Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lepidoptera/Archive7

Make less stubs !

Hello everybody,

I have been thinking about the sense of making stubs.

Wikipedia starts pollution of the web & the stubs help a lot for this. I mean: pages, particularly stubs, where nothing else than a handfull of data (that's anyway available to public in the internet), like classification, name of species, author, etc. is written.

Meanwhile some 20 to 80 different pages appear a few days after having created a similar stubs ! Yes, cookroaches, who, due to policy of weakypedia grab & copy the contents and also put it online. Due to better programming, they are often found on the first 4-5 pages when you make an own research for a species or genus.

Those pages, that really contain more and better informations are (unluckily) more and more difficult to find !

Please think twice before just grapping a species list of a genus: is it really senseful to make 10, 20 or 30 more stub, or not? If yes: what about just taking the time to make a search/google for the species. Sometimes there are already more information to be found in the internet that can be integrated in the article.

That takes some time, but sometimes its more helpful to have one complete article (with the available data=, than just 5 more"half empty" ones.

Regards to you & cheers Tonton Bernardo (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I check every new Lepidoptera article that is being created on wikipedia and at least add the synonyms and distribution. More if I can find it easily. I do agree that we should try to make articles with as much info as we can find, but stubs are important too, especially if they contain all synonyms. This prevents people from making articles about species which are now considered a synonym (this was a big problem in the past, and still is for some families, check the list of Noctuidae genera for an example. 50% of these are not valid anymore, but are now considered synonyms). Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Synonymes come & go, I believe, even more species will "change its name" in the near future. DNA will help to trigger out many "double or triple identifications". Be prepared that 30-40% of the pages that you create today, will be outdated in the next 4 years. :)

Tonton Bernardo (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably true for tropical species. European and North American species are generally well-researched. Anyway.. we can only try to keep up with new discoveries as knowledge progresses. Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Stubs also serve a useful purpose on Wikipedia, as they indicate areas where the encyclopedia needs development. There are a number of instances where a stub has been created, and within a few months the article has been developed into a Wikipedia:Good article. That simply would not have happened if the stub hadn't been created in the first place.

Can I suggest that if trouble is encountered while searching, that you set the parameters to exclude Wikipedia. That should remove nearly all the ghosts from your searches. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Skinsmoke

Yes, a good hint: for me it really helps (though there's still a dozen of "mirror " sites, who don't have the word "wikipedia" on their pages). But I was also thinking about the people who make similar searches, are who are not as familar on the wikipedia content, and the "hundreds" of mirror sites. They will never have that idea, to exclude "wikipedia" on their searches..... and will find.... dozens and dozens of other "nonsense" sites listing their searches.

And - for the moment - it's only a beginning ! Most pages exist only in 1 or 2 languages. Unfortunately there are also some "wiki" robots, translating those pages to other languages, (vietnam wikipedia has already a lot and now nl.wikipedia is strongly coming up, too, in the moment) and again: dozens of new "mirror sites" appear on "google" or other search engine searches.

In 5 years, and maybe 50 "automatically translated wikipedia language pages" we risk to find a few hundreds of mirror sites for every stub ! That itself contains: nothing much more than is already found in the internet.

This may completely block any search for any kind of species. Therefore: personally I opt for making only pages on species for which I have more informations that: "it's a lepidoptera that is known from.... Antarctica...." or so. Or, at least, I try to limit it to one species per genus (that page may help somebody else, to make anther page of that genus, by copying the infobox + generell info, categories, etc.).

Just a trial. There are already enough other sites, that display "genus lists" or "general lists", that are hardly ever updated, or kept up to date.

Regards to you and everybody Tonton Bernardo (talk) 09:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Animals described in ...... (year) - just a suggestion....

Hello,

Some (or many) of you, class the new pages under some Categories like: Category:Animals described in 1858 (or other year).

For the moment, there are not too many species of animals in these categories (for most years, there are some 200-300 species linked). But, if one day, really every single species of this planet got a page here, that is also linked to that category, it will certainly be overcrowded => with a few thousand of species linking to them.

I'd suggest, that we make some new sub-categories , ex: Category:Moths described in ..... or Butterflies described in .... instead, and link those sub-categories to Animals described in ..... Would be easier (in the future) for those, who are only interested in a certain type of animal.

Just a suggestion. Regards Tonton Tonton Bernardo (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Ideally the technological foundations of mediawiki should have allowed categories to be automatically defined via the taxobox template fields and search tools should have allowed users to do set operations (union, intersection, subtraction, difference, complement) on the categories defined. Shyamal (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Just as a feedback: somebody suppressed all these Moths described in .... categories, and another user re-installed them (for 2 or 3 years only), as he/she thought it's a good idea.

Well, for these Animals described in..... categories, I actually do not see a sense because, once it will be really filled up with all animal names of this world, you will have to click thru 150 pages for each letter of the alphabeth. So: => in my opinion => its useless because nobody will ever do this.

Personally, I stop to make that tag. But if you like it: just feel free to do what you think is fine.

The same actually applies (in my opinion) to the Talk pages. Ouf, what a non-sense ! An absolute unnecessary extra-job: click on another page-link, click again to the talk page' link, another click (*sic*) for edit - more clicks for copy.... go back to the other window just to paste it.... send it.... wait 3 seconds (sometimes more)...., etc.

And what is it good for? Just to satisfy somebody of the wikipedia-bureaucrats love to make the editions & creators spend 10-15 more extra-clicks??? For me it's non-sense and I stopped making them. (Maybe you also noticed, that never, ever, sombody changes the categories of those "talk pages")

Think about it, if it's really worthwile for you. rgds Tonton Bernardo (talk)

No moth named 'Vandana' exists

I happened to see this article Vandana (moth) that has been proposed for deletion and I see it has been on Wikipedia since 2009. I wonder how the deletion process would work, and if there are other articles like this in: Category:Calpinae stubs? XOttawahitech (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes there are, a lot of these articles are in fact synonyms of other genera and need to be turned into redirects. These articles exist for genera in a lot of moth families. I check them if I am working on a genus, but it is too much work for one person to check them all within a reasonable amount of time. The problem will be solved in time, but it will take years to complete an enormous task like this. I fixed this one though and turned it into a redirect to the appropriate genus. Ruigeroeland (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

That Vandana genus page was created by User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao by using a Robot. He, (and User:Dr. Blofeld ) made a few thousands of pages like that, by copying the database of the British Museum (probably without having read it).... and left them behind to be tidied up manually by the others.

Hourrah, that's the way it goes, on Wikipedia !  :) Don't be astonished if you'll find some more pages like that one. Please just do like Ruigoland suggested: redirect them to the correct genus (if you know it).

Tonton Berardo I'm tired on unhappy Wikipedia Admins, that spend their time to spoil up the pages and categories that other users created. Ref.: Dying project (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong pictures for Aphrodite Fritillary?

My son found an injured fritillary today and brought it inside where we attempted to identify it. I looked it up on wikipedia first, but then noticed that I couldn't tell any difference between the Great Spangled and Aphrodite Fritillary pictures. I edited the talk on the aphrodite fritillary in detail when I observed recognizable differences between the two at places like wisconsinbutterflies.org. In short, I believe we have great spangled fritillaries pictured as aphrodite fritillaries (which can get mighty confusing when trying to accurately identify by picture). To see why I think this, with observations in detail, check out the talk here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aphrodite_Fritillary thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.68.205 (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Glyphodes and syn. Dysallacta

I am having some problems with the Glyphodes and syn. Dysallacta - i do not really find informations on this synomination - and from some specie pictures I find that there is a quite a difference that would justify easily another genus. Example:

Dysallacta megalopa

File:Glyphodes.shafferorum-Pyralidae-21.jpg

Glyphodes shafferorum

Well, I am going to make that page at its original name. Most internet sources still speack about Dysallacta - but if somehow it is justified it still can be moved later.

regards User:Tonton Bernardo

No problem. We can always move it like you say..! Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

List of moths of India

• List of moths of India

Yes, maybe you noticed: there are some sections still missing, among them; Pyralidae. Maybe an idea for somebody who's got som spare time?

Here is a good base to start that section of Pyralidea (on pdf): George Mathew, AN INVENTORY OF INDIAN PYRALIDS (LEPIDOPTERA: PYRALIDAE). Zoos' Print Journal 21(5): 2245-2258 best regards user:Tonton Bernardo

Awesome find! I'll put it on my to-do list. These kinds of checklist are more than welcome. For progress on country checklist (and to see which ones are still missing, see: Lists of Lepidoptera by region Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Noctuidae: (not to loose the link :) ) 2012 publication: A checklist of Noctuidae .... of India (page79-.... (from page 79 =>

user:Tonton Bernardo

Nice find again! Ruigeroeland (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

No overtime, Ruigoland !

Working overtime is strictly forbidden at wikipedia  :) Yes, latetly I regretted that some lists (Ind-Malaysian region) do not yet exist - as I spotted some mentioned in other descriptions (e.g. Papua New Guinea) and only would have needed to copy+paste them. If you have somewhere a hidden Sandbox-List for the missing countrys: just let us know, where they are, and sometimes I'd add one or another species. But starting an own "Sandbox" for only 2-3 species that I find on the road... won't be worthwile (I already have some 50 similar things on my computer too....)

rgds user:Tonton Bernardo

Good idea to start checklist pages on a sandbox. I'll look into it and start making some. I'll post a link to a sandbox index when I have it set up. Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You can start Sandbox articles at one of my sanbox pages, see: User:Ruigeroeland/Sandbox3. Click on the red link in the approriate moth or butterfly sandbox row of the table to create a new page where you can add species. Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

ID request

I'm trying to find out who this caterpillar is. He took off with my luggage. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Other views:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unidentified_caterpillar_in_Hainan_-_01.JPG
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unidentified_caterpillar_in_Hainan_-_03.JPG
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unidentified_caterpillar_in_Hainan_-_04.JPG

Many thanks for any help you can offer. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Good article review

I've initiated a good article review for an article that was promoted prematurely (part of a class project). Please visit here. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Multi-move

This is a bit late in the day, but editors here might as well be notified since Alerts does not pick up articles on a multi-move. There's a proposal to move List of butterflies of Minorca → List of butterflies of Menorca, not that I imagine it makes a great deal of difference to the butterflies :). Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

electron microscope images

Hi All

I'm the Wikipedian in Residence at the Natural History Museum in London. I've been offered a small amount of time for someone to take electron microscope images of entomology specimens in the collection. What would be the most wanted images? Given the size of our collection we will probably have a specimen of most species you' d like. If you reply on my talk page in the few days that would be really good. Feel free to request images that have already been suggested, it will help me get an idea of the most wanted ones.

Thanks

--Mrjohncummings (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, we met at the Wikimedia photographing in museums workshop. It would be really nice to get some electron micrographs of some Structural coloration in insects. In particular:

• the 'firtree' microstructures forming the iridescent blue wing scales of Morpho butterflies
• the 'green' wing patches/scales of Emerald Swallowtail, Papilio palinurus
• the 'green' wing scales of Parides sesostris, the Emerald-patched Cattleheart
• the iridescent cuticle of Lamprocyphus augustus, a weevil from Brazil

These would all be really useful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Categories 'Insects of <country>'

I see that people are starting to add categories for 'Insects of country xxx', for example Purple-edged Copper has

• Insects of Germany
• Insects of Estonia
• Insects of Sweden
• Insects of Romania
• Insects of Poland
• Insects of Finland
• Insects of Andorra
• Insects of Belgium
• Insects of Belarus
• Insects of Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Insects of Hungary
• Insects of Italy

If this process runs to completion we could have 100 categories for widespread insects, which seems absurd. WikiProject Birds has the same issue, and it has decided to have categories for a) birds of continents, and b) birds endemic to islands/island groups (say, the Galapagos). It isn't clear to me whether that would be the right solution here but it might be in the right direction. What would be the appropriate thing to do about geographic categorisation of insects? Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm the one who's been doing a lot of this - I began mainly because the insect-by-country categories already existed for various individual African countries. I didn't quite realize, when I started, what sort of an undertaking it would be. I have no dog in the fight - if by-Europe categories are better, then by all means I have no objection. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hyriogona = Idaea ?

The article Hyriogona claims that it is a synonym for Idaea (genus) - is this true? If it is, I would assume Hyriogona should be a redirect instead of its own article, right? Ego White Tray (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Based upon this, this (note - PDF file, see page 49 and this, yes, it would be true. Unless there is a specific reason why a junior synonym would be notable on its own (highly unlikely, but it might happen one day...), I do agree with making Hyriogona into a redirect to Idaea. Because Hyriogona has very little history and the only thing getting merged is that it's a synonym for Idaea, I do not believe a history merge would be needed either (nor would it likely be possible, what with parallel histories and such) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Correcting names of entomologists

I'm currently working my way through all mentions of Fischer von Röslerstamm, whose name seems to be often misspelled as "Fischer von Roslerstamm", correcting the o to ö, as well as adding wikilinks where appropriate (specifically, if he's listed in the infobox as binomial_authority).

If any of you knows of other taxonomists/entomologists whose name could use an English-wiki-wide spell-correct or linking where appropriate, please drop me a line here or on my talk page. With a link to their article, if possible/appropriate. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Finished up Fischer von Röslerstamm, as near as I can tell. Unless someone has specific requests, I will likely continue with Herrich-Schäffer tomorrow, as I noticed repeated counts of the misspelling "Herrich-Schaffer" during my Fischer von Röslerstamm correction round. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I got some for you: Hubner > Hübner; Oberthur > Oberthür; Denis & Schiffermuller > Denis & Schiffermüller; Alpheraky > Alphéraky. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Been absent for a while (ill), will work on those soon. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Working on a few of those right now. Am also adding wikilinks to the binomial authority when I come across unlinked ones. In case of Oberthür, because there are two brothers and a amateur-entomologist father, I am for simplicity's sake assuming that all beetles are the work of René Oberthür, all butterflies and moths are the work of Charles Oberthür and butterflies and moths that could logically not have been described by Charles Oberthür in a certain year (haven't come across those yet) are François-Charles Oberthür's. If anyone knows of a species that is an exception to this rule of thumb, please let me know and I'll correct it. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I only know of Charles Oberthür, so I guess 99% of the moths and butterflies should link to him as you suggest. Great work! Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I only knew of Charles Oberthür as well, until I had to go and look where his article was located. However, I figured I might as well make sure. Thank you!AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Quality reassessments

Hi all. I noticed a number of articles I've edited seem to be in need of a quality reassessments. I know that quantity doesn't equal quality, but some of the below articles are especially lengthy for stubs, which indicates they have been expanded since the original assessment, a long time ago. Perhaps some could be elevated to start-class? I'm not confident that my assessments would be so great, so I'm asking for some input here, on the following articles: Papilio aegeus, Pachliopta polydorus, Battus belus, Battus madyes, Papilio chrapkowskoides, Papilio garamas, Troides amphrysus, Troides staudingeri. Thanks JamesDouch (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I've reassessed the Ornithoptera articles, elevating several to Start-Class. Please let me know if my assessments appear inaccurate. JamesDouch (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Sphinx RM and naming conventions

I've started an RM at Talk:Sphinx (moth)#Requested move requesting a move of Sphinx (moth) to Sphinx (genus) for clarity. This need not affect other genus articles, though I've outlined some reasons I think it perhaps should. I'm not sure how much this issue has been discussed in the past, but for now, your input at the RM would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The article "Monarch Butterfly" needs to be Danaus plexippus

For some reason the conventional titling of this species is its common name. I don't have the editorial expertise(or permissions)to rename the article title. Can another editor do this?

bpage (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME, which requires the title "Monarch Butterfly" to stay the same. JamesDouch (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Abisara echerius

Abisara echerius or Abisara echeria Stoll, 1790 is the accepted name? See http://www.catalogueoflife.org/col/details/species/id/10683453 and http://www.gbif.org/species/1935410 Jee 16:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Good question. Funet uses echerius [1] but usually Lepindex is the authority, i.e., echeria. Dger (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

So A. echerius is only a Junior subjective synonym now? Jee 06:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, it is not a synonym but an emendation (taxonomy) or change in the ending related to gender match between the genus and species. The species was originally placed as Papilio echerius - when it is moved to other genera, the gender agreement may require changes but these are often problematic and Latin scholars and ICZN rules can all play a role in the decision which can complicated depending on the etymology. (If Abisara was a king there might be something different from if it was a feminine word, but that is just guessing) Shyamal (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Shyamal for the explanation. Jee 05:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Rapala manea and Rapala schistacea

Do you need to maintain them separately? I made some search and it seems lepindex now keep them as separate species. (http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/research/projects/lepindex/search/detail.dsml?TaxonNo=197659.0 and http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/research/projects/lepindex/search/detail.dsml?TaxonNo=197625.0) Pinging Shyamal for opinion. Jee 16:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems like you are right. Best to merge the contents of schistacea into manea and turn schistacea into a redirect. Shyamal (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Speyeria zerene hippolyta

I don't usually do butterfly articles but it seemed like we needed an Oregon silverspot butterfly article. Can someone from this project take a look and make sure I didn't do anything weird with the taxobox and cats? Obviously the article needs expanding but I just want to make sure it is line with your project's standards so far. Thanks! Valfontis (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if this note is what did it but it got fixed up, thanks! Valfontis (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Very short stubs

Articles like "Naxidia punctata" are very short, but they haven't been merged. Does a consensus exist on not merging them? If so, could you please point me towards the relevant discussion? Thanks.Leptictidium (mt) 13:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there any good reason to merge taxo-stubs? Even short articles like this one are of some use to readers, presenting a brief account of distribution, taxonomy and visual appearance (with an image); and to editors who feel like expanding an article or two, as the stub is already well-formed and in place. Species are inherently notable (having a scientific description at their origin), so there seems unlikely to be good reason to merge such articles; perhaps merging could be the right solution when there are crypto-species distinguishable only by DNA testing, but even then separate species can be of interest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a notability issue. It's a question of whether it's worth keeping separate articles for species when they provide little to no information that isn't in the genus article already. Wouldn't it be better to have a decent "Naxidia" article, with information about all the species, than eight different species microstubs? --Leptictidium (mt) 13:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Leptictidium, while your point is valid, the way we are working right now is creating articles on species. Since there are already thousands (probable even ten-thousands) of moth and butterfly species articles, there is no point in changing the process at this point. Furthermore, there are various pro's in creating species articles: linking synonyms, linking to the relevant distributional checklist, a place to insert pictures, etc. Cheers Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

In short: no, dont merge them. :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. Indeed I made several points, as Ruigeroeland does, and notability was the least of them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Has this consensus been recorded somewhere?--Leptictidium (mt) 14:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has come up several times before and it is surely recorded somewhere, but I would not know exactly where I' m affraid. Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that individual species merit their own article, but by all means, Naxidia (and all genus articles!) should be expanded to give a general overview of constituent taxa. While insect projects are dominated by species stubs, it is the genus and family level stubs that can really provide necessary context and overview, and would especially be of interest to non-specialists. Without any more info than a list of species, why should any reader bother to click on a species? Too often is the genus simply a barren link directory. I feel it is the duty of editors to flesh out the bare bones of stubs, otherwise Wikipedia may as well be another mirror of ITIS or one of the many soul-less online databases. --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, that is the aim in the end. But since there are very few people working on these articles, it is going to take a VERY long time. Feel free to expand articles. Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

===I also dont like them===

Personally I don't like those stubs, also. But you put a bad example, as this one at least shows some distribution areas AND even got a picture ! There are much worse examples.

Why I am against: Principally because wikipedia is free stuff and there are some dozens of robots that copy the pages. So, if there's a stuff page, and you try to make an internet search for that species, you will be spammed with dozens of "copy pages from wikipedia" on the first 2-5 search pages.

I try to avoid some, ACCEPT that I have a little but more to tell than "it's a moth from XXX".

Though, I admit, for one reason it is good to have those pages: for the synonyms ! Or just to keep that "species" alive, because on some species there are really almost no sources on the internet. But otherwise: i prefer to "omit" that species, to allow other people who search for it - getting search result without all those nasty spam mirror sites. Yes, somebody gave me the search tip before: 'try making a seach with -wikipedia in it". That worked for some time but meanwhile most do not refer to wikipedia, so it became useless as well. The main problem: wikipedia politics & lack of lawyers. regards user:Tonton Bernardo

Merge Limenitis reducta and Ladoga reducta? Same pictures, perhaps different regional names?

Who do I talk to about this? I'm new to editing Wikipedia, though I've used it for a long time.

I'm a graduate student trying to scrape up data about Limenitis and other butterflies in conjunction with a phylogeny I'm working on. "Limenitis reducta" has significantly less information available than other Limenitis species, such as L. archippus or L. populi. It was also showing up in a strange place on my tree, i.e., grouping with my outgroup samples from a different genus. I did a little digging in my notes and it appears I mistook the label "L. reducta" to stand for Limenitis--not Ladoga, the actual genus. "Ladoga reducta" is a species listed in Willmott, 2003 Systematic Entomology, 28, 279–322, some of the samples from which I am investigating. Interestingly, there is also an unreferenced page for "Limenitis camilla," but a 1979 Ecological Entomology paper focused on "Ladoga camilla." DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2311.1979.tb00561.x

A little more digging found that Uniprot considers both names equivalent. It has pages titled "SPECIES Limenitis reducta (Southern white admiral) (Ladoga reducta)" and "SPECIES Limenitis camilla (White admiral) (Ladoga camilla)". It lists Ladoga as synonym for Limenitis.

Other Google and literature searches don't make it clear what's going on. I don't feel qualified to make an identification call, but perhaps these articles should be merged, or even deleted, as they lack references? It has at least raised some confusion in my research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemilemon (talk • contribs) 05:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Caprona ransonnetti

It seems the correct spelling of Caprona ransonnetti is Caprona ransonnettii. Ref [2], [3], [4], [5]. Jee 05:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed now. Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

New article: Butterfly count

Is it possible for someone to assess the importance and quality of this new article? Any feedback is also appreciated.

bpage (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Non-taxonomic common names

I've come across two articles with titles that seem not to be the equivalent of any taxon: Birdwing (covers genera Trogonoptera, Troides, and Ornithoptera) and Red-bodied Swallowtail (covers genera Byasa, Atrophaneura, Losaria, and Pachliopta). One would also expect then, that Actias, Argema, and Graellsia isabellae are covered by an article called Moon moth (which does exist as a disambiguation page), but they're covered separately. For consistency, should the two articles be split into their genera, or should the moon moths be merged into one article? JamesDouch (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Or they could be reclassified as set index articles. JamesDouch (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Expert needed: Leguminivora glycinivorella

Leguminivora glycinivorella currently redirects to Maruca, but gives no indication why. Assuming it is correct, is Leguminovora glycinivorella the same species, and should it redirect to the same target? - TB (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

yes, you are right: this seems to be an error.

Feel free to edit that page and to create a "real" page for that species. There are also some other language pages on this (ex: French wikipedia.

It also really doesn't look like an "Maruca" :) image at: pest.ceris.purdue.edu regards User:Tonton Bernardo

Page views

Monarch butterfly has been viewed 100,247 times in the last 90 days. See it here: http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Monarch%20butterfly

  Bfpage |leave a message  21:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Lepidoptera articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Essex Emerald Moth

Hello, I'm no expert but I've found a weird inconsistency on a moth page, so I'll describe it here, I hope that's helpful in some way.

I was looking up species endemic to Britain on Wikipedia and clicked the link to the Essex Emerald Moth (listed as an extinct subspecies on the page I was viewing here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_endemic_species_of_the_British_Isles).

However when I viewed the page on the Essex Emerald, the sentences "The British subspecies Thetidia smaragdaria maritima was last seen in 1991" and "they are still an ongoing Subspecies At the nature reserve in Kent, United Kingdom" seem to contradict one another. Also, the poor punctuation of the second sentence seems to indicate that it has been edited strangely. Is it extinct, or isn't it? I was hoping someone with more knowledge on the subject might be able to correct the page :) thank you! Emmy x Edit: (sorry forgot to sign) NekoEmmi (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You may be able to determine why the information seems to be contradictory by examining the references cited by each of these articles. I've gotten lots of information from edit histories also.

  Bfpage |leave a message  01:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Hymenoptera

Would anyone on here be

• 1) Interested in participating in Wikipedia:WikiProject Hymenoptera or
• 2) Object to me setting up such a project, as too specific?

(Since we have a project for Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera, this seems a reasonable proposal) —Gaff ^ταλκ 15:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Keeping it active might be challenging. Wikipedia:WikiProject Beetles is considered only semi-active. JKDw (talk) 08:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking at WikiProject Insects, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mantodea and Wikipedia:WikiProject Phasmatodea also failed to keep active. However, there is this new (active) project you may be interested in: Wikipedia:WikiProject Vespidae. JKDw (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion a WikiProject Hymenoptera makes more sense than a WikiProject Vespidae (which seems to have been created for a class project). I have a feeling that when the course ends, so effectively will the Project, as students who are no longer required to contribute for their grade likely won't, and thus I feel it might have been better as, say a task force within WP Insects. I could envision a Hymenoptera Project with or without, say, Ant or Wasp or Bee task forces, but it's probably best to start broad and general to attract interested editors, and only spawn off task forces if and when the momentum is there. But truthfully, since a Beetle project is only semi-active (and beetles are probably second only to leps in public interest), I have low hopes for a hymenoptera project to remain viable and useful. I don't know much about how or if defunct projects get subsumed into parent projects, but it'd be a pain to have a hundred thousand WP Hymenoptera stubs to reassess or reintegrate into WP Insects should the former go inactive. --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

There are already good Hymenoptera and Orthoptera Projects

There are already some good Hymenoptera & Orthoptera Projects running elsewhere - with participation of some scientists from that field. All that could be done here is to copy them but never reach their quality. In my opinion there's no need for more copies as long as data can be accessed. rgds User: Tonton_Bernardo

Proposed articles-please comment

I have very rough drafts for the following articles:

• Commercial butterfly breeding
• International Butterfly Breeders Association
• American Butterfly Association
• Petition to protect the Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus plexippus) under the endangered species act

I certainly need help to come up with the title for this fourth article. Any comments regarding drafting up articles with these topics?

  Bfpage |leave a message  01:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

For all, you should rely heavily on secondary sources (i.e. not the ABA's webpage) to establish notability and ensure neutrality (and to avoid going too deep into detail that's relevant only to butterfly breeders, ABA members, etc.). The last topic (monarch petition) could be interpreted as promotional unless high quality, independent secondary sources discuss it in depth. I see a handful of news items about it, but all from about the same time regarding the same event, so any new content on the petition should probably first be expanded at Monarch butterfly, to avoid flash-in-the-pan article creations that never go anywhere. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Lists of _______ by place

There is wide variation between the lists of lepidoptera by place. In the US, there are lists of butterflies by state, lists of butterflies and moths by state, lists of lepidoptera by state. I started List of butterflies of Oregon but am considering moving it to either List of butterflies and moths of Oregon or List of lepidoptera of Oregon and then having all the lists redirect there. Thoughts? Right now the list is a mess, but these sorts of lists can be built up to Featured List status, which is my goal. Ultimately, it would be a good goal for this project to develop some standards. This has probably already been discussed. I would like to clarify before I put in any more work on the list. Thanks! —Gaff ^ταλκ 06:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I say keep the page as is and if you have information on moths of oregon, go ahead and make a moths of oregon page. I see no reason to merge the two. Viren (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Philonome clemensella

I picked a moth species that I saw this summer and that Wikipedia lacks a page for, Philonome clemensella, and made a stub page for it. This is the first page I've made for this Lepidoptera project and also the first Wikipedia page I have made.

While researching the species, I found that a 2013 genetics study reclassified the genus from Lyonetiidae to Tineidae, and so I have tentatively classified it in Tineidae, even though the genus page Philonome lists Lyonetiidae.

I'd like some feedback on the new page User:Treichar/Philonome clemensella to know if I've followed the project's guidelines or have some changes to make. And then there is the question of which family to adopt for the genus (Lyonetiidae or Tineidae). Treichar (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Treichar, some genus and families are somewhat disputed. Seems like Philonome is mostly included in Lyonetiidae (formerly the Lyonetiidae where included in Tineidea) but some seem to include them in Bucculatricidae (that were split off from Lyonetiidae). There are quite many problems like that in the micro-moths: someone splits them up, others don't accept, or whatever. When I meet such a case, I just have a look around. In your case: nmh.ac.uk genus datasbase puts them to Lyonetiidae, also on boldsystems.org, so it cannot be that wrong. => so, my suggestion: just put it under Lyonetiidae. rgds & good continuation. Tonton Bernardo (talk)

New redirect needs a target

A new redirect, Litter moth currently targets to Herminiinae. I'm not sure if this is where it should target, so please help me out. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The Herminiinae are commonly referred to as litter moths, at least in the United States and Canada. Most of the species have caterpillars that eat dead leaves, or "leaf litter". A few examples of the usage:

• BugGuide: http://bugguide.net/node/view/12335
• BAMONA: http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/taxonomy/Erebidae
• Beadle & Leckie - Peterson Field Guide to Moths of Northeastern North America

Treichar (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I bring up the question because the text an Herminiinae states that it is a sub-family of litter moths, suggest that there is a family called litter moths. So, does the text on that page need to change? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Yes, its missunderstandable. I changed it to: Herminiinae is a subfamily in the Erebidae family. They are sometimes called litter moths.

Better like that? Personally I don't like vernicular names (I only use latin names). Actually there are also litter moths in other families (ex.: Tineidea). Regards Tonton Bernardo (talk)

I agree that the article's first sentence, which I had written, could have been clearer. But for a lay reader, the new first sentence of the Herminiinae article now lacks any mention of an English word that says which animals the article is about. So this is a step backward from clarity, despite the good intention. Additionally, when some object(s) are "sometimes" called by a particular name, it begs the question, when are those objects not called by that name? So it may be useful to explain at which times the Herminiinae are not called litter moths, or to just not mention "sometimes" to avoid that tangential issue. Finally, the citation [1] is now after the sentence about the moths being called litter moths, but it belongs after the first sentence since the reference is about the classification. Would the following wording be better?:

The Herminiinae are a subfamily of moths in the Erebidae family.[1] The moths as a group are called litter moths because caterpillars of most members... Treichar (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Caterpillars that resemble twigs: save it or scrap it?

I think Category:Caterpillars that resemble twigs should be nominated for deletion or discussion, due to non-defining, and potentially subjective, editor's opinion WP:OR in deciding which species are thus categorized. I can think of a lot of things caterpillars look that don't warrant categorization, but I figured I'd bring it up with this project first to see if it is worth saving or scrapping. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Pleuroptya inferior this page may need revision

Pleuroptya inferior this page may need revision. Some databases mention it as a replacement name for Syllepte quadrimaculalis for instance: [pyraloideia org: - others don't. Some put it under Nagiella, other under Syllepte (I think this is an "old genus"),.... Maybe they are not yet updated. I did not find the original name from the descriptions of Kollar/Hampson as well. I did not make any redirections for the moment - and just added all possible combinations.

 Pleuroptya quadrimaculalis
 Secondary homonym of Pleuroptya quadrimaculalis (Kollar, 1844). The objective replacement name is Pleuroptya inferior (Hampson, 1899a).

There's a taiwanese Web-Page on this species, if you understand it, just go ahead (I don't .... yet) Taiwan moths

rgds

user:Tonton Bernardo

Erebidae classification

The Erebidae and all downstream taxa need a thorough review by either experts or those familiar with the best resources from the experts. Each tribe and subtribe should be reviewed in regard to the proper genera for each level. A few areas of concern that I personally noticed:

• Ctenuchina: When I first started editing this article about a week ago, it still had all the genera from the former Ctenuchinae, without regard to any tribal split. I've tried to split out the Euchromiina and Syntomini based on various resources, but the accuracy of these sundry resources is debatable.
• Cisthenina / Nudariina: A large number of the genera listed as being in Cisthenina are also listed as being in Nudariina.
• Incertae sedis (Lithosiini): Several of the genera listed here are also listed in various Lithosiini and Arctiini subtribe articles.

Dawynn (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Lepidoptera to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the Tool Labs tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 04:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Biological pest control lepidoptera:

Hello, I made a new category: Category:Biological pest control lepidoptera:. They are less important than vasps or beetles in biological control - but there are still quite many. If ever you hit some species that are used for biological control somewhere, it could be helpful if you'd include that category as well. Best regards User:Tonton Bernardo I'm so tired (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Synonymica retractalis

We've got Stenia retractalis, which lives in Guyana, and is synonymous with Dolicharthria retractalis to the point of having its own name in the synonym field. But then we've got Dolicharthria retractalis, which lives in Mexico, and is synonymous with Nacoleia retractalis and Hedylepta dircealis, but not Stenia retractalis.

Both the Guyanese and Mexican moths are sourced to the same place, which is essentially nowhere.

Somebody knowledgeable want to figure out a remedy? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

They are two different species. The source is a searchable database. Look up the name retractalis and you will see a number of hits, including these two species. Ruigeroeland (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

So, all the "Dolichartria" in the first one should be changed to "Stenia", at least? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

And is the "homonym" supposed to say "synonym", or is this allegedly other moth both? Does either species look different? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the source, I see it's verbatim. I don't get it, but at least it's verifiable. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It is a taxonomic issue. These are two different species who both have the same name. This happens from time to time. Either the author was not aware of an existing species with that exact name and gave that exact name to another species. Or, and this happens more often, a species is transferred from another genus. This means the combination of genus and species name changes, and this sometimes leads to two species with the same name. Two species having the same name is not allowed and thus the species which was described last should get a new name. However, this sometimes is not done (yet). Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, if it's taken a hundred years so far, I can't imagine there's any urgent need to sort it out now. Wouldn't be surprised if they're extinct, anyway. Been a rough century for many animals.

Thanks for allowing me to waste some of your time. It's been educational. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

A butterfly feeding on the tears of a turtle in Ecuador

Original – Two Julia Butterflies (Dryas iulia) drinking the tears of turtles in Ecuador

I've nominated A butterfly feeding on the tears of a turtle in Ecuador for Featured Picture consideration.

Discussion is ongoing, at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/A butterfly feeding on the tears of a turtle in Ecuador.

— Cirt (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

eh, Cirt

ehem, cirt, that pic is from 2014 - and even voting period for your picture as "best pig of the year" is over. Why do you post it here and now ??? I didn't really get it ?

Yes, it is known that lepidoptera need some salt & moisture - often sweep around mashy ground. There's also been described some species drinking from eyes of sleeping birds.

Yes, your picture is interesting - but no background, no identification, no further information: => makes it useless in science. Regards I'm so tired (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposing to move this category and its children to "requested images"

Please see discussion at Category talk:Wikipedia requested images by subject#Proposing to move this category and its children to "requested images (of/in ...)". Thank you for your time. JJ98 (Talk) 18:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lepidoptera/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

West Ukraine: one native population of Maculinea rebeli Hirsh found by Sergey G. Popov in 2006. Source:http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=72794699140493&mkt=uk-UA&lang=uk-UA&w=56a23754&FORM=CVRE

Last edited at 11:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Capitalization fixes

I have started a project to go through the Lepidoptera articles and correct capitalization of common names so that they follow Wikipedia style as expressed at MOS:LIFE. I'm going through all the species, genera, etc. under Taxonomy of the Lepidoptera little by little. I've started at the top of the list and am now working on Tortricidae. I'm also doing some copy editing, primarily italicizing scientific names, but also other things that catch my eye. I've also done some work on lists of Lepidoptera and plan to do them all eventually.

I have no background in Lepidoptera or biology but I can copy edit reasonably well. I'm open to any feedback. Thank you.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Taxobox discussion

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Redundancies in the taxoboxes for a discussion about the format of taxoboxes for species and below. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

commons:File:Caterpillar Laurentians.jpg

If you can classify the caterpillar shown at commons:File:Caterpillar Laurentians.jpg, please change the taxonomic category as something more precise and consider adding the image to the appropriate article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

NHM LepIndex/Butterflies & moths of the world links

NHM links have a tendency of being overly long as a result of the link being stuffed with every parameter that can be set during a search--even if nothing was actually set for that parameter. As a result, links like this are very, very common:

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/lepindex/search/list.dsml?searchPageURL=indexadv.dsml&UserID=&UserName=&SCIENTIFIC_NAME_on_cardqtype=starts+with&SCIENTIFIC_NAME_on_card=&Current_superfamilyqtype=starts+with&Current_superfamily=&Original_Authorqtype=starts+with&Original_Author=&Current_familyqtype=starts+with&Current_family=Noctuidae&Original_Year=&Current_subfamilyqtype=starts+with&Current_subfamily=&Current_rank_of_name=&Current_tribeqtype=starts+with&Current_tribe=&OriginalRank=&Current_genusqtype=starts+with&Current_genus=&ZooRegion=&Distrib=&Distribqtype=contains&sort=SCIENTIFIC_NAME_on_card

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/butmoth/search/GenusList3.dsml?searchPageURL=index.dsml&SUPERFAMIL=&FAMILYqtype=starts+with&FAMILY=Noctuidae&SUBFAMILYqtype=starts+with&SUBFAMILY=&TRIBEqtype=starts+with&TRIBE=&SUBTRIBEqtype=starts+with&SUBTRIBE=&GENUSqtype=starts+with&GENUS=&AUTHORqtype=starts+with&AUTHOR=&YEARqtype=equals&YEAR=&sort=GENUS

They clutter up the editing view of articles something fierce. Such links can be easily shortened and remain working by removing blank parameters from the link. For example, the first link can be shortened to http://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/lepindex/search/list.dsml?searchPageURL=indexadv.dsml&Current_family=Noctuidae, while the second can be shortened to http://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/butmoth/search/GenusList3.dsml?searchPageURL=index.dsml&FAMILY=Noctuidae

A second issue is that I'm seeing an awful lot of mispointed NHM-links on pages, like links pointing to the overview page for the Arctiidae on Carposina species, Noctuidae-links on butterfly species and similar such inaccurate things. My suspicion is that this was caused by copying-and-pasting the same link across articles without retargeting it. The sheer length of the links makes it extremely easy to overlook such issues when not actually clicking the links or specifically looking for it.

I'm fixing them as I come across them, but there's certainly plenty of them around. If you're editing Lepidoptera articles, please consider checking the NHM links if present and shortening and/or fixing them where useful? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)