Talk:Nothomyrmecia

Nothomyrmecia or Prionomyrmex?

I find it worth noting that (for such an obscure species, probably mainly of interest to specialists) Google finds *MANY* more cites of one than the other:

Results 1 - 10 of about 3,120 for "Nothomyrmecia macrops" Results 1 - 10 of about 133 for "Prionomyrmex macrops"

I don't have the time to research authoritative sources myself and come to my own conclusion, but I certainly observe that there seem to be "authoritative" (at least, authoritative-looking!) websites on each side of the nomenclature, e.g...

N. macrops:

http://www.ento.csiro.au/science/ants/nothomyrmeciinae/nothomyrmecia/nothomyrmecia.htm
http://data.gbif.org/species/13713591

P. macrops:

http://atbi.biosci.ohio-state.edu:210/hymenoptera/nomenclator.name_entry?text_entry=nothomyrmecia%20macrops

67.188.180.33 (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

move to Prionomyrmex

What is this story of bringing back an older version by merging again the two subfamilies Myrmeciinae and Prionomyrmecinae into one and reviving Nothomyrmecia as a valid genus? Baroni Urbani (2005) separates the two subfamilies that are characterized respectively by four (Prionomyrmecinae) and seven (Myrmeciinae) synapomorphies. He shows also the inconsistency of the characters used to separate Nothomyrmecia from its senior synonym, Prionomyrmex. There are no subsequent studies on the subject, even if Archibald et al. (2006) still adopt the wrong classification without justifying their attitude. Archibald et al. (2006), however, had no other alternative since no one of the subfamilial characters listed by Baroni Urbani (2005) is visible among their compression fossils.

WIKIPEDIA is not the place of personal opinions even if they were justified, which is not this case.

I’m re-correcting the relative entries until proof of the contrary.

References:

Archibald, S. B., Cover, S. P., Moreau, C. S. 2006. Bulldog ants of the Eocene Okanagan Highlands and history of the subfamily (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Myrmeciinae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 99: 487-523. Baroni Urbani, C. 2005. Phylogeny and biogeography of the ant subfamily Prionomyrmecinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Annali del Museo Civico di Stortia Naturale “G. Doria” 96: 581-595. Sirolo 15:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The above content was added by an editor who is suspected to be Baroni Urbani, the change proposed by this author was NOT accepted by the scientific community. It should also be noted that the Archibald et al paper does not use the taxonomy shown by this editor but instead uses the Nothomyrmecia/Myrmeciinae classification--Kevmin (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Move to Nothomyrmecia

I am requesting this page be moved back to Nothomyrmecia. Looking at the page history this page was moved to the current location after edits by the author of the paper synonymising the two genera substantially changed the page to reflect the views of the paper. The synonymy was NOT accepted by the scientific community as reflected by scientific papers still using the genus name In: Zhang, Z.-Q. & Shear, W.A. (Eds) (2007) Linnaeus Tercentenary: Progress in Invertebrate Taxonomy. Zootaxa, 1668, 1–766. as of January 2009. Thus the move was in responce to pov editing and not scientific consensus --Kevmin (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

 Administrator noteSince no one seems to object to this moved, I've performed the move to Nothomyrmecia macrops. Editors of this page are requested to bring the text of the article into line with the new name. Thanks,--Aervanath (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Literature

• Billen, Johan 2009 "Occurrence and structural organization of the exocrine glands in the legs of ants" Arthropod Structure & Development 38(1):2-15

• Menzel, Florian, Blüthgen, Nico, & Schmitt, Thomas 2008 "Tropical parabiotic ants: Highly unusual cuticular substances and low interspecific discrimination" Frontiers in Zoology 5:16

• Taylor, R. W. 2007. "Bloody funny wasps! Speculations on the evolution of eusociality in ants," pp. 580-609. In Snelling, R. R., B. L. Fisher, and P. S. Ward (eds). "Advances in ant systematics (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): homage to E. O. Wilson – 50 years of contributions." Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute, 80.

• Ward, Phillip 2007 "Phylogeny, classification, and species-level taxonomy of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)" In: Zhang, Z.-Q. & Shear, W.A. (Eds) Linnaeus Tercentenary: Progress in Invertebrate Taxonomy. Zootaxa1668:1–766.

• Archibald, S. B., Cover, S. P., & Moreau, C. S. 2006 "Bulldog ants of the Eocene Okanagan Highlands and history of the subfamily (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Myrmeciinae)" Annals of the Entomological Society of America 99: 487-523.

• Baroni Urbani, C. 2005 "Phylogeny and biogeography of the ant subfamily Prionomyrmecinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae)" Annali del Museo Civico di Stortia Naturale “G. Doria” 96: 581-595.

NOTE:rebutting Rejection of synonymy of Prionomyrmex/Nothomyrmecia

• Astruca, C., Julien, J. F., Errarda, C. & Lenoir, A. 2004 "Phylogeny of ants (Formicidae) based on morphology and DNA sequence data" Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31(3):880-893

• Sanetra M. & Crozier, R. H. 2003 "Characterization of microsatellite loci in the primitive ant Nothomyrmecia macrops Clark" Molecular Ecology 12(9):2169 - 2170

• Sanetra M. & Crozier, R. H. 2003 "Patterns of population subdivision and gene flow in the ant Nothomyrmecia macrops reflected in microsatellite and mitochondrial DNA markers" Molecular Ecology 12(9):2281 - 2295

• Ward, Philip S & Brady, Seán G. 2003 "Phylogeny and biogeography of the ant subfamily Myrmeciinae (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)" Invertebrate Systematics, 17:361–386

NOTE: Rebutting synonymy of Prionomyrmex/Nothomyrmecia

• Sanetra M. & Crozier, R. H. 2001 "Polyandry and colony genetic structure in the primitive ant Nothomyrmecia macrops" Journal of Evolutionary Bology 14(3):368-378

• Baroni Urbani, C. 2000 "Rediscovery of the Baltic amber ant genus Prionomyrmex (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) and its taxonomic consequences" Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae 93:471-480

NOTE: Synonymizing of Prionomyrmex/Nothomyrmecia

• Kugler, Charles 1980 "The Sting Apparatus in the Primitive Ants Nothomyrmecia and Myrmecia" Australian Journal of Entomology 19(4):263 - 267

--Kevmin (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus for move at this time. As Andrewa pointed out, Prionomyrex may become the more clearly preferred name in the future, but this does not appear to have gained consensus here yet. Aervanath (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

---

• Nothomyrmecia macrops → Prionomyrmex macrops — Use of Nothomyrmecia is based on false information.--Sirolo (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• The correct name for this ant and for the relative stub, i.e. Prionomyrmex, is currently given by another editor as ‘now officially rejected’ without source of the pretended rejection. This editor repeatedly and arbitrarily changed the name Prionomyrmex to Nothomyrmecia and justified his action by a long reference list claimed to support his attitude ‘until proof of the contrary’. No one of the papers given as disagreeing with previous citations of Baroni Urbani’s (2005, 2008) arguments to use Prionomyrmex discusses these arguments or refers to them. The 2008 paper, particularly significant in this context, is never cited and the 2005 one is mentioned but not discussed in one reference only. Personal opinions unsupported by scientific evidence cannot be used as arguments. Until a factual criticism to Baroni Urbani’s reasons will be published, Prionomyrmex remains the sole available name. <Baroni Urbani C. 2005. Phylogeny and biogeography of the ant subfamily Prionomyrmecinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Ann. Mus. civ. St. Nat. ‘G. Doria’, Genoa 96: 581-595><Baroni Urbani C. 2008. Orthotaxonomy and parataxonomy of true and presumed bulldog ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Doriana 8, N. 358: 1-10>Sirolo (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: The above was posted to my talk page. I have moved it here and completed the requested move process on Sirolo's behalf. I have no opinion on the requested move.--Aervanath (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The Rejection is very easy to prove by looking at google scholar. The name Nothomyrmecia is used in 126 articles from 2008 and 2009, Prionomyrmex is used twice and one of those is referring to an extinct species and not the modern species. The pages cited in the above reference list are grouped to show what each refers to and the rejection of the synonymization is noted there. --Kevmin (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Papers omitting published information either for ignorance or in bad faith because the author(s) is/are unable to justify with arguments his/their choice cannot be considered as a demonstration of something never demonstrated. This results clearly consulting a constantly updated, world famous, objective source of nomenclatorial information, i.e. the Hymenoptera Name Server visible at the address http://osuc.biosci.ohio-state.edu/hymDB/nomenclator.name_entry?text_entry=Prionomyrmex&Submit=Submit Sirolo (talk) 09:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Difficult. From the above and various versions of the article, it appears that the common name is still Nothomyrmecia, but that there is an ongoing campaign to establish Prionomyrmex as the official name (with some success) and presumably eventually as the common name as well. This raises original research and advocacy issues, and possibly also conflict of interest. I think it safest to stick with Nothomyrmecia for now. Andrewa (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• The sole documented attempt to revive ‘Nothomyrmecia’ is the one by Ward & Brady (2003). I re-read Baroni Urbani (2005) criticism to Ward & Brady. Baroni Urbani gives 4 apparently valid reasons to use Prionomyrmex instead of ‘Nothomyrmecia’. I suggest advocates of ‘Nothomyrmecia’ to produce information on the weakness of Baroni Urbani’s reasons instead of listing and suggesting true or presumed friends and followers. But there is at least one more important point needing consideration: Those willing to support Ward & Brady’s (2003) classification with or without giving their reasons should be aware that, in this case, the name Nothomyrmecia Clark 1934 can not be used just the same since it is a junior synonym of Archimyrmex Cockerell 1923 (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Art. 23). In this hypothesis the correct name for the dinosaur ant would be Archimyrmex macrops. Finally, I don’t dream to control Kevmin’s assertions but his boasting of 126 citations for Nothomyrmecia in 2008 and 2009 is hard to believe. This implies that every active myrmecologist published more than two papers on this ant in 2008 and in the first six months of 2009. Is nobody studying another ant? Sirolo (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

moves against consensus

As a note Sirolo today cut and pasted a version of this Nothomyrmecia macrops to the Prionomyrmex macrops redirect page against consensus. I reverted the c/p so Prionomyrmex redirected here again.--Kevmin (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In regard to Prionomyrmex/Nothomyrmecia preference. as I stated the scientific community with the exception of Baroni Urbani retains Nothomyrmecia as the extant species and Prionomyrmex for the extinct species. There is no movement in the literature at this time to synonymize the names. I am also beginning to suspect that Sirolo and Baroni Urbani are the same person.--Kevmin (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an amazing dispute on a number of indisputable oddities. Clark (1934), while describing his new genus Nothomyrmecia, feared that it might be a synonym of Prionomyrmex, known to him only through the literature. Baroni-Urbani (2000), after studying specimens of both, Prionomyrmex and Nothomyrmecia, proposed a new phylogeny of the group intended to demonstrate the identity of the two genera. Ward & Brady (2003) proposed again the same phylogeny of Baroni-Urbani (2000) and interpreted it as a demonstration of the separation of the two genera. Followers of Baroni-Urbani must call this ant Prionomyrmex and those of Ward & Brady must call it Archimyrmex. Archimyrmex is a senior generic name paraphyletic to Nothomyrmecia as recognized by Ward & Brady (see their Fig. 21 for paraphyly and their Corrigendum, page 605 for acceptance of the name Archimyrmex). As a consequence of this, Nothomyrmecia is a lawfully unavailable name under both Baroni-Urbani’s and Ward & Brady’s classification hypotheses and there is no popularity measure or web consensus that can revive it. Nobody is superior to the Code and nobody can skip it. Since I never saw any of these ants I leave the choice of the proper name to some ant specialist familiar with them, but ‘Nothomyrmecia’ CANNOT be used. Wolfbla (talk) 04:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the stub, corrected some small factual errors and reverted hopefully for the last time the name of this species to Prionomyrmex because: 1) the arguments of Wolfbla are incontrovertible, 2) nobody ever tried to use the name Archimyrmex, 3) the reasons given by Baroni Urbani to use Prionomyrmex instead of Archimyrmex (and, if still necessary, instead of Nothomyrmecia) are reliable. Sirolo (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Archimyrmex Here is the exact text from Ward & Brady 2003

After acceptence of this manuscript, an important paper appered by Dlussky and Perfilieva (2003) in which the South American fossil taxa Ameghinoia piatnitzkyi and Polanskiella smekali, were redescribed and transferred to the genus Archimyrmex, previously only known from a single fossil species, A.rostratus Cockerell, from the Green River Foramtion (Eocene, United States). Dlussky and Perfilieva assigned Archimyrmex to the subfamily Myrmeciinae.

As Ward & Brady 2003 take the position that while Archimyremex(Ameghinoia/Polanskiella in the text) forms aweak clade with Nothomyrmecia and Prionomyrmex they were a seperate taxon and were treated as incertae sedis in Myrmeciinae. At no point were the three fossil taxa synonymized. Thus the statement that "nobody ever tried to use the name Archimyrmex" is true because no one at any point synonymized Archimyremex with Prionomyrmex, Archimyremex Ameghinoia & Polanskiella were synonymized.--Kevmin (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Again on 7/16/09 Sirolo, against consensus has created an alternate page reflecting his/her POV, this tim at Prionomyrmex. I have changed it to stub for the eocene fossil genera with a note that the living nats are a seperate genus. Here is the text which was placed at Prionimyrmex:

Prionomyrmex macrops, is an Australian ant popularly called also Dinosaur ant. It is of particular interest to entomologists and evolutionary biologists because it was thought to represent a link between ant and wasps and to be the less specialized living ant. Originally described in 1934 by Clark on two specimens collected 1931 near Balladonia in Western Australia as a member of the new genus Nothomyrmecia, this ant puzzled entomologists for nearly half a century until 1978 when Dr. R. W. Taylordiscovered it again at Poochera, 1300 km (800 mi) from the site of the 1931 discovery. A further colony was found at Penong, 180 km (110 mi) to the west of Poochera. This species is now found in the cool regions of the mallee of southern South Australia and Western Australia. Often considered as a "living fossil" on morphological grounds, recent work demonstrated that Prionomyrmex macrops exhibits also some unspecialized behavioral traits. In the entomological literature this ant is often cited under its original name Nothomyrmecia macrops. In 2000 BaroniUrbani demonstrated the synonymy of Clark’s genus Nothomyrmecia with the Oligocene Baltic amber genus Prionomyrmex and described a second Baltic amber species closely related to the Australian one and giving in this way further weight to the living fossil hypothesis.

--Kevmin (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I already wrote that I refrain discussing this ant classification problem but I must rebel against false assertions when they concern my former problem description. Editor Kevmin’s statement that Ameghinoia and Polanskiella were treated by Ward & Brady (2003) as Myrmeciinae incertae sedis is tendentious and incorrect. Ward & Brady (2003) included Ameghinoia and Polanskiella in a data matrix (MORPH1, Appendix 1) used to cladistically infer their “Estimated phylogeny of myrmeciine ants”, Fig. 21, a phylogeny where Ameghinoia/Polanskiella univocally result as sister group(s) of Nothomyrmecia. There are no known, credible generic characters for Ameghinoia and Polanskiella but this is relatively irrelevant for these two obscure fossils since both names are junior synonyms of Nothomyrmecia according to Ward & Brady’s phylogeny and data. Ward & Brady (2003a) failed to recognize the synonymy of Ameghinoia/Polanskiella with Archimyrmex but, after reading the synonymy proposed by Dlussky & Perfileeva (2003), they published a Corrigendum (2003b) to their original 2003 paper and admittedly accepted the synonymy by referring to Dlussky & Perfileeva (2003) as an “important paper” correcting their former nomenclature. The sole novelty affecting Ward & Brady’s data and their newly accepted synonymy is that Archimyrmex Cockerell 1923, now becomes a senior synonym of Nothomyrmecia Clark 1934. Stated otherwise, Archimyrmex is an obligatory senior synonym of Nothomyrmecia, if and only if one accepts Ward & Brady’s data, analysis, and results. Another perplexing aspect of this discussion is that the interest for the Dinosaur ant, as this Australian ant species is called in the stub, is justified only if its close relationship with the two Eocene Baltic fossils (Prionomyrmex) is accepted. Otherwise Nothomyrmecia turns into a rare ant name not worth being included in Wikipedia as thousands of other insect names. I’m surprised that a stub, supposed to be based on available, recent, printed information, in this case is drawn essentially on non-peer reviewed web documents and is being transformed in a blog where personal opinions prevail. I can explain this only if Editor Kevmin is either Ward, or Brady, or somebody repeatedly instructed by them. Wolfbla (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

As I posted already in this page, Ward and Brady state that Ameghinoia/Polanskiella formed a weak clade with Nothomyrmecia. At no point in the text of hte paper is there a synonymization of the three genera. They were included in morph1 "to test the placement of the South American fossils". They also included a number of other genera. Please cite where in the text of the paper the three taxa are officially synonymized. Here is the exact text were the relation ships are discussed:

"The South American fossils are further nested in Myrmeciinae as part of a wakly supported clade (67%) that also contains Nothomyremecia and Prionomyrmex. In all seven of the MP trees (length 122, consistency index 0.61. retention index 0.68). Nothomyrmecia is the sister group of "Ameghinoia/Polanskiella", although this receives little bootstrap support." The assertion that Ward and Brady synonymized the three taxa is completely false and shown to be false by ext of the paper itself. Also as a side note, I am not Ward or Brady and I have never met either of them, so the statement thst I am is incorrect.--Kevmin (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

When two genera without valid distinguishing characters are close each other, as are Nothomyrmecia and Archimyrmex in Ward & Brady’s (2003) phylogeny, the youngest name is a synonym of the oldest one. For your convenience I copy the relative part of the Code, Article 23.3.5: „The Principle of Priority requires that if a name in use for a taxon is found to be unavailable or invalid it must be replaced by the next oldest available name from among its synonyms“. There is no need of “official proposals”. Ward & Brady overlooked the priority of Archimyrmex vs. Nothomyrmecia because the priority results from information appeared after publication of their paper. Baroni Urbani (2005) noticed the incongruity and applied the Priority Law to the two names. This was based on Ward & Brady’s information and can be regarded as the “official proposal” invoked by Editor Kevmin.

I repeat another, important, unanswered question: assuming that Nothomyrmecia and Archimyrmex are separate genera, why writing such a controversial stub for a rare, monotypic Australian genus without fossil species as is Nothomyrmecia in this interpretation of Ward & Brady? How can you justify the name “Dinosaur ant” for it? Among ants there are dozens of rarer (e. g. Aulacopone, Ireneopone, Noonilla) or biologically more important genera (e. g. Manica, Basiceros, Myrmecina, Cataulacus a. o.) not included in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfbla (talk • contribs) 01:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Synonymy/non-synonymy is never "official"

The ICZN Code deals with nomenclature, not taxonomic opinion. All the Code tells us is which name to use IF people decide that two (or more) existing names are synonyms of one another. If Ward & Brady had indicated that they thought Nothomyrmecia and Archimyrmex were synonyms, then Archimyrmex would have priority. They made no such indication; this was later authors' interpretations, and if these later authors wish to claim that the two groups are synonyms, then they would be justified in using Archimyrmex. That is their opinion. Similarly, if Baroni Urbani believes that Prionomyrmex and Nothomyrmecia are synonyms, then he would be justified in using Prionomyrmex. That is his opinion. It is mistaken, however, to claim that any such synonymies are "officially accepted" or "officially rejected". I know this all too well, as I am myself an ICZN Commissioner. Synonyms are only accepted or rejected in terms of whether the entomological community adopts them.

As such, there do not appear to be any ant taxonomists other than Baroni Urbani using the name Prionomyrmex macrops, and the team of people who are arguably the leading world authorities on ant taxonomy (Ward, Brady, Fisher, and others in the Ant Tree of Life program) still recognize Nothomyrmecia as a valid taxon, and not a synonym of anything. That is their opinion, but it also represents the status quo in the present case.

Wikipedia's rule is to follow, not set, the examples of the scientific community. As such, there is insufficient evidence to justify the adoption of Baroni Urbani's novel classification over the standard classification. That may conceivably change, but as of this date the case is not yet decided - meaning the status quo stands, for now. However, while it should certainly be stated clearly on the pages for Prionomyrmex and Nothomyrmecia that Baroni Urbani has proposed their synonymy, it should NOT state that this proposal has been "officially rejected" - the appropriate phrase would be "this proposed synonymy has not yet been widely accepted." Dyanega (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if this is bad communication from my side or bad will from the other side. Limiting the discussion to the priority of Archimyrmex vs. Nothomyrmecia - as I always did - Ward & Brady (2003:375), unaware of Archimyrmex, wrote: „there is a possibility that a taxon formed by the union of Prionomyrmex and Nothomyrmecia would itself be paraphyletic since there are South American fossil taxa to which Nothomyrmecia may be closely related“. In this context I cited Baroni Urbani (2005: 592) who, aware of Archimyrmex, wrote: “Accepting Ward & Brady’s (2003) opinion will render the “dinosaur ant” paraphyletic to the fossil Archimyrmex and, since the latter is the oldest available name, the “dinosaur ant” should be called Archimyrmex macrops“. In short, concluding the reasoning that Ward & Brady (2003) were unable to conclude for lack of information, the correct name for this ant is Archimyrmex. Since the discussion now was shifted on taxonomic opinions, there are 5, formally equally plausible, taxonomic opinions on these ants. Chronologically these are: 1. Baroni Urbani’s incomplete: Prionomyrmex is the senior available name for Nothomyrmecia. Both belong to a subfamily different from the one of Myrmecia. The fossils: Ameghinoia, Polanskiella and Archimyrmex are ignored (Baroni Urbani, 2000). 2. Dlussky & Perfilieva’s : Archimyrmex is the senior synonym of Ameghinoia, and Polanskiella; Archimyrmex, Prionomyrmex, and Myrmecia belong to the subfamily Myrmeciinae and Nothomyrmecia alone belongs to a separate subfamily (Dlussky & Perfilieva, 2003). It is noteworthy that nobody ever mentioned this classification proposal, a proposal formally as plausible as other competing ones. 3. Ward & Brady’s incomplete: Myrmecia, Prionomyrmex, Archimyrmex, Ameghinoia, and Polanskiella belong to the same subfamily Myrmeciinae. Ameghinoia, and Polanskiella are indefensible junior synonyms close to Nothomyrmecia. Archimyrmex is ignored (Ward & Brady, 2003a). 4. Ward & Brady’s complete. The same as the latter but the priority of Archimyrmex vs. Ameghinoia and Polanskiella (Ward & Brady, 2003b) and vs. Nothomyrmecia (Baroni Urbani, 2005) is recognized. 5. Baroni Urbani’s complete. The same as 1 with the suggestion to exclude from the discussion poorly known genera like, Ameghinoia, Polanskiella and Archimyrmex (Baroni Urbani, 2005; Baroni Urbani, 2008). I already stated that I was calling the attention on nomenclature only and that I preferred and still prefer to avoid the discussion about classification, but my solidarity with Baroni Urbani’s arguments was strengthened during the course of the present, long, largely useless discussion.

Again and not less important, I wonder about the reasons of this rage for Nothomyrmecia in Wikipedia. If Nothomyrmecia should be considered as a monotypic Australian genus without fossil species, and related to a commoner Australian genus (Myrmecia), as it appears now (i.e. Ward & Brady’s incomplete classification), why is it still called “Dinosaur Ant” and “living fossil” and why is it worth of consideration in Wikipedia? This question was already posed and remained unanswered twice. Wolfbla (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Starting with the last question, wikipedia considers every living species of organism as worthy of having a page not just the flashy well known taxa. As part of the overarching coverage given every taxon, common vernacular names are given at the head of the article. Dinosaur and living fossil are both terms that have been applied to the species by the common public and thus are notable to include in the page.--Kevmin (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The last answer is admittedly incomplete but, since the information presented in the stub exists nowhere else, it is also a complete demonstration of bad faith.

Contrarily to what stated in the stub, there is NO mention of fossil Nothomyrmecia in the whole literature. The stub as it is, about a genus comprising one Australian and two fossil species, fits only Baroni-Urbani’s definition of Prionomyrmex.

To avoid further, tedious, inconclusive, misinformed re-editing, I accepted your use of the name Nothomyrmecia and simply cleared any reference to imaginary fossils of this genus.

Now you revived the former, erroneous text with Nothomyrmecia as a genus including a recent Australian species and two Baltic fossils. This is an absolute novelty and, if you decided to inform the scientific community about your discovery in Wikipedia, be aware of the Priority Law as I wrote since the beginning. Wolfbla (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you did not understand what I stated in my post. The terms "Dinosaur ant" and "living fossil" have nothing to do with actual fossils. The terms have been applied to he living species by the general public in reference to the primitive nature of the species, not as reference to the Prionomyremex species. One of the things that wikipedia does is report vernacular terms applies to taxa.--Kevmin (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you did not understand your own text from which I copy: “two more fossil species of this genus are known from Baltic amber”. And I repeat: there is no mention of fossil Nothomyrmecia in the literature. Too difficult? Wolfbla (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, I'm not sure how i missed that in the text. It was a leftover from one of hte moves to Prionomyrmex. I have clarified that he "living fossil" term is due to the primitive nature of the living species biology and actions and removed the reference to fossil species.--Kevmin (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge and move

I agree with the suggestion to merge the page Nothomyrmica here, as it appears to be a misspelling of Nothomyrmecia. I wouls also suggest that this page should be moved to the genus name place over the redirect per WP: ToL practice for monotypic genera.--Kevmin § 15:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

All done. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!--Kevmin § 15:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Name validity

What can be done about the work of a contributor continuously changing this article, negating or suppressing literature evidence? A quick look at page history shows that this continues since years. Is this not what in Wikipedia terminology is called vandalism?Beagle 33 (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• The current literature shows that the accepted name is Nothomyrmecia and that the synonymization of the two species has not been adopted by the wider entomological community. I tagged out the Ward and Brady reference due to the fact that it does not support your assertion that 'Nothomyrmecia is studied specifically due to its possible relationship to Prionomyrmex, (the assertion that I tagged as needing a reference after the sentence restructuring you made. I have also tagged out your new sentence since it is based on a website that was last updated 5 years ago in 2007.--Kevmin § 12:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The Hymenoptera Name Server is authoritative because it is the sole source referring to both opinions, i.e. Baroni Urbani’s and Ward & Brady’s. In addition, it differs from other sources cited in the article because its main scope is using the correct nomenclature. Right or wrong (it is not the role of Wikipedia to decide it) it plays an important role in the debate. Wikipedia users must be informed about this. Moreover, first you requested a citation for the morphological base motivating biological research, and, when I added it, you stated that it does not support the assertion. When I gave the exact citation showing that it supports it perfectly, you returned to a more vague, older version.

Please stop removing objective, documented information, or I’ll be forced to complain with the Administrator for vandalism. Beagle 33 (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The citation you provided for the morphology sentence did not support the connection between Nothomyrmecia and Prionomyrmex, which iswhy I tagged it out. if we are to include an ant Database, I would add Antweb, which is still being actively maintained. Here are its entries for both genera [1] and [2].--Kevmin § 21:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

In the hypothesis that you really believe in what you wrote, here are a few additional explanations about your two arguments:

1. AntWeb, in its homepage, defines itself as ‘the world's largest online database of images, specimen records, and natural history information on ants’ and, as such, it cannot be considered as a qualified nomenclature source. In addition AntWeb is made in Ward’s lab, and, as it was to be expected, it contains no mention to Baroni Urbani’s 2005 and 2008 criticisms to Ward & Brady. If you want, at most, a reference to AntWeb can be added to the list of those ignoring Baroni Urbani’s papers without explaining the reason for it.

2. About the opportunity to cite Ward and Taylor (1981) to show that Nothomyrmecia’s “primitive” morphology (i.e. similar to the fossil Prionomyrmex of which it is “possibly the sole survivor”) motivated biological research, I copy from this paper for you Page 177, Introduction, 1st paragraph: “the recent rediscovery of the “living-fossil” ant Nothomyrmecia macrops Clark (Taylor 1978) is of particular interest, not only because of the peculiar, mostly primitive morphology of this species…” Same page, 2nd paragraph: “it is of some interest to examine population and colony structure in putatively primitive species like N. macrops, to investigate whether these and other conditions theoretically associated with the early evolution of eusociality are retained in morphologically plesiomorphic species.” Page 180, Discussion: “despite apparently being a “living fossil”, possibly the sole survivor of an ancient lineage (Taylor, 1978), N. macrops…” Please consider that, in an earlier version, you requested such a citation and I find it difficult to imagine a better one. Beagle 33 (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I am reporting what the literature is presenting. You are showing a clear bias in your assertion that Antweb is not valid, as the website does document the suggestion of Baroni Urbani, but goes with the Ward and Brady classification, as it is the one that is used in the current lit. It is covering the same information as the Hymenoptera Name Server, and is being actively maintained.

You have changed the sentence so that he sentence in question explicitly links the interest in Nothomyrmecia to the suggested relationship to Prionomyrmex. Ward and Taylor (1981) is great for the sentence as it existed before your change, but doe not cover the sentence as you have it currently worded.--Kevmin § 03:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

(Moved from my talk page to the correct are to discuss this.)--Kevmin § 03:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The true is true. I failed to notice that one of Baroni Urbani’s papers criticizing Ward & Brady is listed in the AntWeb. This information in AntWeb is admittedly copied from AntCat, where use of the name Nothomyrmecia is equally supported without justification. Only one of the two papers by Baroni Urbani criticizing Ward & Brady is listed in both websites. But it is only listed there. I see no significant difference between ignoring a paper and mentioning and refusing it without discussing it. Agreement can be straight but disagreement should be justified. If this can make you happy, you can add a citation to both AntWeb and AntCat among those preferring the name Nothomyrmecia for unknown reasons. In this context citation of the Hymenoptera Name Server in Wikipedia is essential to inform that there is a small minority accepting a view different from the one supported in the article.

Ward & Brady’s citation about the morphological similarity between the living Nothomyrmecia and the fossil Prionomyrmex seems still just right to me, but if you think that it is great only for a previous rewording of the sentence written by you, please use the previous rewording. Beagle 33 (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nothomyrmecia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Delldot (talk · contribs) 04:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll do this one. delldot ∇. 04:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on, I hope it's a pleasant read! Burklemore1 (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking good! Ok, this is mostly just copy editing so don't panic. The main problem I had was trying to follow the technical language as a lay reader. We are not writing for specialists so anything you can do to increase accessibility to someone not already versed in ant-omology (tee hee) would be helpful.

I welcome criticism or comments in regards to the articles prose, especially when I'm trying to get this to FA. I'll get to your comments shortly. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Awkward sentence: "No precise data as to where Crocker collected the insects she sent to Australian entomologist John S. Clark is available" (also 'data' is technically plural).

Did some small fixes.

• "He did so with some hesitation due to its apparent similarity with the Eocene Baltic amber fossil Prionomyrmex which was unknown to him..." Why was he hesitant if he didn't know about the fossil?

Turns out this isn't the case (I note this content was added before I worked on this). He wasn't actually hesitant, infact it was the opposite when he said the ant bared no relation/resemblance to any he knew of. He does mention about the similarities of Nothomyrmecia and Prionomyrmex based on the descriptions provided for the ants, but they could easily be distinguished from each other. I have completely rewritten the sentence, but it would be best if you could check it out.

• Missing an 'as'? "The single waist node and other features such a non-tubulated fourth abdominal segment" Might also be good to split this long sentence into two.

Done and split.

• "transferred both taxons as distinct genera in the older subfamily..." Isn't the plural of taxon 'taxa'?

Done.

• "Studies show that all Hymenoptera insects with a 2n above 52 are ants." What is a 2n? Can it be explained or at least linked to an article?

Linked to ploidy.

• "However, as Nothomyrmecia and Aneuretinae may have shared a common ancestor, the two most likely separated from each other and the first Formicinae ants evolved from the Aneuretinae." This sentence is confusing; might be improved by replacing the ambiguous 'as' and adding a comma before 'and'.

Did some tweaks.

• Why sometimes use the convert template and sometimes not?

Did some edits, so I think I've solved this?

• Is this subject singular or plural? "While they show similar characteristics with Myrmecia, Nothomyrmecia somewhat resembles Oecophylla weaver ants."

Singular I believe, did a small change.

• Can you define or at least link unfamiliar words like 'suberect', 'furcula', 'gonostyliis', 'postpetiole', 'funiculus', 'stridulatory', 'calcariae', 'derived features' and 'hamuli'? Or could there be a diagram with these parts labeled?

Doing.... Done, did some explaining and linked some terms. Removed one term as I couldn't find its meaning.

• "a unique feature not only in ants but in most insects." How is it unique if it's in most insects?

Looks like I worded it awkwardly. The feature is not found in most insects is what I mean.

Reworded.

• "one observation shows a queen consuming a fly." Does this mean "someone once one observed a queen consume a fly"?

Yes, did some small tweaks.

• I would suggest for logical flow to reorganize the info in the first para in Behaviour and ecology to group all info on what they eat together and info on where and when they go out after. If you end with "Workers are mostly found on top of trees" it'd be a good seguay into the next para.

Reorganised I think.

• The last sentence in the second para is kind of a non sequitur: "Unlike some Myrmecia species, Nothomyrmecia does not travel by hopping or jumping."

Removed the sentence altogether, its inclusion isn't very necessary I just realised. :P

• Suggest organizing the first 2 paras like this: Food, how/when/where they go out, rivalries, predators.

Did some reorganisation, not entirely sure though.

• switching plural to singular: "Existing nests may adopt foraging queens looking for an area to begin her colony, as well as workers." Wouldn't the existing nests have to have lost their queen, since they're monogynous?

Done.

• "Colonies with more than one queen contest for dominance" does this mean the queens contest?

Yes. Did some minor tweaks.

• "At maturity, a nest may only contain 50 to 70 adults or 50 to 100 adults." What is the deal with the 70--are these 2 different studies that disagree?

Did some small tweaks.

• Plural/singular disagreement again: "Reasons of brachyptery among Nothomyrmecia queens is possibly due to population structure"

Done.

• It is unclear what the first part of the last para has to do with the second part (beginning "Workers and queens groom each other"). Should this be separate paras?

Split.

• Is the genus singular or plural? "No evidence confirms their populations are declining with colonies genetically depauperate, and its distribution may potentially be extensive"

I am confident that the genus is singular (I think this is the case with others).

Cool, but the issue I was pointing out was the switch from plural to singular with "their populations are" but "its distribution". This happens a lot in this article, maybe you could do a read through looking for cases? delldot ∇. 22:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll do a thorough check section by section (I'm sure some of these may address other issues you've raised). Burklemore1 (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Did some changes, but I cannot be so sure.

• How are these ideas reconciled? "it is unknown how widespread it is, and scientists are unsure if any threats are impacting the species. One of the biggest anthropogenic threats to Nothomyrmecia is habitat destruction and fragmentation by railway lines, roads and wheat fields."

While it is unknown if these threats are impacting Nothomyrmecia, it pretty much says that they are still prominent threats that would easily diminish the population. Whether or not we know, the protection of this species is vital because of these potential threats that will certainly hurt this ant. Perhaps we could say "Among the biggest potential antropogeneic threats...." just so we know they can potentially harm this ant at a grand scale?

Sure, I think something along those lines (threats aren't known for sure, but potential/suspected threats/concerns are...) would wrap it up nicely. delldot ∇. 21:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, did a small rewrite.

Whew! I think that's all I got for now. Ping me whenever you want me to take a second look. Nice work so far! delldot ∇. 06:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I'll respond to them over the next couple of days. Sometimes I may not be responsive, but that's because I'm trying to wrap things up with a colossal project I've been working on since July last year (with the help of other editors of course). :-) Burklemore1 (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

No worries, take your time! Cheers. delldot ∇. 22:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

So far so good. I checked all the image licenses, they're all fine. delldot ∇. 06:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Apologies if I have been inactive with this. The GA review of Myrmecia regularis and the colossal project I am working on have actually strained me on solving your issues, but I'll try and make this a priority today (in other words I'll attempt to solve all your issues). :) Burklemore1 (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

It's fine, there's no rush. I would only fail a GA nom if it looked like it had been abandoned. You're making good progress! delldot ∇. 21:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Sweet, I'll try and fix as many things as I can today. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Delldot:, all issues have been addressed (well, I attempted to at least). There are most likely some mixups of sigular and plural sentences, but can you do some double checks on the article overall? Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Second round

Looking good! Real quick, a few more:

• Weird sentence: "The rediscovery of the species in 1977 confirmed Clark's placement of Nothomyrmecia in isolated position within the Formicidae was universally accepted by the scientific community until 2000."

Rewritten, hopefully.

• I would recommend organizing the 1st and 2nd paras in Description to put info about the head all in one place. i.e. "Workers are nocturnal but navigate by vision, relying on large compound eyes.[32] Mandibles are less specialised than Myrmecia and Prionomyrmex, elongated and triangular." and "The head is longer than its width and broader at the back. It is broadest around the eyes..."

Tried to do some reorganisation, also separated the discussion about its stinger into a new paragraph.

• Unclear: "the wings on the male are long and opposite to a queen".

Done.

• "The cocoons have thin walls that produce meconium." This links to meconium, surely not what is meant here.

The cocoons produce a metabolic waste product.

• "More derived characters of the sting apparatus are known than those of Myrmecia." This sentence doesn't really work in the eggs para, would it work in the para about the sting?

Moved, reorganised and rewritten slightly.

• "Colony construction only occurs when the soil is moist." This sentence doesn't really fit in this para. Could it be worked in somewhere like Distribution and habitat? Or the discussion of new nests in Behaviour and ecology?

Moved to distribution and habitat.

• "Not all colonies are found outside unprotected areas, as some have been found in the Lake Gilles Conservation Park and the Chadinga Conservation Reserve." Does this mean in unprotected areas?

Done.

Sorry, this is super close. I don't know why I didn't catch these on the first read. Great work, thanks for addressing everything from the first set of comments. delldot ∇. 06:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Almost finished with your comments, I'll leave the rest for tomorrow. Honest question, do you reckon this article could be a nice FA candidate once this review is finished, or do you reckon it will be premature? This is the ultimate aim for this special little article so honesty, no matter how harsh is more than welcome. Burklemore1 (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Good question, my experience with FAC is quite limited. As far as the prose, I think there were a few things I let slide for GA, but I can point them out on my next read-through. I'm a bio person but not animals or insects specifically, maybe a peer review and request the input of specialists on WP? We're fortunate to have a few that I think you've worked with before. They'd have a better idea than I would about comprehensiveness, focus, and other content stuff. The other thing I've done is email the authors of works cited in the article and ask them to look it over: they're busy people but they're often pleased to get the request and I've had several give me reviews. I'll certainly help you get it as close as I can with my experience. delldot ∇. 17:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for answering, if you want you can freely point these out to make the future FAC process easier. I'm sure a couple of GA reviewers I have worked with or have associated with may take interest. Isn't it a maximum of one peer review though? I have Termite in PR and so far no one has responded but I am unsure if you can have more than one. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and I attempted to address your comments, please double check. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy with all your responses, everything I have left to complain about is below. I don't know the answer to the question about the PR limit. Seems like if you reviewed a bunch of others that would be a net benefit to the backlog. What if you asked other ant or animal people to review it on the talk page without starting a PR? Might be worth reading up to make sure this would not be an end-run around the rule. What are you thinking of for a timeline for this and Termite? delldot ∇. 07:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Definitely, sometimes I usually ask people for their opinions or thoughts, but this is mainly before GA or FAC (I did this for my first FAC because I was nervous with the process). I know other editors who I have proudly worked with so that is a good suggestion, but I'll try and get a broader perspective too. In regards for a timeline, I'm a little unsure what you mean, may need some further explanation. Sorry, I had a bit to drink so I'm pretty dumb as of now. I'll just say I would like Nothomyrmecia promoted to FA before June 2016 because I'm honouring John S. Clark. It will be 60 years since he died, and I think an under appreciated entomologist deserves some praise for discovering this amazing insect. Burklemore1 (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Round 3

Ok, back with even more hardass standards. Let me know if these make you long for the sweet release of death and I will ease off a bit. The more comments, the better. ;) Thanks for all you have done so far, the article is looking good to me now! Burklemore1 (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• "two syntype workers presumably collected near the Russell Range from Israelite Bay in Western Australia." Presumably? Who presumes this? Based on what? The next sentence says "Robert W. Taylor expressed doubt" about the site, so someone must have asserted it.

Removed word, I think it's better to discuss the doubt of its original discovery in the following sentences anyways.

• "Poochera is probably the only town in the world with ant-based tourism, stenciling Nothomyrmecia along the streets." The town stencils them? Maybe something like "they have pictures stenciled on the streets" would be clearer?

Done.

• I think Holy Grail is capitalized.

Done.

• " He did so as the two syntypes" 'as' is awkward when it means 'because' since it suggests contemporality. I like this and this for improving prose.

Changed to "because", definitely fits in.

• "the two can be distinguished by the appearance of the node." Explain or link 'node'.

Seems there was already an explanation given, but I have moved it to this particular sentence.

• Repetitive: "The ant is commonly known as ... living fossil ant because it is sometimes referred as a living fossil."

Did some tweaks.

• Repetitive: "Its specific epithet, macrops (meaning "big eyes"), derives from the Greek words makros, meaning "long, large", and ops, meaning "eyes"." Just drop the parenthetical?

Done I think.

• "antennal scapes extend beyond the occipital border which thicken towards the apex" Unclear antecedent of the 'which thicken'.

Removed.

• "with a furcula (attachment sites..." Is furcula plural?

Changed it to plural.

• Wouldn't it be great to have side-by-side worker and queen photos in the para about their comparitive descriptions?

The one in behaviour and ecology seems alright to use, but I cannot find any specimen photos of a queen. Would be nice unless we use the existing one.

• Link or explain 'pterothoracic sclerites', 'jugal anal lobe', 'venational complement', 'specialised tubercles' 'sensilla', 'mesoscutal structure', 'gonoforceps', 'genetically depauperate'.

Done, also simplified or did further modifications.

• OOh, what about an svg line drawing pointing out all these anatomy things? I wonder if I could help make this. It would be my most difficult Inkscape project yet. Have you found any diagrams like this?

Is this for any ant or Nothomyrmecia so people will actually know what the article is discussing? There is one on the ant article, but this focuses on a Ponerine ant but not on Nothomyrmecia. I note these two ants are very different morphological but we can try and do something with this (I say we should focus on this after this article gets promoted so we don't have to keep this review going). I could become artistic and use my trustworthy left hand to draw a Nothomyrmecia specimen and label it from there? I don't know, it's a suggestion that I would like to do. It would make up for my bad prose. ;)

*Gasp*! I could totally alter that svg! If you give me a picture of what to do to it then I can upload something and alter it as needed according to your feedback. Or have you ever used Inkscape? It's pretty fun to use and not too hard of a learning curve. delldot ∇. 05:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. Perhaps if I do hand draw Nothomyrmecia or something I was thinking of approaching it like this. The image you see should give you an idea of what I mean since the ant illustrated is pretty much its sibling, both separated into two genera. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Cool! but my experience is limited to tweaking existing drawings, I wouldn't be able to do something like that in SVG from scratch (or it would be much simpler). delldot ∇. 01:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah okay, we'll probably go with your plans then. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Cool, yeah, let's work on it after promotion as you suggest. Appologies in advance if it's crappity. delldot ∇. 06:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, and no need to apologize, it's better than what I can think of. Burklemore1 (talk) 10:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• "measuring 2.8 millimetres (0.1 in), 6.3 millimetres (0.2 in) and 11 millimetres (0.4 in), respectively." Is this really how you're supposed to do it? Spelling out and linking each instance of mm?

Delinked, but I'm not sure how to alter it to "mm" only. I'm sure this is simple though but I'm not the smartest person in the universe. ;)

Fixed. The parameter you need is |abbr=on. Might be worth checking the article to make sure spelling out/abbreviating units is consistent throughout the article. delldot ∇. 00:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• The meconium page linked says "Meconium is the earliest stool of a mammalian infant". Maybe just explain what is meant in this context?

Delinked and explained.

• Citations needed for the 3 sentences beginning "Captured prey items are given to larvae"

Added citations, all of the information is from Taylor 1977.

• I reorganized the para with "The ants are solitary foragers with no evidence that they use chemicals to communicate; instead, workers rely on visual cues to navigate around" and reworded this to "There is no evidence that they use chemicals to communicate..." (rv me if you do not like these changes). That sentence (now two) needs a citation.

Added citation.

• Are the two references to colony 'finding' supposed to actually be 'founding'? "After mating, colonies can be found by one or more queens", "Two queens may find a colony together".

Fixed.

• "Another plausible scenario is that colonies are drought-stressed". What does drought have to do with brachyptery?

Because brachyptery may only occur if colonies are drought-stressed. If a colony is not, it's possible they may be fully winged but no evidence exists.

Is there any theory to explain why? The para could benefit from a sentence explaining how drought might shorten ants' wings; it leaves the reader questioning as is. delldot ∇. 00:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• The last 3 paras in Behaviour and ecology are unrelated and could use some transition language or reorganization for flow.

I can understand the last two, but the first one? I might need help with this one. Would it be appropriate to promote this to GA and focus on this before we move onto PR, another possible ce or FAC?

Not all of these are deal breakers for GA, let me know if you want to work on these later. I think at this point it's basically promotable. delldot ∇. 07:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll work on these before you promote, I'm more than happy to solve these remaining issues so they are not mentioned at PR or FAC. Burklemore1 (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I have addressed all of your concerns (well, attempted to) and have left additional comments to some of these issues. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This certainly meets all the GA criteria now. Perhaps the few issues I mentioned for FAC that have not been addressed here can be turned into a To do list and addressed over time. Great work! delldot ∇. 00:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for initiating the review, I highly appreciate the comprehensiveness and professionalism that was put into it. :) Burklemore1 (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nothomyrmecia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151120211407/http://antbase.org/ants/publications/21007/21007.pdf to http://antbase.org/ants/publications/21007/21007.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150715213405/http://antbase.org/ants/publications/21067/21067.pdf to http://antbase.org/ants/publications/21067/21067.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Archive links have been checked and work. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)