to weed through all the bloggy internet republications and regurgitations. The Mechanitis are in the Nymphalid family. I do find in this source... in the the pupal stage, cocoons or chrysalises are, "showing multi layers of solid chitin". Bruxton (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Bruxton: Alright, lets go through this. I've worked on a couple of articles addressing Nymphalid genera so I'm decently familiar with researching for these articles at this point, its a good start but there are a lot of oddities that need to be immediately addressed.
• First They are (Tithorea tarricina) in the brush-footed butterfly family, Nymphalidae., Tithorea tarricina is in an entirely different genus, let alone subtribe (Tithoreina vs. Mechanitina). The Indiatimes article that you cited here makes no mention of the genus Mechanitis, so it should not be in the article in the first place. Not all butterflies with metallic-looking pupae are in the same genus after all. This happens twice, so it needs to be addressed and removed.
• The Mechanitis was named..., Mechanitis is a proper noun and should be worded as "Members of the genus Mechanitis" rather than "The Mechanitis". This happens a couple of times in the article as well. The etymology of the genus is very vague, saying it is "machine-like" but not giving an explanation as to who had named it or what language it had came from. There are definitely sources on the matter that you can potentially look for, and you can reach out if you need help. A specialized section addressing the etymology of the genus would also be very helpful.
• There are a few recurring issues in the article that should be addressed. Binomial names should be italicized in all cases, and the article is inconsistent with italicization. In addition, the specific epithet (the secondary name after the genus that denotes the species) is always in lower case, which seems to be inconsistent with the article, which has instances such as Mechanitis Polymnia when it should be Mechanitis polymnia. In addition, the article refers to the species M. polymnia as a "phenotype" rather than as a species.
• Members of the group Ithomiini are referred to as "glasswings", so the bracket referring to Ithomiini as "tigerwings" is faulty. Tigerwings are the common name of members of the genus Mechanitis. A lot of strange instances of brackets occur in the article that would otherwise be clarified in a different manner. The reoccuring Tithorea issue sticks out like a sore thumb. You should try and remove the brackets and word them into full sentences.
• The "Taxonomy" section is a big mess, and definitely warrants some revision and separation. The section barely references the taxonomy of the genus, here is a great article on the taxonomy of the genus Mechanitis. The first paragraph briefly discusses taxonomy, then talks about a description, and etymology. The second paragraph concerns distribution. The third and fourth paragraphs discuss the life history of members of the genus. The third and fourth paragraphs could be separated into a "life history" section, and merged with the "metallic chrysalis" section, which gives a strange amount of undue weight for a portion of the life history.
• It seems to me that you have had some struggles with finding better sources for the article, I would definitely suggest Google scholar. Here is a search of "Mechanitis". A lot of the articles you have previously used seem a bit faulty on their reliability, so I would err on the side of caution. I would appreciate it if you possibly incorporated the article I had referred you earlier as a source on the chrysalids rather than referring to a promotional site referring to the chrysalids in the "wtf" category.
• Researching and proper formatting for this article clearly seem to fall a bit short. You are new to this and I would definitely refer you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera for resources in the future. The article Ptychandra that I previously worked on could serve as a potential reference for the layout and whatnot if you need a reference as well. Cheers! Ping me when you have addressed some concerns and don't hesitate to reach out if you have any questions! Ornithoptera (talk) 07:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ornithoptera: Thanks for the message. Thanks for taking the time to research and comb through the article. I always wish the dyk editors could make changes to articles as they see errors. I made the connection between mechanitis and Tithorea tarricina because both are in the Nymphalidae family - my mistake entirely. I am pretty tied up this week, but I will attempt to make the changes you suggest if I find time. Bruxton (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• With over six thousand species, connecting two Nymphalid species for the sole reason they are Nymphalids is a bit of a shaky reason. No worries though, wishing the best with your editing. I would assume with the amount of editing I would have to engage in I would essentially become a second nominator at that point, so I don't really want to cross into there just yet. Ornithoptera (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ornithoptera: Please have a look at the progress. Also, I am searching for their life cycle to add to life history. Bruxton (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• Apologies for the late response, an ongoing review has taken quite a lot of energy out of me for this cycle for me to contribute much this week. Compounded with a broken computer as well. Let's get into this, you're almost there so keep up the good work:

 Done *Mechanitis is a genus of tigerwing butterflies in the Ithomiini tribe I would recommend you to mention this is the common name and possibly provide a source on it. You could perhaps say "Mechanitis is a genus of butterflies in the tribe Ithomiini, commonly known as tigerwings".

• I mentioned this prior, but Mechanitis should be italicized as it is a scientific name. This happens quite a few times, so I would appreciate for it to be addressed.

 Done *Mechanitis were described to "Mechanitis was...", They are brush-footed Nymphalidae butterflies. sounds off, perhaps something like "Members of the genus Mechanitis are members of the brush-footed butterfly family, Nymphalidae". Also The classification of Mechanitis... and The mature Mechanitis butterflies..., should be "the genus Mechanitis" and "butterflies in the genus Mechanitis".

 Done Regarding the sentence The classification of Mechanitis, when based entirely on appearance of wing pattern and color is inaccurate because on the incidence of polymorphic butterflies.[3], you do not elaborate on what would be accurate. Probably would be best to finish that portion.

 Done *machinelike to "machine-like", language clarification would be helpful. I would assume Latin but it isn't given and probably helpful.

 Done*The polymnia chrysalises have a reflective coating which conceals the defenseless pupa by reflecting its surroundings to confuse predators. It is thought that predators see their own reflection in the chrysalis and then flee.[11] According to this it's not reflection, but rather, thermoregulation, so I would prefer you use a more scientific source than Earthtouch. In addition, it would not be "the polymnia chrysalises" but "the chrysalis of the disturbed tigerwing" if we use the common name, and "the chrysalis of Mechanitis polymnia/M. polymnia" if we want to use the scientific name.

 Done *Butterflies in the genus Mechanitis are abundant and they are "unpalatable".[2] should be in description rather than distribution. The quotations are not necessary as the status of unpalatability isn't bizzare or out of the ordinary for it to be directly quoted.

 Done *Female Members of the genus Mechanitis lay their eggs in clusters on the small hairs found on the leaves on poisonous solanum and poisonous Apocynaceae plants.[7], this sentence is a bit repetitive. You can say "on the leaves of poisonous plants in the genus Solanum and in the family Apocynaceae".

 Done *The sentence describing the chrysalis could probably just be moved to the "reflective chrysalis" section. It makes no sense being outside of the portion in the first place.

• That should be all before I do a final run-down, keep up the good work @Bruxton: and be sure to check every point and ping me when you're done the revision! Thank you and keep it up! Ornithoptera (talk) 05:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ornithoptera: Thanks for the direction. I have gone through the list and completed the items. Bruxton (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ornithoptera: Hi, I am wondering if there is anything else needed for this nomination to proceed. Thanks Bruxton (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ornithoptera: Hi, just checking if you are coming back to the nomination? Bruxton (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bruxton: Apologies, things have been a bit chaotic on my end. You have still missed the italicization of the scientific name after two reminders, so please address that, then we should move onto the hook and it should be set. Ornithoptera (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ornithoptera:  Done Bruxton (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bruxton: alright, the article looks to be in order. If you could possibly reword the hook, that would be the only thing left to do. Thank you for hard work so far. Ornithoptera (talk) 06:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• ALT0A ... that the chrysalis of the Mechanitis butterfly (pictured) looks like it is covered in shiny metal? @Ornithoptera: Bruxton (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ornithoptera: Bruxton (talk) 03:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ornithoptera: Me again. Bruxton (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I have been checking this nomination multiple times every day and I have pinged the reviewer excessively. I do not think the DYK is going to reach the finish line so I withdraw. Bruxton (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Bruxton, no need to withdraw - I think our friend is busy and lost track. The hook, ALT0A, is interesting, and verified in the Marquis & Koptur section, and others (although I'm unsure of the reliability of all the others, like Ulyces, I can't determine that definitively since I'm unfamiliar - I would take our friend's comments into consideration as you continue to revise the article). Elementy seems to be a general purpose science magazine for a pop audience, which appears reliable enough. The article appears to be referenced throughout, neutral, within policy. Earwig is down for me, but I don't quickly spot any close paraphrasing other than facts that can't be rewritten. The image is appropriately licensed and stunning. Urve (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

(And just to dot our i's and cross our t's: New enough and sufficient recent expansion.) Urve (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Urve: Thanks for the look! I was ok withdrawing: having it undone distracted me from starting articles. Bruxton (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify - you do want to withdraw this? I'm happy to acquiesce, but I think it's a nice article. Urve (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Urve: Thanks. It seems on its way now, with your green tic. So no need to withdraw. Bruxton (talk) 05:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Urve, Bruxton, and Ornithoptera: I'm worried that the hook will feel a little redundant if we include the image – so it works if the image isn't included, but how about: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• ALT1: ... that the shiny chrysalis of the Mechanitis butterfly (pictured) might serve to confuse predators?

I think we need to stick to ALT0A since there are studies which refute that hook. Bruxton (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

If that's the case, Bruxton, why leave it in the article at all? Regardless, lemme throw out some more hooks: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• ALT2: ... that the shiny chrysalis of the Mechanitis butterfly (pictured) might serve as temperature control during pupation?
• ALT3: ... that the shiny chrysalis of the Mechanitis butterfly (pictured) can have up to 25 layers?
• ALT4: ... that the shiny chrysalis of the Mechanitis butterfly (pictured) changes colour over time?
  • Any of these are good (so ). I'll just say as an aside - neither here nor there, and not a statement on anyone - that I don't think redundancy matters too much; it's the same sort of interesting statement like we recently featured with the nice lead hook and image of Synapturanus danta, which just shows that the frog is smooth, like this image shows the pupa is metallic. But of course, saying more is worthwhile for subjects that don't get too much reader attention, so I like these, too. Urve (talk) 06:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Theleekycauldron: I wanted to say, the bit about predation deterrence is in the article but it is presented as one theory. I trust your judgement and thank you for the hook ideas! Bruxton (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)