Hi, am going through unidentified butterflies of India over at commons. Your image seems to be misidentified. The only Potanthus species is P. dara found in the north. Your image is from the south. I'd say the Dark Palm Dark Telicota ancilla. According to Kehimkar. Is there some reason it has been ided as Potanthus? If not then I'd like to change the categorisation. Viren (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- It was an identification made by Dr Kalesh Sadasivan in an email to User:AshLin (30 Oct 2007) where he specifically said that "the one from Nagerhole" was a Potanthus while identifying another. I hope that was referring to this one, I can only see one forwarded mail in that thread so not sure. Shyamal (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Dear Shyamal, The redirect you made from Jacob Temminck to Coenraad Jacob Temminck is changed by me because I am nearly sure this must have been his father. See user-talk page. Greeting, Henrik de Nie, --HWN 09:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwdenie (talk • contribs)
- @Hwdenie: - thanks for letting me know (oddly it seems I probably knew that in the past because I researched and wrote a bit of the Levaillant article. What a mess with these father and son namesakes. (There is another similar case in the English EIC with Frederic Moore - impossible to tell them apart). It also means that some of the species listed as named after C.J.T. in Coenraad_Jacob_Temminck may actually need to go to Temminck senior. Shyamal (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reaction and improvement of the article. I think that most species with the name Temminck refer to Coenraad Jacob Temminck, because he was far more famous and active as a collector being the founder and director of the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie. --HWN 07:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwdenie (talk • contribs)
Dear Shyamal, Youe editing of the wikipage Legges Tor to "Legge's Tor" is an incorrect edit. The naming of Tasmanian features is set via the Tasmanian Nomenclature board - the name of this peak on maps and in all government correspondence is Legges Tor.
http://maps.thelist.tas.gov.au/listmap/app/list/map (type in Legges tor and see what you get) https://www.placenames.tas.gov.au/#p1 (type in Legges tor and see what you get)
The name of this peak is Legges Tor not Legge's Tor, even though the latter is more grammatically correct. The reference you have cited is a century old and does not reflect modern usage.
I have moved the page back as Legges Tor.
- @Sean Parker: - I will leave it to experts on Tasmania but would not rule out transcription errors made in the creation of modern digital systems. Shyamal (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
@ Shyamal - Thank you. By the way, it is not a digital transcription error. It is common practice for place names to lose an apostrophe over time in Australian Naming conventions. The peak was once Legge's Tor as much as Storys Creek (to the south) was once Stor(e)y's Creek; patersons plains was once Paterson's plains etc.Sean Parker (talk) 03:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: November 2014
Hi Shyamal, I hope this message finds you doing well. I appreciate your efforts to improve the ant article. I just wanted to explain to you why I felt the image was relevant. The article states in the "science and technology" section that "Ant colonies may be studied by rearing or temporarily maintaining them in formicaria, specially constructed glass framed enclosures." In addition, it also states in the next section that "From the late 1950s through the late 1970s, ant farms were popular educational children's toys in the United States." The image shows both a professional formicarium, as well as a popular novelty ant farm, through which individuals are often introduced to ants. In light of these facts, I think that the image is very relevant to the article and I hope that you won't take any further issue with it. I hope you have a great night. With regards, AnupamTalk 08:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- I understand your enthusiasm but that is a broad-coverage article that has undergone a great deal of review and care in deciding core and peripheral topics. There is an entire article at formicarium and not everything that is mentioned needs to be illustrated next to the text. I of course do not want to remove your image at the moment, but you can be sure that there is a lot of competition for that space. Shyamal (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for being so thorough in your review of the article. I can understand that though there might be a lot of competition for that space, the image I selected has merit in that it demonstrates a professional formicarium (which the section discusses), as well as one usually used for education purposes, Uncle Milton's Ant Farm. It thus covers content from two different sections. Thank you for not removing the image. In addition, if you feel any sections of the Ant article need improved, do let me know. I'd love to improve them. Also, I am aware of the article at formicarium and was actually planning on adding another image there in the near future. I appreciate your insight and hope you have a great day! With regards, AnupamTalk 17:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)