Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arthropods/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions on my talk page. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my current talk page. IronChris | (talk)

An Indian Wiki effort on Lepidoptera

Dear IronChris,

It's interesting work you seem to be doing here. You should probably involve a few people here since this appears to another colossal wikitask. You need 'distributed wiki'ing. :)

Do visit the List of Butterflies of India (Papilionidae) which I am steward of. This a part of a larger effort, List of Butterflies of India. This 'project' is being developed basically by User:Shyamal, User:VirenVaz and me (User:AshLin).

Do leave your comments on any of our talk pages. I would be grateful if you would ask us to do the modifications suggested rather than do them yourself since we are talking of a canvas of over a thousand species.

The project is in its relative infancy, but we are adding three to ten wikipages a week. The ButterflyIndia yahoo group and Tekdi Eco Portal have been contacted and people have not only promised us images, but, we are trying to synergise the three as follows :-

• Wikipedia - The reference or field identification guide.
• Tekdi Eco Portal - The field notebook.
• ButterflyIndia - the discussion group.

Thought you'd like to know what part of wikilife you inadvertantly entered when you placed a cleanup tag on Iphiclides.

Regards,AshLin 04:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Names and titles

I have removed the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds#Bird names and article titles. The situation for birds is very different from that for arthropods. Most arthropods don't have common names (most probably haven't got scientific names yet, but that's another issue), and those common names that do exist are not regulated by any body. Ornithologists like to capitalise common names, for which there is no need and no significant tradition in invertebrates. I have gone through all arthropod groups in the last few months and standardised the capitalisation within each group; only Odonata and Lepidoptera had a majority capitalised (and we may even want to change that). All the others (i.e. all crustaceans, all arachnid, all other insect orders, including species-rich orders such as flies and beetles) use lower case, and consistently so. I have therefore imported the text from WP:TOL, with changes to reflect the exceptional upper-case taxa mentioned above, and to make is arthropod-specific. --Stemonitis 07:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Heterometabolism

not sure what you Crustacea/Chelicerata people think but this term is not widely accepted in Hexapods(generally covered by hemi/pauro/ametabolous). i'm not sure if it's used in the other subphyla, so just wondering if it's needed - is it now redundant? obviously if it's used in the other subphyla then an article is needed..... Goldfinger820 21:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This is what I was taught (I am a biology student graduating in a couple of months) :

• Holometabolism : complete metamorphosis; the larvae look totally different from the adult, no visible wings stubs, no compound eyes (Diptera, Lepidoptera).
• Ametabolism : no metamorphosis (Collembola, Apterygota)
• Hemimetabolism : incomplete metamorphosis, the larvae look very similar to the adults : they have compound eyes and wing stubs visible on the outside. This regroups the following :
  • Paurometabolism : both larvae and adults live in the same environment (Orthoptera)
  • Heterometabolism : the larvae and the adults live in different environments (Odonata)

Note that I was taught this in France, now I am studying in Canada, and some things are slightly different. I think that there should be an article for each, and a mention of the (possible) controversy should be made. I hope someone can clear this up once and for all, because I've always been slightly confused by the diverging sources. --IronChris | (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've checked this out a bit more with colleagues and most agree that both paurometabolous and heterometabolous have been merged into just "hemimetabolous". This is backed up by Stoffolano and Rosomer 1998 who say it has occured due to a lack of cohesive phylogenetic grouping between Odonata, Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera these subgrouping have been merged into just "hemimetabolous". i think we should at least mention these two older subgroupings within the hemimetabolous article - let me know your thoughts. Goldfinger820 06:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's best. Then we can just create a redirect from "paurometabolism" and "heterometabolism" to "hemimetabolism". So you say that pauro- and heterometabolism belong to the past? IronChris | (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

just that they are older terms and not widely used in an entomological sense alot (although as I say - i'm not sure about other arthopod subphyla) - anyway, discussing them in the hemimetabolism article should be a good way highlight their use. Goldfinger820 02:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I did some work on the hemimetabolism article. Please check it out when you have the time. I also created redirects from "hemimetaboly", "heterometabolism", "paurometabolism", "heterometaboly" and "paurometaboly". Thanks for the advice. IronChris | (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

no problem - page looks good! Goldfinger820 05:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to dispute this actually, if that is alright with you all. Recently in my Aquatic Entomology course, Hemimetabolous (called here heterometabolous) and Paurometabolous organisms are discussed separately. I realise this is a relatively new development, but my professor is extremely knowledgeable about taxa, especially Plecoptera, and if this new classification was widely used he would most likely teach it. I was considering splitting the Nymphs article into separate Nymphs/Niads articles over this. ---BMW, Minor Copy-Edit 05:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

you contributions would be very welcome on this (i'm unfortunatly not a taxonomy specialist!). might be good if you could find some recent refs to support the pauro/hemimetabolous usage.

Goldfinger820 06:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, there is no research on ebsco that uses these terms. Looking in Merritt and Cummins An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America(Third ed. 1996), only the terms Ametabolous, Hemimetabolous, and Holometabolous are used. There is no mention of Paurometabolous or Heterometabolous. Also, Nymph is used interchangeably between aquatic and non-aquatic hemimetabolous insects, and that the term Niad is sometimes used in older texts. I think I could take this information and enhance the Nymph arcticle as it is now. It is good that you at least include the old pauro/heterometaboly terms on the Hemimetabolism article. ---BMW, Minor Copy-Edit 15:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I disscussed this issue with my aquatic Entomology professor, and his response was that terrestrial and aquatic Entomologists use different names for the metaboly we are discussing. Aquatic Entomologists use the old system, where Hemimetaboly is those insects that have aquatic nymphs, known as naiads, and Paurometaboly are those that share the same habitat in adult and nymph stages. Terestrial entomologists use the system stated above, where all insects with imcomplete metamorphosis are considered to be hemimetabolous and having nymphs. Both are right, and each is suited to each field of study. It would make sense that aquatic entomologists would use more terms to describe the difference between insects with incomplete metamophosis that have aquatic nymphs and terrestrial imagos and those that share the same habitat during nymphal stages because these are intuitive things to care about when you are knee deep in a river and trying to figure out what the fish are eating. I don't know what we can do with this information, but I am willing to try any sugestions. ---BMW, Minor Copy-Edit 21:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

probably just explaining the differences in terminology usage would suffice and that different terms are used in differing entomological specialties. thanks again for you contributions on this Goldfinger820 22:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I added that information. Someone should check if it is okay, or if it needs any ajustment. ---BMW, Minor Copy-Edit 01:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Arthropods stub

I have gone through the usual process to propose a new stub, and there has been no objection to the creation of a {{arthropod-stub}} template. This would be useful for all Arthropods that don't have a precise stub at the moment besides the {{invertebrate-stub}}; namely every stub that doesn't fit into a {{insect-stub}}, {{arachnid-stub}} or {{crustacean-stub}} category. There is a list of some 50 odd such articles [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals#{{arthropod-stub}}|here]].

The problem now is to find a suitable picture for the stub-template. I don't think we will be able to find a "general arthropod" picture small enough (and recognisable enough), so we'll probably have to settle for a more specific picture. I was thinking of using this spider picture, but changing the background to white. I would have largely preferred a horseshoe crab or pycnogonid picture, but I didn't find one that might fit the requirements. If you happen to find a good picture rather characteristic of arthropods, and that would still be recognisable at a small size, please tell me. --IronChris | (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

They don't need to have a picture, you know… It's probably more important to have it up and running than to worry about its precise appearance. The spider's probably out anyway, because it wouldn't be covered by {{arthropod-stub}}. I also couldn't find a good millipede or centipede. Perhaps something based on Image:Protura-sp.gif? --Stemonitis 07:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the stub has been created, along with the corresponding category. I used the picture you suggested. It might need some editing as it's not great at the moment, but it'll do until then. I was wondering if the Category:Insect stubs, Category:Arachnid stubs and Category:Crustacean stubs should be moved to the Category:Arthropod stubs from their present location, Category:Invertebrate stubs. It's what seems logical, but I was wondering if that would disrupt anything. Thanks for the help Stemonitis, it is greatly appreciated. IronChris | (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Our own sections on Structure and Criteria for Inclusion, and, other thoughts

Dear Chris,

Firstly, I feel that we need to have our very own sections which are mentioned above. At first, you can take a 'cut and paste' and modify it by changing the examples. Then and then alone can our thoughts on these issues develop and interested people like User:Stemonitis get a canvas to work on. I stand by his ideas and need for own focus on Arthropods. We can't progress these aspects without our very own place to wiki-edit. I would do it if I had a good overview of arthropods but I don't, I'm on learning mode ihere.

Secondly, I am looking for guidelines to make a descendant project - a 'To Do' list or 'criteria' or even thoughts on the same in a separate para, sub-section, or, better still, a page of it's own would help.

Thirdly, do enlighten us about the relation, co-relation, or lack of it, between our Wikipedia encyclopedic articles and the Wikispecies effort.

Fourthly, can you 'map' the arthropods in some interesting way so that we can enter the world of Arthropods through your wikipage, though, I know that's not a purpose of the page. Is there a good way already existing?

Regards, AshLin 02:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC) AshLin 02:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

A little note on Wikispecies: Wikispecies is a taxonomic only project. It aims to record all known species with their taxonomical information, a photo (if possible) and vernacular names. No other information (ecology, distribution, etc.) is included. It's a simple census project. See for example the Iphiclides podalirius article. You may find more information on meta:Wikispecies and meta:Wikispecies FAQ. It still needs a lot of work, so when you have time I encourage you (and anyone) to help out. There is to date no formal cooperation, it is simply a sister project of the Wikipedia. Regards,IronChris | (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Quickdraw McGraw!

Dear Chris,

I must say, that was fast. Almost all that I asked for just a few hours ago is already done! Let me do my bit too.

So here goes, I've created a Draft Guidelines for Categorisation of Articles on 'Butterflies'. For comments please.

I've already started cleaning up the awful mess in category 'Butterflies' based on these guidelines. Don't believe me about the 'Mess'? See 'Butterfly stubs' and ye shall believe! I've about five to six hundred stubs to add and we can't have them blocking access to users getting the right information. So could'nt wait for consensus. We can always execute out the modifications later.

I've tried to make the guidelines as logical, consistent and practical as possible. The guidelines are being linked on each really important category page, ie 'Butterflies' and each family category page, for users to understand.

After categories, will prepare a draft policy for redirects, based on your already quite comprehensive' guidelines. Regards. AshLin 19:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Categories

I was looking through the arthropod categories to make a list of them (here), and I found the following inconsistency : in the Category:Insects, there are the subcategories for each insect order (Category:Hymenoptera, Category:Hemiptera, etc.) and Category:Pterygota. This category contains the subcategories Odonata and Neoptera, which in turn contains the subcategories Category:Cockroaches, Category:Endopterygota, Category:Exopterygota, Category:Mantids, Category:Orthoptera, and Category:Termites.

I think that it is just confusing to have these categories in the "insect" category and in the "neoptera" category (which is further divided between Endopterygota and Exopterygota).

I think that to be logical, the hierarchy of categories should be like this :

• Category:Insects
  • Category:Apterygota
  • Category:Pterygota
    • Category:Neoptera
      • Category:Endopterygota
        • Category:Lepidoptera, Category:Hymenoptera, etc.
      • Category:Exopterygota
        • Category:Hemiptera, Category:Lice, etc.

The problem is with the orders Ephemeroptera and Odonata, which (according to the Exopterygota article) do not belong to the Neoptera, but to the paraphyletic group Paleoptera. I think that we should create a Paleoptera category, so that the hierarchy of insect categories is consistant. Each insect order category should in the end belong to Category:Endopterygota, Category:Exopterygota (which belong to Category:Neoptera) and Category:Paleoptera, which are linked from the Category:Insects.

Tell me what you think should be done to these categories. --IronChris | (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I found the following statement on the page Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes : "An article should usually not be in both a category and its subcategory, e.g. Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software — except when the article defines a category as well as being in a higher category, e.g. Ohio is in both Category:U.S. states and Category:Ohio. (A good way to understand this exception is that if an article exists, and then a category is created on the same subject as the article, it should not cause the article to be removed from any of its categories)." This seems to go along with what I propose for the insect categories. IronChris | (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's where I chime in again. The old categorisation of insects was a mess. Some were under the whole big hierarchy (Neoptera, Endopterygota, etc.), with others just under simple categories like "beetles". There is no requirement for Wikipedia classification to follow scientific classification, and it definitely need not include every rank. The orders of insects are well-known and well-defined. Dividing the whole of the Insecta directly into orders seems to pose no problems to me. If others agree that this is the way to go, then the only remaining task would be to empty and delete the old over-technical categories. Obviously, both lice and bugs (s.s.) are expoterygotes, but that doesn't need to be encoded in the categorisation, but should instead be in the articles. Wikipedia is not Wikispecies, and the categories are merely meant to be aids to finding related articles. --Stemonitis 07:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this idea. Trying to categorize the insect orders cladistically, which is what the neoptera, etc. classification is doing, is too messy--there are too many levels of classification and it is too hard to find what one is looking for, or to browse through the different orders. Keeping the classication flat--just dividing into the traditional orders, with no branching--is basically what BugGuide does with the many orders of winged insects. One can reference a separate article on insect taxonomy/evolution to discuss the higher-level groupings. --Cotinis 11:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sounds like a good idea to me. Should we remove the category Neoptera (and subcategories Endopterygota and Exopterygota) and just have the insect orders in the Category:Insects then? Should we propose this on the talk pages for those categories before going ahead and removing them? Also, I'm not sure how to remove a category, so if someone could do it or tell me how to that would be great. Have a nice day! IronChris | (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

As a response to a comment to me from User:AshLin, and at the risk of stirring things up, I've been brooding on the use of "Categories" ever since I joined up, so pardon me while I vent. I have noticed - and been pretty baffled by - the inconsistent and illogical use of categories thoughout the insect pages (not just the Hymenoptera). As I've mentioned to others who've chatted with me, my primary concern and desire to contribute to Wikipedia relates to the quality and accuracy of page content, including the taxoboxes - adjuncts such as Categories are secondary, and, for the most part, I've left them unchanged on pages I've edited unless they were genuinely inappropriate (I've tried to be a bit more selective about pages I've created myself, and only included taxonomy-based categories because it seemed like the way things were done). But given that nearly all the pages have taxoboxes, it looks like the whole use of categories to reflect the taxonomic hierarchy is largely redundant anyway. After all, if it were done so each order had its own category, and their subcategories were each suborders, and their subcategories were each superfamilies, each of which had subcategories which were families, etc., then it would be nearly identical to the use of the taxoboxes - every page with 15 taxobox ranks would eventually have the same 15 rank names listed as categories. Doesn't having two parallel, redundant systems seem like a waste of everyone's energy? Realistically, the primary difference between them is that the "category" feature allows you to see ALL the individual pages in that category, while (for some reason unknown to me, but evidently a quirk of the search algorithm in Wikipedia), you cannot do a "SEARCH" on a rank name in a taxobox and get every page that displays that rank. Just try the rank name "Apoidea", for instance: there should be many, many pages, but only 14 appear - it doesn't even include all of the pages which are in the Category:Apoidea group! To me, that alone suggests that this is a deeper, more fundamental problem in the way Wikipedia's interface operates. It shouldn't be necessary to turn every rank in the entire hierarchy of life into a Category simply to ensure that people can find every page that corresponds to a given named rank. That *should* be something that the use of taxoboxes accomplishes, and that it does not is - at least for now - beyond our control.

If I had to make a suggestion as to the most efficient way to fix the problem, I'd say there are two options, but either would have to go way up the Wikipedia administrative chain:

• That the way a taxobox functions could be reworked so they act more like the Category function!! In other words, entry of a name, such as "superfamilia = Apoidea" into a taxobox rank should automatically create a "Category:Superfamilia:Apoidea" page which displays on it every page which has a taxobox that includes "superfamilia = Apoidea". That at least would save everyone the effort of manually creating a "Category:Apoidea" and manually entering that string into dozens and dozens of pages so they will show up on the corresponding Category page.
• Alternatively, add a new button to the SEARCH window or toolbox that limits the search string to finding matches EXCLUSIVELY in taxoboxes; and make sure, obviously, that it actually does retrieve every page on which the search string appears.

The only real trick I see in implementing either of the preceding options is whether the "subcategory" feature can be included (and hopefully automated) somehow. After all, there are many pages whose taxoboxes have an abbreviated list of ranks - but just because the page for the house fly doesn't include the rank "zoosubdivisio = Schizophora" on it should NOT exclude it from showing up in the listing when someone asks "What are the pages in Category:Zoosubdivisio:Schizophora"? I suspect there must be a workaround for this.

At any rate, this is a huge digression. Assuming for the moment that we're stuck with the existing system, I'd argue that the use of categories would best be restricted (obviously a judgment call) to cases where there are a large (but not unmanageable) number of pages whose commonality is NOT evident in the taxoboxes; a category like "pollinators" is good - a category like "Apocrita" is not. However, a category like "ants" or "bees" probably is okay, because (1) it's a colloquial and familiar name with relatively limited dimensions (as opposed to "flies" or "beetles", which are potentially ENORMOUS categories) and (2) right now, you CAN'T do a search for the family name Formicidae and find all the actual ant pages, even though the two should be synonymous (even if the search algorithm worked at 100% efficiency, there would still be other pages dealing with non-ants that have the name "Formicidae" on them - "false positives", in essence). Maybe, at the VERY least, something could be done about the search algorithm issue, and the better it can be made to work, the less we'd need to rely on categories as opposed to taxoboxes.

Peace, all, Dyanega 18:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Mirrors my feeling that taxobox entries should be used for automated categorization. In general the system should be used to prevent editors from adding inconsistent information. If wikispecies is the central repository for species naming and classification, it would be even better for something like transclusion to save everyone the burden of entering taxoboxes. Shyamal 10:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I sympathise with the sentiment, but I don't think taxoboxes and categories are at all related, and nor should they be.

Dyanega says (above): "it would be nearly identical to the use of the taxoboxes - every page with 15 taxobox ranks would eventually have the same 15 rank names listed as categories". This is not so; articles should not be included in both categories and children of those categories (with a few exceptions), so this doesn't apply. Having listed an article in Category:Formica, it should on no account be listed in every other category all the way up to Category:Life.

Furthermore, the automatic system mooted above would be imperfect ,since it is not always useful to have all ranks listed in every taxobox. It is generally agreed that the minor ranks are distracting in a taxobox when they are not directly relevant (like a subkingdom in an article about a family).

Having dozens of tiny categories for each taxon, only contain a few taxa at the next rank, is also not helpful. If someone is reading about an ant, and wants to find out about other ants, then having to go through every step in the hierarchy (tribe, subfamily, etc.), all in scientific jargon (which is how it appears to the unititiated), would be really offputting. It's much better to have a more general Category:Ants. If they want to work through the hierarchy, they can use the taxoboxes. The category system is ill-suited to preserving the dichotomous branching pattern of all life, but works well at grouping together similar entities, with "similar" defined in any way you might want.

Category:Insects is now divided into categories for the orders (and not the in-betweeny ranks). I would suggest something similar for Hymenoptera, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to do it myself. While Wikipedia needs to be scientific, accurate and up-to-date, it is still aimed at a non-scientific (or not necessarily scientific) audience, and we should not forget that. --Stemonitis 14:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

My comment about having 15 ranks and 15 categories was based on the first comment under this "Categories" heading, which sounded like an attempt to mirror the taxobox hierarchy using categories. If we agree that this is a bad idea, then my primary question still remains: what can we do so a user can find all the pages that refer to a certain taxonomic group they are interested in, given that (1) the default Search misses many of them and (2) that most taxoboxes skip ranks, some of which might be the ranks a user is searching for? Having a category for each order would be helpful, but definitely not represent a true solution.Dyanega 16:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Taxobox was primarily intended to present taxonomic information and hyperlinking. The function of gathering and listing together articles on a particular subject is not the job of taxobox articles, but that of categories. As an analogy, if used for this purpose, the taxobox would show a path but not a overview of the landscape which the category could do. This job of gathering and listing articles a category does and does it well no matter whether you have one article or many. It instantly reflects change too. So it helps us even in taxonomy related groupings. How?

Take the example of Hawkmoths, there is no complete and reliable wikilist on world species of hawkmoths available. Even if there are, it would consist of hundreds of red links. Now, a category very concisely shows what articles exist on the subject of the category. Whether 'Hawk-moths' is better or 'Sphingidae' is better as a category name is a different question altogether. So guys, a single word/phrase using automated data structure in Wikipedia exists, called category. Don't try to replace its purpose using a large, complex man-made structure, namely the taxobox, which has to be laboriously created for each article. Let the taxobox do its job of explaining taxonomy and providing value-addition in the form of hyper-linking.

My original point is that half the subject articles of Hymenoptera are distributed among categories as per one way of classification, and other half as per another system of categorisation. Hymenopteran articles are categorised in two different ways - as Apocrita (with subcategories Apoidea and Vespoidea) and Aculeate Hymenoptera ( with subcategories Ants and Bees ).All the articles should be divided as per one system only, no matter which one. I dont have the information, experience or wisdom to say authoritatively what is more appropriate for the Hymenoptera. I dont question the tool, except that it appears to have been incorrectly applied in the collective form with regard to Hymenoptera. This is due to the fact that deciding a category is usually done simpistically and arbitrarily by most writers, including myself, tired from writing the full article. They usually base it on a keyword or most-likely guess, rather than perusing the category heirarchy and making a detailed, informed decision with due diligence. This results in a mess in the categories which needs someone to come and clean up after. That, was the original point which still goes unanswered. AshLin 18:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As mentionned above, categories, lists and taxoboxes have different purposes (Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes). A category aims at creating lists of existing articles and grouping them together so that they are easier to find and navigate between. Accurate taxonomy is not required, as it is provided in each article, particularly in the taxoboxes. Categories do not follow a simple dichotomous structure, and several categorisation structures can cohabit. For this reason, you may have two ways of classifying Hymenoptera, and there is no problem with that (unless one system is outdated, for example). A bee can be in category "bees" and "Apoidea"; if both classification systems are valid that's totally OK.

I tend to agree with Stemonitis on the use of taxoboxes: giving detailled taxonomy is confusing and not all that useful since the information is available on another page (usually the page for the next taxonomic level above). Taxoboxes are a summary of taxonomy, and therefore their role is distinct from that of categories.

Then of course there are lists, which are more or less similar to categories except that they include links to non-existant articles. Each system has its benefits and drawbacks, and that's why we need each one. The WikiProject Tree of Life has pondered over the use of categories a lot, and if we can't answer these questions among ourselves I'm sure that they will have some answers. Cheers, IronChris | (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Arthropod leg

We currently have five separate articles for five different parts of the arthropod leg (Arthropod coxa, Arthropod femur, Arthropod tarsus, Arthropod tibia, Arthropod trochanter). Would anybody object to these articles all being merged into a single article, probably Arthropod leg? I would also like to know how widespread these terms are, taxonomically: are they used of arachnids, centipedes, millipedes, trilobites, etc.? I know that the terminology for crustaceans is different (coxa, basis, ischium, merus, carpus, propodus, dactylus), but I don't know about other groups, and I don't know what the homologies are between groups. --Stemonitis 07:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me - think we should put both insecta and crustacea nomenclature in the one article as it will be called Arthropod leg. Arachnids, i believe use the same terminology, but i think centipedes/millipedes use different as locomotory appendages on these are often referred to as podia (c.f. - larval podia in lepidoptera which normally have no significant segmental distinction). will check this out some more Goldfinger820 21:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree also, sounds like a good idea. I'd personally prefer the title Arthropod appendage over Arthropod leg however. It sounds more biological, and it's a more widespread term for invertebrates (see appendage). All arthropod appendages are variations of the same theme, so this would seem appropriate anyway.

Goldfinger820, myriapod appendages are homologous to those of other arthropods (they are uniramous, as are those of insects). In fact, arthropod appendages are all homologous (despite the different terms used for them), and even are a defining characteristic for the phylum (from the arthropod article : "Arthropods are characterised by the possession of a segmented body with appendages on each segment").

Under the title arthropod appendage, we would need to mention also the antennae, mouthparts, and various other arthropod appendages. Maybe this would make the article too long. I have noticed however, that there is nothing on Wikipedia about arthropod mouthparts! It's a scandal! ;) Something will have to be done about this eventually, be it in this article or in another one.

I'd gladly do this myself, but I have a lot of work at the moment (final exams, etc.). Regards, IronChris | (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Your right - they are all homologous, but I was just unsure of the terms used for each subphyla other than hexapods.

can see your point re: appendage vs. leg - article would be very long however....create subarticles for each appendage (leg, wings, mouthparts, antennae)?? Goldfinger820 04:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that would be the way to go about it. There is enough to write about each type of appendage to make an article (what with comparing the different adaptations, taxa, etc.), and as the appendage article exists, it could be used to link them all together. IronChris | (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Appendage (which already exists) can be used to point to arthropod leg, insect wing, and so on, which can then deal with the details of each type of appendage. I have placed a table of apparent homologies at Talk:Arthropod leg for comments and corrections. Once that's sorted, the article should almost write itself. Please check it out. --Stemonitis 07:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Insect wing

I have started an article for the wing on one of my subpages. Please check it out : User:IronChris/Insect wing. It'll be ready for release soon, and I will move it to its permanent location. I wasn't very sure about a number of things, among which were:

• the structure of the article (headings, etc.)
• the language used (coleoptera, diptera vs. beetles, flies, or exoskeleton vs. body wall for example),

so if you have time I'd be greatful for a little check up. I'll post again once it's finished. IronChris | (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the page to insect wing. There's still a lot that can be added though! IronChris | (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Unidentified arthropod

unidentified insect larva

I found this photo on the Wikimedia commons. Does anyone have an idea what it is? I'd propose a beetle larva, but I can't be more precise. If you have any pictures of unidentified arthropods you can post them here in the hope that someone can help! IronChris | (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I would also guess at a beetle larva. My best guess would be Dermestes, a cosmopolitan household commensal. --Stemonitis 12:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Biology barnstar

For those who aren't keeping a close eye on the biology portal, there has been a proposition for a biology barnstar. A vote is currently taking place at Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals#Nature-related_Barnstar to see if it gets much support. If you have an opinion, please consider dropping a note there. I personnaly think that it would be a good idea, the only barnstar there is at the moment for all of science is the The E=MC² Barnstar. Cheers! IronChris | (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Quote suggestions

Nice quote you posted on the page. think it really sums up the arthropod positions. Here's another for you although a little insect biased i'm afraid  :) In an apocryphal story, a colleague once turned to the great British geneticist J. B. S. Haldane, and said, "Tell me, Mr. Haldane, knowing what you do about nature, what can you tell me about God?" Haldane thought for a while and replied, "He has an inordinate fondness for beetles." Goldfinger820 23:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice one! Maybe we could open a quotes section (or subpage, the main page is getting a bit long)... Or just post them here, on the talk page. IronChris | (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Taxonomic confusion in the Neuroptera

My attention has been drawn to the Neuroptera article and various related taxa. There seems to be some confusion between the Neuroptera, Megaloptera and Raphidioptera in the taxonomic levels; this is the classification given by each article :

• Neuroptera : superorder = Endopterygota , order = Neuroptera , suborders = Megaloptera + Raphidioptera
• Megaloptera : superorder = Endopterygota , order = Megaloptera
• Raphidioptera : superorder = Neuroptera , order = Raphidioptera

I think that we should settle for one classification so that the articles are consistant, we can include controversy and alternative classifications in the text. In the French Wikipedia, Neuroptera, Megaloptera and Raphidiotera are separate orders. We have to decide which classification we want in the taxoboxes. I am in favour of having the Megaloptera and Raphidiotera as suborders of the Neuroptera (as in the Neuroptera article) or separating them into 3 orders. What do you think? IronChris | (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

sounds good - there has always been abit of a grey area around this. your suggestion sounds logical though. insects from these orders are really incredible...... Goldfinger820 23:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The insect article puts them in 3 different orders... I wonder if that should be changed; it's just an overview, mainly for non-specialists, so maybe it's clearer without introducing the subtilities of suborders and various taxonomical debates. What do you think? IronChris | (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I made the modifications on the Raphidioptera, Megaloptera and Sialidae articles. New family articles should show the same classification. IronChris | (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Alas, all the neuropterists I've talked to recognize the three-order system; the traditional one-order system is almost entirely phased out except in the college textbooks and such. I've redone all the Neuroptera pages, including the addition of all the missing families, and the present superfamily organization. Dyanega 23:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Megaloptera is recognised as a separate order in all modern literature that I have read. In both Merritt and Cummins 1996 and Hilsenhoff 1995, the neuroptera and megaloptera are presented as separate orders. I think a change in the taxonomy in these articles would be appropriate. ---BMW, Minor Copy-Edit 16:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to add that Wikispecies lists Neuroptera, Raphidioptera, and Megaloptera as three separate orders under Subdivision Endopterygota.

Don't know why Megaloptera was still listed as a suborder - just changed that. Hopefully no one will change it back. Dyanega 20:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Taxonomic ranks detail in the taxoboxes

How much detail do you think should we give in the taxoboxes? For example, the Neuroptera article just has (kingdom-phylum-)class-superorder-order, whereas the Coleoptera article also has subclass and infraclass. Do you think that we should give the maximum detail in each taxobox, or rather promote clarity and just show the basics?

I personally think that we should give as much detail as possible in the taxobox; after all that's what a taxobox is for. IronChris | (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Taxoboxes should include all major ranks above the taxon described in the article, plus minor ranks that are important to understanding the classification of the taxon described in the article, or which are discussed in the article. Other minor ranks should be omitted. - WP:TOL

I agree that putting in every rank really isn't helpful. The fact that Coleoptera belongs in the Endopterygota is relevant to the Coleoptera article, but not, for instance, to Coccinella septempunctata (from which a reader could always click on "Coleoptera" to find out about the relationships of the whole order). In general, I would only include the intermediate ranks where they are adjacent to the rank of the subject of the article, or where they are so well known that their ommission would be confusing (one user asked somewhere why "Crustacea" wasn't listed in a taxobox, since the animal was described as being a crustacean; I tend therefore to leave Crustacea in, in addition to Malacostraca and Arthropoda, even though it's only a subphylum). --Stemonitis 06:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Leaf insect species Id

Leaf insect from the Western Ghats.

Wonder if someone can identify this further ? Shyamal 12:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That's the genus Phyllium, in Phylliidae. Don't know which species, though.Dyanega 17:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created a page for this family, using this photo. Dyanega 17:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Pictures of both larvae and instars for holometabolous species

I'm more a user of this project than a participant, but I'd really like to see more photographs of caterpillars and other larvae posted along with the usual photographs of instars. --arkuat (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Merostomata and Xiphosura

Dear all: I feel uncomfortable about the Xiphosura entry being only a redirect to Limulidae, a bold decision recently taken by one of us. After all, it is a whole class of Chelicerata, very useful for understanding the phylogeny of the group. Should we just ignore the fossil groups? Maybe we could create again a complete (non-redirect) page emphasizing that most members are extinct and containing a link to the Limulidae. Usage of Merostomata, although still present in textbooks, has been discontinued since the 1980s, when it was demonstrated its non-monophyly (e.g. Boudreaux, 1979; Weygoldt, 1986). I strongly advise for the replacement of Merostomata (make it a redirect) by the correct Xiphosura + Eurypterida (and even Chasmataspida?) classes and for the reinstallment of a full Xiphosura entry. Let me know what you think. Cheers. Vae victis 11:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the taxonomy of these creatures (what are we supposed to call them now that the term Merostomata has been disproved?), but I agree with your proposition. Fossil records should not be overlooked. We should keep the Merostomata article (not redirect it) but make it clear that the term is no longer used and give links to the new classification (Xiphosura and Eurypterida). IronChris | (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject Lepidoptera

After initial reluctance, much thought and weighing the pros and cons, we (Shyamal, Viren and AshLin) have decided to undertake WikiProject Lepidoptera as a daughter project of WikiProject Arthropods. Since it doesn't make much sense to restrict the new WikiProject to our regional context (ie Indian butterflies) or to Papilionoidea exclusively (and exclude, as an artificial division, the rest of Lepidoptera, which is a much larger canvas), we have decided that 'in for a pound, in for a penny'! Or is it the other way round? (quizzically).

Thanks IronChris for mooting the idea six weeks ago, an eternity in Wikitime! May you never rust! We shall now begin our work towards this end. Suggestions are ecstasically welcomed. Support and participation is worth a lifelong debt, would you say? AshLin 18:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Tiger Beetle needing id

This was a large one from Bangalore in south India, a little more than an inch. Should probably be identifiable with David L. Pearson's work on Indian Cicindelidae. Unfortunately I have no access to that work :( Shyamal 03:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Cicindela aurofasciata

Cicindela aurofasciata Shyamal 04:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Other beetle ID

Coccinellidae?

Could someone tell me if this beetle is a Coccinellidae? I looks like it (overall shape) but lacks the spots... IronChris | (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the genus Calligrapha, in the Chrysomelinae. Very closely related to the type genus, Chrysomela. I'll bet you found it on some Solanaceous plant, right? Dyanega 16:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks a lot. Actually, it was on a wooden post, not a plant, unfortunately. IronChris | (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Procambarus clarkii

The article Procambarus clarkii (the red swamp crawfish) could really do with a photograph. Does anyone have one we could use, or know where we could get one? --Stemonitis 08:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone wanna tackle mouthparts?

Hi, all. In the process of editing or making new insect pages, a common stumbling block I encounter is mouthpart terms. Right now, terms like "maxilla", "mandible" and "labium" all have pages for the vertebrate structures, but nothing for arthropods. Even "palpus" redirects to "pedipalp", which is inappropriate for insects. This looks like the most significant problem in arthropod anatomy at the moment. Does anyone feel up to this? Dyanega 17:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is a serious lack in arthropod-related articles. I would love to help, but unfortunately I won't be able to tackle something so vast before the month of August at the earliest. Good luck to anyone who decides to work on it! IronChris | (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've gone and made a start. Someone had to. It's probably wrong in many ways, and we all know there's a lot of stuff missing. But it's a start. Join in the fun: edit "mouthparts". --Stemonitis 16:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

A colour-changing beetle

Yesterday (13 Jun 06), at around 0830 hrs, at a dolomite mine near Chacha village, 20 odd kms from Pokaran on the Jodhpur-Jaisalmer road, my son Aashay saw a beetle scurrying very quickly on the ground. The beetle was white with part black markings. We chased it trying to catch the dodging creature. It was so active that it escaped from our scooped hands many times. We took a number of shots. Over the course of our encounter, to our amazement it gradually turned black with a very thin white edging only. The local people told us that it would recover to the first pattern after 15 minutes or so. Need identification and details of the beetle's natural history and taxonomy please. Regards, AshLin 08:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Immediately after we encountered the beetle it began turning black. Double-click on the image for a better view.

Now it has almost turned completely black.Double-click on the image for a better view.

The dolomite quarry where we found the beetle.

It's a Tenebrionid, but I can't be certain of the subfamily. From what I can see in the photos, the white "markings" are, like in many desert Tenebs, not markings, but fine cuticular wax deposits. I'd never heard of the beetle being able to change the amount of wax on it, so I have a better explanation, based on what one can observe; the wax layer is hygroscopic (absorbs moisture), and when it does so, it loses its reflectivity. Holding the beetle in your hand will greatly increase the humidity in the airspace near the beetle. This makes some sense as a desert adaptation; when humidity is low, the beetle reflects more sunlight, and when humidity is high, it reflects less. I've just never heard of the phenomenon, and can't confirm it myself. What you need to do is catch one, kill it, and experiment. If it's that sensitive, even breathing on it should have a noticeable effect. If it can be confirmed, it might even be something to publish, assuming no one has documented it before.

P.S. As for WikiProject Insecta, I guess I don't see how splitting off from the Arthropods project will help either resulting group. It doesn't look like we need it, at this point. Peace, Dyanega 17:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hymenoptera categorisation

It's been discussed before, but now I'd like to do something about it: Category:Hymenoptera. Categorisation is there to help the user, not to mirror the phylogenetic tree (that would be for Wikispecies), so I would suggest the following subcategories:

• Category:Ants for Formicidae,
• Category:Bees for Apiformes,
• Category:Wasps for Vespidae,

and have the few remaining articles just floating about in Category:Hymenoptera until we find we've got too many. Any comments? --Stemonitis 10:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As you'll note from a much earlier message along these lines, I also find it confusing as to whether the existing categories are simply trying to reflect the phylogeny. Again, the only reason I think it may be worth sticking with the status quo is that the Wiki search engine does NOT find every page that refers to a given taxon level, so if - for example - I actually want to know what all the pages are for Apocrita, a search on "Apocrita" won't do it, even if it appears in every one of the taxoboxes... but having a category Apocrita does. So, the first question is "What's our goal?" - and we should go from there. As for making a category "Wasps", it would certainly be a lot more than just Vespidae. The term is used for all non-ant, non-bee, non-Symphytans. In that sense, we could effectively eliminate the "Hymenoptera" category altogether and just have four categories: sawflies, wasps, bees, and ants. Is that what we want? Dyanega 16:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If it's acceptable to specialists, and it works for the laity, then yes, that's what we want. I'm not sure I'd have expected "ichneumon flies" to be under Category:Wasps, but maybe that's just my own misunderstanding. We can always put a short explanation on the category page. I'll wait a bit before doing anything, but your four-category scheme sounds good to me. Category:Hymenoptera would stil exist, but would only contain the subcategories, and perhaps the four articles bee, ant, sawfly and wasp). On the searching issue, if the taxoboxes do all include Apocrita, then you can use the "What links here" link to find them all (and a bunch of other articles that mention Apocrita). It's not ideal, but it is a possibility. --Stemonitis 06:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

cephalocarids and their relationship to trilobites

I noticed the trilobite page links to cephalocarids, saying that cephalocarids may be the closest living relative of trilobites. Maybe we could include some information on why scientists think they are related?

Also, I wanted to say thanks for all the hard work, you are all doing a great job on the Arthropod project. I am consistently impressed by the quality of Wikipedia. Gary 05:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Damminix

Could someone look at the article about the anti-tick product Damminix? I'm sceptical about some things, such as the "technological review". Does this really follow Wikipedia guidelines? Thanks. IronChris | (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Unidentified bug on milkweed

Maybe someone here can help me identify this enigma. I took this picture in my backyard in Sarasota, Florida. I have two more views which I can upload if they're helpful. Any help is greatly appreciated! --Starwiz 13:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. It looks like it is probably Lygaeidae. I don't know much about American species but I'll have a quick look at some images to try to find a match. Richard Barlow 11:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I found this picture of Oncopeltus fasciatus (known as the Large Milkweed Bug - could be significant!). I'm pretty sure this is your guy. Richard Barlow 13:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oncopeltus fasciatus it is, then. It looks a lot like a Small Milkweed Bug, but its markings match up with the large one. It strikes me as strange that those two are in different genera, but what do I know? Thanks for the help. --Starwiz 13:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Improvement drive

How about an improvement drive? I nominate centipede, as it is poor by scientific terms - Jack (talk) 03:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

top quote

hi, i changed the format of the quote on the Main page; the reason was that the line break was all messed up with opera 9. it's the same with firefox, i guess it's got something to do with font scaling. however, the box looked like i'm not the first one messing with the format ;) so, if you tell me what the trouble was with the formatting, maybe we can find a solution that fits all browser brands. cheers --Sarefo 22:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Butterfly picture

I have been requested to identify this picture from Commons, taken in Germany. I don't think it is a European species at all so I assume it is a captive specimen (I am checking this with the photographer). In the meantime does anyone here recognize it? Thanks Richard Barlow 09:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The picture has been identified, the image name changed and added to the gallery at Parthenos sylvia. Richard Barlow 07:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

A Scarabeid ?

Quite a spectacular looking species from the Western Ghats.

Scarabeid ?

And this I believe is a Brentid weevil

Brentidae ? Orychodes indus Karsch, 1875

Shyamal 11:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The one is indeed a Brentid, the other is a male of the cetoniine scarabaeid, Narycius opalus. Dyanega 23:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Insect/Butterfly photos

Hi, I have quite a few (super-)macro photos of assorted anthropods I took sitting on my computer, which I would love to see put to good use. The only problem is I haven't really got a clue what any of them are. Is there anyone prepared to indentify them? If I post them on commons without anything linking to them and with only a vague description will they be deleted straight away? Thanks, --cfp 03:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Load them in WM commons with an appropriate message regarding their pending id and then place them in a gallery on a user page in WP. Place a message on WikiProject Arthropoda/Lepidoptera talk and mention the link so that they can be found. Regards, AshLin 04:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Unidentifed insects

Great thanks for the pointer. Here are the three unidentified anthropods: User:Cfp\Unidentified Insects. Any IDs would be much appreciated. Thanks, --cfp 00:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. The red beetle in the first six pics is a soldier beetle, probably Rhagonycha fulva although there are some Cantharis spp which are similar in colour. I'm pretty confident the spider is Pisaura mirabilis. The shiny beetle is a leaf beetle, I would guess the genus is Chrysomela or Gastrophysa but I don't recognize the species. I'll have a scan through some images to try to get a match as it is very distinctive. Richard Barlow 09:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Chrysolina is a possible for the leaf beetle also...or maybe something else entirely! Richard Barlow 09:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, nice work, WP never ceases to amaze me.

I found this on google about Rhagonycha fulva: "Rhagonycha fulva is very similar to some larger Cantharis livida. Length of Rhagonycha fulva is 7–10 mm, one of Cantharis livida is 10–15 mm. Antennae of Rhagonycha fulva are black (except for the first segment), ones of Cantharis livida are red-yellow. End of shard is dark at Rhagonycha fulva. Cantharis livida is painted uniformly.", which suggests it wasn't a Cantharis as it was tiny, I'd say 7mm at the most, and it has the black tips to its wing cases, so I'll update the gallery, commons and WP with this info.

Are you sure the spider isn't either P. novicia or P. orientalis? According to the WP Pisaura entry mirabilis is confined to northern europe, and this was taken in the Julian Alps, Slovenia, which are fairly close to the mediteranean cost. Mirabilis looks rather more substantial than this one does, though I guess it could just be underfed.

Good luck (and thanks) with the beetle!

Does anyone have any ideas about the ant? I'm guessing it's a wood ant but I don't really know what I'm talking about.

--cfp 11:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I thought the pictures had been taken in the UK. I shall refocus my search. You are probably right about the spider but the possibilities for the beetles have suddenly increased severalfold! Same goes for the wood ants - I assumed it was Formica rufa but Fauna Europaea lists 19 Formica species for Slovenia and I'm not sure how similar they all are. Btw I am looking at your Lepidoptera images at the moment - I think I'm having a bit more joy with them but I'll let you know on the Lepidoptera project page. Richard Barlow 11:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've just been checking Fauna Europaea again - it lists P. mirabilis as the only Pisaura spider recorded for Slovenia (this doesn't mean it is this species but its a good pointer - I'm confident the genus is right) - it seems to be a pan-Palaearctic species rather than being confined to northern Europe. Richard Barlow 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahh sorry I should have been clearer originally. Slovenia has quite a diverse range of habitats, from alpine to wetland to mediterranean/coastal. These were all (apart from the soldier beetle) taken within the alps, in summer, near Kranjska Gora. I have two other photos of the spider if they would help (they're taken from further away though). If your book lists it as the only Pisaura in Slovenia though then it seems fairly likely at least that's what it is. Thanks for all your help. --cfp 16:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

FE is a website - check it out at [1]. I find it very useful. Richard Barlow 07:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a bee to that page that I forgot to put on it before. It's probably just a bumble bee but I would rather be told that than just put it there. --cfp 10:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep "just a bumble bee". 30 (count 'em!) Bombus species have been recorded in Slovenia and I can guarantee lots of them look a lot like this: I can't be more specific. Btw the flower looks like a Scabiosa to me but I'm not a great plant expert. Richard Barlow 11:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there a community of people prepared to identify flowers/plants somewhere, cos I have about 100 plant and flower photos sitting on my PC ready to be uploaded. WikiProject:Plants seems pretty dead. --cfp 19:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in answering - I've been moving house and not been able to get on web. For plant queries your best bet is probably User:MPF who I always find very helpful. Richard Barlow 09:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Cricket

Were you aware that cricket links to the sport, not to the insect or a disambiguation? Am I the only one who thinks that's crazy? --Aranae 08:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm English so it perhaps seems not quite so crazy to me :) I agree a disambig page might be preferable but the dablink does the job as well. Richard Barlow 10:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Help: An "Island of Fleas"?

I thought I'd post here, because interested insect folk might read it. I've worked some on the Isle of Bute article, a place in Scotland. Someone has contributed a section to the article labeling the island as the "Island of Fleas" in entomological circles, known for having many different species. I am somewhat dubious of this, having found no such references. Anyone familiar with this? Anyone who can go to Isle of Bute#Entomology and have a look, I would much appreciate the perspective. Isoxyl 15:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the query. 59 species of flea have been recorded in the British Isles and I wouldn't imagine a count of 15 for an island the size of Bute is particularly exceptional. Fleas are universal commensals of wild mammals and birds and if Mr Lawson's sterling work were repeated elsewhere, similar species counts would probably be encountered. For this reason I find the notion that loads of entomologists refer to Bute as the "island of fleas" as rather questionable - if a citation is not forthcoming I would remove this reference although I think the list itself is rather interesting (although I would never object to a list of arthropods in absolutely any article so I am not speaking from a neutral perspective!). I will try to clean it up a bit and add a bit more info when I have the time. Richard Barlow 14:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Myrmecophilus photo

Can someone back me up in thinking the photo on the Myrmecophilus page is not a myrmecophilid at all but some kind of grasshopper (not one I recognize I have to admit). Does anyone have any idea where the pic might be better used? Richard Barlow 12:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• That photo is a katydid, and should be removed from the Myremecophilus page.Dyanega 21:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

More ID

Hi everyone; I would be very grateful for some help in identifying a few insects:

• 
  Diptera
• 
  Tabanidae
• 
  Ichneumonidae
• 
  Pentatomidae nymph
• 
  Tachinidae?

All pictures were taken in France. Thanks, IronChris | (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think your insect knowledge matches mine pretty closely. The first one kind of feels like Asilidae 'cos its really bristly. The second is Tabanidae for sure but I don't recognize the species. The third certainly looks like Ichneumonidae but nothing like I've seen. The fourth is almost certainly Pentatomidae, Eurydema oleracea is my guess. I reckon the fifth may be Muscidae rather than Tachinidae but a specific ID may be beyond me. Richard Barlow 23:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The last one is definitely a tachinid; the first one is not an Asilid, but some sort of Muscoid - imposible to tell for certain from the photo, however. Dyanega 16:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Vespid

Vespidae redirects to Vespid contrary to most other family pages. Perhaps some administrator could move it so that Vespid redirects to Vespidae and the history is retained ? Shyamal 12:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

ID

Image:Bombardier_blr.jpg Is some kind of bombardier beetle from India. Any further id ? Shyamal 13:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

need help

last august i was on vacations on paris and i took some pictures on the natural history museum. yet i do not find the right article for these, maybe you know better where they belong:

• 
• 
• 

in any case thankyou -LadyofHats 10:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Shrimp diagram request for comment

This is a rough draft of an anatomical diagram of a shrimp. I am looking for feedback on accuracy. I would like suggestions and criticism. What should I do to improve it, is there anything I should change, did I make any mistakes? I was planning on adding a little more detail such as hairlines along some of the limbs and tail, and perhaps add color/shading/detail. Of course, I would also add lables as well. So comments would be appreciated. Thanks for your consideration. Please leave comments at Image talk:Shrimp.svg.--Andrew c 17:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

help on species name

I took this ptotos in Turkey this year, tr:Image:Resim8.jpg and tr:Image:Resim8.jpg, but don't know their species name. Can anyone help on this? Thanks --Ugur Basak 11:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow! That is a corker:) It is definitely Tettigoniidae, a male by the lack of ovipositor. I would guess at Ephippiger sp but I'm not too sure. I'll have a dig - I can't beleive such a distinctive insect doesn't have some images on the web somewhere. Richard Barlow 12:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Those images are low-res but i've high-res of them. I've only those 2 shots:( Thanks for the info, i'll upload their high-res to commons with species name. Just an info from amateur. I've take them in holiday in my village. According to elders, those species are new to region. But their numbers are so much, and enought to annoy while walking:) They couldn't jump good enough as grasshoppers. --Ugur Basak 12:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• I guess this photo (tr:Image:Resim14.jpg) belongs to here. Again from same region. --Ugur Basak 13:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. Can you tell me what part of Turkey this is - I get the impression the country has a lot of endemic bush-crickets and this may help with specific id. As for the crab - not really my territory I'm afraid! Richard Barlow 14:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this may well be a freshwater crab of the genus Potamon; they are quite often observed out of water. P. potamios occurs in parts of Turkey [2], but so may other species (cf. Image:Suesswasserkrebs Kreta.jpg). --Stemonitis 14:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I take both photos in a village of Eflani, north of Turkey. I found the crab just near a river, after rain. Thanks for your helps. --Ugur Basak 14:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I found a list about north Turkey's fauna, and only Potamon is Potamon tauricum. I only find this pic [3]. --Ugur Basak 15:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think your site must be wrong. I don't know how many species of Potamon there are in Turkey, but it must be at least three. P. potamios occurs there (see link above), as does P. tauricum (your link), but also P. ibericum (don't be fooled by the name; Sebastian Klausa, Christoph D. Schubart, Dirk Brandis (2006). "Phylogeny, biogeography and a new taxonomy for the Gecarcinucoidea Rathbun, 1904 (Decapoda: Brachyura)". Organisms, Diversity & Evolution. 6 (3): 199–217. doi:10.1016/j.ode.2005.09.006. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |quotes= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

To judge by this paper ([4]), which I don't understand, P. tauricum may be / have been a subspecies of P. ibericum, and P. potamios is only found in the south of Turkey, so perhaps you're right. --Stemonitis 15:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have much information about this subject, i found it in a fauna of North Turkey Karadeniz Region list. In above pdf link, i guess it's named as P. ibericum. tauricum but a take the photo in northern part --Ugur Basak 15:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Brand new grading scheme

Hello all,

I have finally created a grading scheme to classify all the arthropod articles using the template {{ArthropodTalk}}. For information on how to use the grading scheme, please refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods/Article Classification. I think everything you should need can be found there. I copied it from the system used by WikiProject Spiders. It isn't perfect yet, but functional enough to allow grading of quality and importance. In particular, there is a bot (MathBot) that reviews all articles with a talk page template that offers a grading system, but I'm not sure how to apply this to our WikiProject, or if it's automatic.

Articles needing assessment can be found here.

I believe that this sytem will enable us to get a better overview of the articles covered by this WikiProject, and to target the articles that need improvement. If you encounter any problems, have comments or need any information please contact me. IronChris | (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wildlife Barnstar

There is currently a barnstar proposal at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals#Wildlife Barnstar for a barnstar which would be available for use for this project. Please feel free to visit the page and make any comments you see fit. Badbilltucker 15:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

About this WikiProject

I have been making a few edits to the main page of WP Arthropods, mainly some formatting (format of the table of contents, removal of unnecessary sections, added background color; please take it off if you think it's horrible and distracting), in the hope of rekindling some of the initial enthusiasm for this project which seems to be dying out slowly. I have also made some more important changes, including the grading scheme mentionned above and moving the style suggestions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods/Style suggestions, even though I haven't yet decided if it's better to delete them from the main page or not.

If you have any input whatsoever, I'd be glad for it. If you haven't already, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods/Article Classification. It tells all there is to know about the grading scheme, and lists the articles that have the template {{ArthropodTalk}} by importance and by quality. See also Category:WikiProject Arthropods articles.

I would also like to bring to the attention of those of you who might not yet have noticed the creation of a new category: Category:Arthropod anatomy. Happy editing! IronChris | (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Insect superordinal categories

A while ago, I replaced the old hierarchical category system for insects (Category:Exopterygota, Category:Endopterygota, Category:Neoptera, Category:Pterygota, Category:Apterygota) with a simpler system of having each order as a category under Category:Insects. At the time, I didn't request deletion for the old categories, although I probably should have. Would anyone object if I list them for deletion now? --Stemonitis 16:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

no worries Goldfinger820 19:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup, no problem. IronChris | (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please let me know!

...if you run across arthropod articles with how-to information related to gardening or agriculture. I'm working on a wikibook that includes this sort of informatioin, so anything that can be gleaned, I'll incorporate.

IOW, don't just remove it, but put the {{how-to}} template on it instead. I'm a wikibooks admin, and can import... if you want to remove that information in a hurry, list the article on b:WB:RFI and it will be imported quickly. `--SB_Johnny|^talk|_books

Participant info

might be a good idea to have a section/table on the WP:ARTH participants page that we can all put our relevant arthropod specialities into. would be a good reference to know who to ask for opinions/help on specific topics. comments?? Goldfinger820 20:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we need a special section for that? Can't participants just add that kind of info after their name? We could add a sentence at the top of the participants section inviting people to add a line or two about their areas of expertise (if any). Or did you have a better idea in mind? IronChris | (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

yep encouraging people to add a line or two after their user name would work just as well. quite useful to know who can help with what. Goldfinger820 19:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Veterinary medicine project

There is now a proposed project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Veterinary Medicine to deal with matters of veterinary medicine, a subject which currently has disproportionately low content in wikipedia. Any wikipedia editors who have an interest in working on content related to the subject are encouraged to indicate as much there. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

About an image I found

Hi guys, i'm kind of a newbie to wikipedia and i wanted to add an image to your article about Cymothoa exigua, the tongue-biting isopod. I've seen it all over the internet, but i know Wikipedia has a very strict image policy. I couldn't find the image owner to be honest. I found the orginal image on http://tolweb.org/Isopoda in case you want to see it. Any suggestions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Birdmaster300 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Each of the images on that page is accompanied by a short text and a copyright statement. I suspect that the copyright statement applies to both the image and the text, making that picture is copyright "© 1989 Matthew Gilligan, Savannah State College, Savannah, GA". It would be wonderful to have an image, but I think we'll have to look elsewhere, unless you can find Matthew Gilligan and he is prepared to release his image under a less restrictive license. --Stemonitis 07:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The same image has, however, been uploaded to Flickr, apparently under the CC Attribution Non-Commercial ShareAlike license, but labelled as "snagged", whatever that means. --Stemonitis 08:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Cannot find a Graphosoma article

Graphosoma lineatum

FYI - I found a nice image on commons, but no article or reference in either stink or shield bug articles - Leonard G. 17:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Subprojects and article assessments

Should pages falling under the lepidoptera wikiproject (or other subprojects) be tagged with the arthropod project banner as well? For example codling moth is listed under both projects, though as lepidoptera is a descendant of this project, perhaps it should simply fall under the one category? Richard001 00:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been wondering this. The talk pages were tagged automatically, so we needn't read too much into that: I don't think anyone told the robot to ignore articles tagged under subprojects. They probably needn't be tagged as such, although the importance of an article to lepidopterists need not match its importance to arthropod generalists (and similarly for spiders). I don't think there's any reason not to remove {{ArthropodTalk}}, where there's already a descendant Wikiproject tag on the page, but I wouldn't go out of my way to remove them. If someone fancies pointing the problem out to a robot or its owner, then that would be fine. --Stemonitis 00:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

New article: Polish cochineal

Hi, I was looking for a "New article announcement" section on your project page, but couldn't find one, so I'm posting this here. I wrote a new article about the Polish cochineal (Porphyrophora polonica). Not being a biologist, I concentrated on its historical economic significance, so please feel free to add something to the Biology section. Thanks Kpalion 03:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the Coccinellidae article correct?

This paragraph seems a bit far fetched. Then again it might be correct as I don't really know anything about Ladybeatles. Could a knowledgeable person from this project please have a look? If it is correct the paragraph should have some sources to give it credibility. John Dalton 22:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct name?

I'm not sure whether Eciton burchellii or Eciton burchelli is the correct name. Historically, E. burchellii was the original one, but Eciton burchelli has also seen widespread use after taxonomists decided that the double i was unnecessary. Recently, though, according to this source, taxonomic rules have become stricter about adhering to the original form.

Please discuss this matter on the article talk page. Thanks! +A.Ou 00:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Confusion in the taxonomy of the Hemiptera

I was reading through the article Reduviidae recently, and several things in the intro made me uncomfortable:

"[the family] includes assassin bugs and wheel bugs (genera include Arilus, Melanolestes, Psellipus, Rasahus, Reduvius, Rhiginia, Sinea, Triatoma, and Zelus), ambush bugs (genera include Apiomerus and Phymata) [...]"

However, if you take a look at the article wheel bug, it only mentions one species baring that name (Arilus cristatus), and doesn't say anything about the other genera mentionned here. I brought this issue up on the talk page of the wheel bug article, but no one responded.

Next, I thought that ambush bugs are their own family, Phymatidae. After reading up on the subject, it seems that some authors include them in the Reduviidae and some put them in a separate, though closely related, family. Which classification is the most up to date?

I would be grateful if someone could clarify the confusion here. IronChris | (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Phymatidae has not been in use for almost a decade now, so that one's easy. There is indeed only a single species of wheel bug. Dyanega 21:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks. IronChris | (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Boll weevil

Could someone re-assess this article? Its importance is rated as "mid", which doesn't seem right from an economic perspective. Also, Boll Weevil Eradication Program was a DYK yesterday, if you think that's appropriate to add to the main page here. Sincerely, Novickas 16:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It was me that assessed that article, so I suppose I should justify it here. For the cotton industry, the boll weevil is tremendously important, but against the backdrop of all arthropods, its importance pales a little. This is a general feature of this project, that there are always going to be a vast number of articles on relatively unimportant taxa, just because of the huge diversity that exists. Only a tiny proportion of the articles on single species have been assessed as being of mid-importance, mostly ones of economic importance, either as food or as pests. Only two species have made it to high-importance, both of huge importance to the development of biology. I'm not saying that the boll weevil couldn't be reclassified, but those were my reasons for rating it "mid". The ratings don't really mean much, anyway; they're designed to let us know if there are any highly-important articles that are severely lacking in quality, which boll weevil is not. --Stemonitis 17:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Got it. However, since you don't feel it's lacking in quality anymore, could we remove the cleanup tag? Thanks, Novickas 17:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not entirely clear to me why that tag was ever added, and after all the improvements over the past day or two, I don't think it is at all appropriate any more. By all means ged rid of it. --Stemonitis 17:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Mononychus

This presently redirects to the dinosaur Mononykus which erroneously was first described in that genus (which is a curculionid weevil). Can someone please whip up a stub for the weevil genus to fix the redirect (+ disambiguation at the stub)? Thanks! (I think the weevil genus has only a few species) Dysmorodrepanis 04:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Mantid/Mantis/Mantidae/Mantodea/Praying Mantis

I think it's time to do a massive re-organization of these pages and the various redirects and such that connect them all. Realistically, Mantid and Praying mantis should both be redirects that take one to the Mantodea page first, despite that fact that both of the terms have more specific meanings (the former, technically, is only a member of the family Mantidae, the latter is used by many to refer solely to one species, Mantis religiosa). There is NO utility in having "praying mantis" as a stand-alone page, primarily because of this ambiguity. In fact, I'm tempted to make it a disambiguation page, letting a reader choose whether to go to the Mantodea page or to Mantis religiosa - all of the existing text on the Praying mantis page would be merged into the Mantodea page. This is a prime example of why it often works out badly when WP articles on organisms use common names for the actual pages, rather than making the pages based on taxonomy. I prefer having the common names redirect to taxonomic pages, or given as disambig pages, when a single common name has multiple different possible meanings. The converse argument (and it has its own merits) is that the common names are often more stable than the scientific names. Nonetheless, in this case, I feel that it is too confusing, and there is too much redundant information. I'll go and put notes on the respective talk pages, to send interested parties here, in case anyone has strong objections or constructive alternative solutions to the problem, before I go ahead with the changes. I'd also like a little advice on how one goes about merging talk page content, since both Mantodea and Praying mantis have substantial numbers of entries there. 138.23.134.119 18:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think your general approach is a good one. Note that where there is no "reasonably unique common name", the scientific name is perfectly acceptable: this may apply to many taxa of Mantodea. If, for example, "praying mantis" is sometimes used for the order, sometimes for a family, and sometimes for a single species, then having it as a disambiguation page is probably the only reasonable solution. --Stemonitis 18:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Just realized I didn't log in before posting the preceding - it's me. ;-) Dyanega 18:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Microformat

Please be aware of the proposed Species microformat, particularly in relation to taxoboxes. Comments welcome here or on the wiki at that link. Andy Mabbett 17:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Western corn rootworm

In assessing articles, I came across western corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera). The article used to be specific to D. virgifera [5], but has recently been expanded to cover all species of "corn rootworm". I am unsure which of the several possible options is best:

1. Have a large multi-species article at Diabrotica, mentioning each of the species in turn.
2. Have a large multi-species article at corn rootworm, mentioning each of the species in turn.
3. Split the article into individual species (effectively reverting all the changes to western corn rootworm since mid-January).

As it is, the scope of the article, its taxobox and its title don't match, but I'd like advice on how best to solve the problem. --Stemonitis 14:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Similar problems have occurred on the honey bee, cicada killer, and hornet pages. In each case, I have argued STRONGLY that if there are multiple species, and each has a page, then that is where the information on each species should be directed, and have performed large-scale edits to make it so. Use pages like these, or elephant or swallow, as examples where there are one or a few well-known species, but the page still manages to remain generalized, rather than getting bogged down by information on the well-known members of the group. A lot depends on whether the term "corn rootworm" does in fact refer to ALL Diabrotica species, and ONLY Diabrotica. If so, then there should not be separate Diabrotica and corn rootworm pages; ideally, the page should be the Diabrotica page (with a taxobox listing species), and corn rootworm should be a redirect TO it. If this still isn't enough, you can state at the top that This page refers to all species collectively known as corn rootworms - for the Western corn rootworm, see [[[Diabrotica virgifera]] or something similar (as is done on the honey bee page). As you note, trying to cram multiple species together creates more problems than it solves. Dyanega 17:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I looked it over, and cleaned it up; the problem is that whoever cut-and-pasted the text onto the Western corn rootworm page did so from a source that was comparing both of the species found in Iowa, rather than discussing that one species by itself, or the genus as a whole, or the US as a whole. The ony way to deal with it was to make specific reference in the introduction that the following page text was a comparison. The general rootworm comments were moved to the Diabrotica page where they belong. I'll try to align the various common names and redirects so they go where they should. Dyanega 22:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Taxonomic keys

I am wondering if placing taxonomic keys (by those who can be bothered) on the pages is supported? I placed an example on the gribble page. I think it would be useful, as keys can be hard to find or not available, and are a way of giving concise detail. They might seem too taxonomic for some, but could be a great resource for those wanting to go a bit deeper. I don’t know if this approach would infringe on other wiki projects such as wikispecies, but the photos and extra biological information on these pages would also help in identifications. Also, if all the information for a taxon is held under the one roof, it is less likely to go out of date.--Lauriec 02:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely useful. But most often one comes across keys that are specific to a geographic region and these might be only partly useful to folks from other biogeographic zones. But those who can use keys obviously will know that, so it is definitely not a problem. A more real problem is that many lay-editors just visit species pages and add wikify or cleanup tags because of the terminology used. For butterfly species article, for instance I tend to solve this by putting a header leading them to a glossary and knocking of these tags. Perhaps others have a better solution for this. Shyamal 03:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as the keys are small, and not copyrighted material, this can certainly be useful and practical to include; problems are most likely to arise when either of these conditions are violated (a large key, or copyrighted material). If there are online keys, then a link to them is definitely a preferrable approach. Dyanega 18:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)