User talk:Dyanega

For anyone wondering, I'm the collection manager of a major US insect collection, and an actively publishing insect systematist. I work with several different insect orders, but focus on the Hymenoptera in particular. I am also intimately involved with efforts to create a standardized "Official" registry of zoological scientific names, and expect I may ultimately get involved in formal collaboration with Wikipedia.

Archives

Archive1 Archive2 Archive3 Archive4

Bombus subgenera/species list

Hey Dyanega. Just wondering if you think adding a "complete" subgenera/species list to the bumble bee page is a good idea or if it would just create clutter. The source of the list would be: S. A. CAMERON, H. M. HINES, P. H. WILLIAMS. (2007) A comprehensive phylogeny of the bumble bees (Bombus). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2007, 91, 161–188.Corbiculad 00:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My inclination, at this point, would be not to actually list all the subgenera on the page, but instead make sure that all the species pages place each species in the correct subgenus following the new classification. What you MIGHT do is to compose a separate article - a "List of world bumblebee species" (there's just over 200, if you don't count subspecies) - and organize that article by subgenera. About the only change that might need to be made to the bumblebee article would be to change the number of subgenera from 37 to whatever number those authors have used. I certainly wouldn't bother making separate articles for each subgenus. Peace, Dyanega 16:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yellow Jacket

Thanks for the heads up on the yellow jacket image. From the information I got from a friend it was identified as a Yellow Jacket rather than the Polistes dominulus(European paper wasp). Rather than let the image go to waist I will put it in that section instead.

The funny thing is that, this was is called the European Paper wasp but I live nowhere near Europe. The photo was actually taken in Toront, Canada, I guess they are not exclusive to the continent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverspark (talk • contribs) 18:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Strepsiptera

Dear Doug, I have been looking over material on Strepsiptera and I have very limited access to current research literature. Borror-Triplehorn-Johnson (6ed) uses Mengeidae which appears to be now reserved for an extinct group with the extant members moved into Corioxenidae (which is not mentioned in the outdated outline material I have). Do you know of a key to the families listed on the Strepsiptera page ? TIA Shyamal 04:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I knew, the status of the classification was as reported on the Tree of Life web page, which is linked; the Mengeids referred to by BTJ are presently placed in the Mengenillidae. The TOL page may contain a reference with a key, though I'm not certain. Dyanega 00:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

You deserve a barnstar for your comments at Talk:Morgellons. Axl 09:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		To Dyanega, for providing a consistent, balanced viewpoint. Axl 09:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Mimicry articles

Hello Dyanega, you've probably noticed I've been working mainly on mimicry articles lately, and I'd like to hear your thoughts on their development. How long do you think the main mimicry article should be, and how technical? I'm thinking of having two conceptual articles: evolution of mimicry and classification of mimicry to discuss the core theoretical aspects, allowing the main article to be more friendly to the lay person. I'm also hoping to have several daughter articles for specific mimicry types, such as acoustic mimicry, Müllerian mimicry, mimicry in plants etc. Since many of these don't exist yet, the main article is still in somewhat of a shambles, with some parts being underdeveloped and others too detailed. Do you think this is a good plan? Richard001 00:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

My own inclination would be to keep it as a single article for as long as possible, and only start splitting sub-topics off if the article truly becomes unmanageable; the conceptual articles would be nice, but possibly a little esoteric and therefore not worth spending a lot of time on until you think the main article is really in solid shape. One thing to consider is developing the mimicry category, where articles dealing with organisms that are considered to be mimics are hunted down and tagged as such, to expand the cross-referencing to the main article. I can see that being a very helpful tool in organizing the available examples. Peace, and keep up the good work, Dyanega 00:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

for this and the fix before. Must have been a late night for that typo! // FrankB 04:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Bee Photo

Hi Dyanega:

I am very new to Wikipedia, and recently added a photo (taken by myself) to the Honey Bee page, which you subsequently removed, citing that it was a commercial photo. Do you consider it to be a commercial photo, because it was released under the Attribution license? Or because you believe it to be a "borrowed" image? Are attribution photos not allowed in the articles? If not, I am willing to release the photo into the public domain. If it is simply a matter of permission ... as it is my image, I certainly have given permission for its use.

Thank you for any clarification you can provide,

MrWikiFix —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwikifix (talk • contribs) 18:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

...apology

Okay sorry about that. But as an investigative researcher and journalist I am a resource of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hivementality (talk • contribs) 00:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up beehive

Thanks for stepping in and cleaning up beehive. It needed that. --P3d0 21:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Coccinellidae

Thanks. --John 16:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

I saw your comment on Shyamal's page, and I've blocked a couple of persistent vandals for a while. I don't watch most insect pages, but if you let me know of any persistent vandals, previously warned, I'll block if necessary. Jimfbleak —Preceding comment was added at 17:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ant revert

The edit by Meldor that you reverted was actually legitimate. It puts a star against the interwiki link to indicate and it appears that [1] is indeed a Featured Article FA on that language wiki. Shyamal 04:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Apiology Page

Hey Dyanega,

Thanks for your work on the apiology article! Do you think there should be a seperate article created for Melittology? I am a grad student studying bees in AZ. AJseagull1 06:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

p.s. i used a lot of the userbox templates from your user page. hope that's cool. AJseagull1 06:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Beetle family

What family is this likely to be of. Less than an inch long and chooses to fly, found in open grassland and visits flowers. Shyamal 03:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Based on the prothorax, I'd say it has to be an Oedemerid. Dyanega 06:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ! Shyamal 07:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Warriors vs Soldiers

I believe you are right, but who came up with the terminology? AnteaterZot 08:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• So not E.O. Wilson, then? About when did people notice there were castes? I ask because there is no article on insect castes. AnteaterZot 21:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Carpenter Ants

I placed an expand tag on Carpenter ant because it is way too short an article for such an economically important topic. Having just read your user page, I suspect you might be in a position to do something about it. AnteaterZot 21:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• As a genus page it's fine. But, what about those Wikipedia users who have carpenter ants in their house? They don't care about taxonomy, and the page is called "Carpenter ant", not "Camponotus". AnteaterZot 22:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Then they need to determine what species they have, and the article should help them do so, or at LEAST inform them that there are many possibilities they need to consider - there are dozens of different carpenter ants, just like there are hundreds of different termites, and tens of thousands of different bees and wasps. It's sort of like saying "Every day I'm being attacked by an animal in my neighborhood. What should I do?" - the proper response depends entirely upon knowing what kind of animal it is (even if you narrowed it down to "dog" that still isn't specific enough). Dyanega 22:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've made some changes in that direction. AnteaterZot 22:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Apis laboriosa smith

hello Dyanega,

Judging by what's on ur user page, I guess that you must quite an authoritarian figure in entomology. Therefore, in all wikipedian tradition, i am posting a query.

I have read in a couple of places that Apis dorsata laboriosa is no longer called so and now the Himalayan cliff honeybee is called just Apis laboriosa.

Just wanted to confirm, because i would like to make a few changes to the 4 bee species that are indigenous to South Asia.

Regards, 203.91.140.133 (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Eusociality

The article is in a bad state without references. Could I have a soft copy of your "The definition of eusociality" Crespi and Yanega. Behav. Ecol. 1995; 6:109-115. Shyamal (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a link to a self-archived version of that paper? I can see only an abstract here [2] and did not find it here [3] Shyamal (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Have done a round of cleanup and have cited paraphrased versions of the definition debates in more recent reviews. Some of the material can be comfortably deleted - as they are also repeated in other linked articles. Shyamal (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and inclusive fitness article

Understood, and pretty much in agreement. I previously did only copy editing--not for me, really, to tell someone else what to post, I thought--but we are working on the article to hash out a more busineslike version. It's just taking a lot of time that I don't have outside3 my regular job. Maybe over Christmas break we'll get it done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.187.23 (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Coleopteran groups

How current is this List  ? Shyamal (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I compared the two lists and the only items needing reconciliation (annotations would be useful to the current list) are Cyathoceridae and Urodontidae (and Microsporidae which you already noted). 10:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyamal (talk • contribs)

Category:Empusidae

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Category:Empusidae. It is considered vandalism. If you think an article should be deleted, please use deletion process, in stead of blanking the page. Od Mishehu עוד מישהו 07:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

a response

Responding to this:

Hi. Just so you know; while the technically preferred spelling of "bumblebee" is indeed "bumble bee", it is still the less common spelling variant among authoritative sources at this stage of things. As far as I can tell, this is primarily because non-American English speakers almost invariably use "bumblebee" as a single word still today, and Wikipedia has a fair bit of inertia in such regards. While it may not be consistent, this is one case where it is far easier to accede to the majority usage. The use of "honeybee" as a single word shows more clear signs of being phased out, even outside of the US, so I and other editors have been working to make the various WP articles internally consistent in using the "honey bee" variant. Perhaps that example will eventually be followed by a transition to "bumble bee", but I don't see it happening soon. Peace, Dyanega (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Merriam-Webster actually gave me almost precisely the same response when I told them that "honey bee" is the more correct spelling. They insisted that "honeybee" had a slightly higher incidence of usage in the journals that matter. I wrote back and told them that "wrong is still wrong". Maybe we have tipped over the edge now with "honey bee". My worry is that wikipedia is now "THE" authority and the stance that wikipedia takes becomes the defacto standard. I would love to take a stand on correctness. I suspect that when folks are in doubt, they will check wikipedia and then use that spelling... which will perpetuate the problem (if you can call it that).

So... I agree to a degree, but ultimately disagree. Wikipedia has a lot of power to drive standards now. I think we should be as correct as possible. So, my vote is: spell it as it should be and make a note as to common usage, not the other way around.

Happy Holidays!
-tonica

Pyrops candelarius vs Pyrops candelaria

Hi. Thanks for cleaning up the article that I started on this bug.

I see you moved the article from Pyrops candelaria to Pyrops candelarius. Do you have any souce to back up this claim?

Google has 526 entries for my original title. link to google search. But only 11 entires for the new name that you gave it. link to other google search

I'm no expert so it's possible that I was wrong. But I was just wondering why you changed it. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I happen to be an expert in nomenclature and taxonomy. There is a formal, official Code governing the proper spelling of scientific names (the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature). One of the rules is that the name of a species must agree in gender with the name of the genus. The name "Pyrops" is masculine, and all names in the genus must be formed to also be masculine. While it is true that nearly everyone in the world refers to the species as "candelaria", those folks who do so are all wrong, and their ignorance of the rule is no reason to perpetuate the misspelling. That's exactly why rules of nomenclature exist; so when there is a difference of opinion, there is one clear and definitive answer. The genus Pyrops is masculine, therefore, all the species names in the genus must also be masculine. Dyanega (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining it. Yes, I agree with you - those other people are wrong. I was wrong. Thanks for teaching me. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise

Hi Doug: Thank you for the recommendations. As I am starting with editing in Wikipedia I am continuously but still slowly learning what and how to do about editing, and helpfull comments like yours are allways welcome. I will be taking into account your sugestions. As for the move it happened in a starting confusion, when in some way I had the impression that I had been editing the pages Potter wasp and Eumeninae at the same time and then, to avoid duplication I decided to keep all the edits in the Eumeninae page, thinking that the scientific name was more accurate than the common name (I was thinking like a taxonomist and not like an enciclopedy editor in that moment, sorry). Cheers, Bolosphex (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Digging into a fruit?

Wow... it is really the first time I have heard of a record precisely like that. I am not very familiar with Epipona as the genus is not present in Paraguay and I just collected it one time in Nicaragua. But about other Epiponines, what I remember in Telica volcano, Nicaragua, many year ago, is having seen several Synoeca septentrionalis eating Nancite (Byrsonima crassifolia) fruits, wich are just about 2 cm across and sweet. That's the way I would expect a social wasp finding (ocassionaly or on purpose) a burrowing larva, although I did not see such thing happening at that time. But avocado fruits are large and not precisely sweet and I do not remember (personaly, which does not mean it couldn't happen) them as especially atractive for social wasps. It is probable that they were primarily atracted by a rotting fruit, if that was the case. I have seen Polybia and Agelaia wasps being atracted by rotting fruits and even carrion (some Agelaia species are well known for doing the latter). In such situations they are usually found eating the rotten matters, but it could well be an opportunity (I think) to prey on other insects visiting or developing on the spot. As long as I know a same pattern of behaviour is appliable to either predatory and parasitic wasps: they first seek for a place suitable to find a prey and after finding it they proceed to look for a prey in that place. Anyway, the observation is interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolosphex (talk • contribs) 12:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

blowfly photo

Re your comments on the Talk:Blow-fly page, I've added a tighter crop of the photo I'm proposing as a replacment, and would appreciate your comments. Martybugs (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Bengalia

Hello, Prof. Lehrer is back with his usual load of personnal attacks, but directed against you this time. Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry I did not reply in time to protect the page. It seems that another administrator has done it. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 19:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Your Hypocrisy

I am including the original conversation on the "Rods" subject. Considering you deleted it from your page, because you do not want everyone to know the truth about you. Your attempts to take credit for things you did not take part in and your attempts at being an authority figure on a website due to your lack of REAL self-esteem in your REAL life. I will not tolerate it. I have been on the internet since its inception. I have taken part in developing many of the technologies used to run it. I will be DAMNED before I allow some punk to hop online and censor my information, unlawfully and unfairly, in order to pump up your own ego and reputation. You sir, are an internet parasite. Below is the ORIGINAL conversation.

---

Hi. While you are free to make whatever statements you like in the talk pages, it is explicitly a violation of WP policy to include ANY "original material" in an article; please acquaint yourself with the guidelines at WP:NOR. It is also a violation to keep re-adding material that has already been justifiably removed; the policy in this case is WP:3RR. Perhaps more to the point, the article ALREADY indicates that rods are a known video artifact, and your additional "original explanation" does little to improve upon what is already there. If you would really like to contribute, then if you could find additional links to technical discussions as to how video cameras produce rod-like images, and add those links, that would be the most constructive possible thing to add to the article. Thanks, Dyanega (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll say it one last time: WP DOES NOT ALLOW original material. If you revert back again, it will also violate WP:3RR, and it will be reported to an admin. It is not worth getting your account blocked just to insert your personal opinion into an article that already agrees with you. Dyanega (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

---

OH NO!!! Don't Block my account, considering that ANON IPs can edit material!!!

Again, I REMOVED the Original Material and left only the legit research that you STILL removed. I am marking this article with software to AUTO undo any edit to my content.

Please DO contact an administrator.

You are Violating my Civil rights and also violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (A.D.A) of 1990. "The.gov ADA Law" "The EOC.gov ADA Website"

I am aware that this website is run under the laws of FLORIDA and I just happen to be a legal Florida resident. Any further suppression to the information I add will result in legal action. The information I add follows the rules and are well within bounds. YOU just want to take credit for things and you want to continue to shove your "authority" around, but you have none. Again, Wiki "Rules" do NOT trump United States LAW! Period. The Cyndicate (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)