Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects

Insects Project‑class

	Insects portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

Synonyms or subspecies

Could somebody please advise? There is a list below the name in a big, fat block. Are these all synonyms? The first name is a synonym, but the last part of the list seems to have subspecies. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are all synonyms, the subspecies are basically synonymized with the nominate species. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will add them to the article. Sorry for the late reply. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting an ID on two insects from the Philippines

Hello, I'd like to ask if anyone knows what these insects are. I could get as far as their family but nothing much beyond that. Pictures were taken in the island of Mindanao, Philippines. Thanks in advance. Obsidi♠n^Soul 05:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The blue bottle fly is perched on a leaf of a young palm. It is blue throughout, no bronze or green highlights as far as I can tell. If I would guess, it's probably Chrysomya rufifacies based on pics on the net?
This Jewel bug was feeding on Jatropha.
Jewel bugs on a Gmelina arborea leaf. They were preparing to mate I think. Family Scutelleridae, that's all I'm sure of of these bugs, heh.

Acromyrmex laticeps nigrosetosus

I started Acromyrmex nigrosetosus. I see this laticeps word when I google it. What does that mean? What's the proper species name? Please advise. Thanks! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two subspecies it seems. A. laticeps is the correct species name. Subspecies are A. laticeps laticeps and A. laticeps nigrosetosus. According to our very own Wikispecies.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 13:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. So what does that make Acromyrmex nigrosetosus? A redirect to the article Acromyrmex laticeps?

Wait, no.

ITIS lists it as a subspecies. As does Systema Naturae, Encyclopedia of Life, and Taxonomicon.

But look here in AntWeb AntWeb. Seems to have been revised as a species name in 2007 by A. L. Wild. The linked PDF doesn't work anymore though. Seems to have been originally published in the journal Zootaxa. Info was given as 21367 Wild, A. L. 2007. A catalogue of the ants of Paraguay (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Zootaxa 1622: 1-55. Publications are listed here, but no PDF link to the article. Currently hunting down the said PDF--Obsidi♠n^Soul 13:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Ucucha 13:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't see matches at that site of any of these keywords: Acromyrmex, laticeps, nigrosetosus. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)~~ I get it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha found a copy. I found another copy as well. And yes. Seems like it got promoted to species level. Another species from the genus that got elevated seems to be Acromyrmex pubescens, formerly from Acromyrmex lundii. You should take a look at it and revise the other articles as needed as well (it includes several other Formicidae as well). Use the journal as reference.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 14:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your digging. I am trying hard to figure out what you just wrote i.e. what was what and what is now is. :) I hope I get it right. Thanks all! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, no worries. I already added A. nigrosetosus and A. pubescens among the list of species in the Acromyrmex. Your article should be fine now (it's now a species, to put it simply). I also removed A. lundii pubescens and A. lundii parallelus from the Acromyrmex lundii article. Again referring from the same journal. You can reuse the cite I used as well:

<ref name="Journ1">{{cite journal|last1=Wild|first1=Alexander L.|last2=|first2=|year=2007|title=A catalogue of the ants of Paraguay (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)|journal=Zootaxa|volume=|issue=1622|pages=41, 51|publisher=Magnolia Press, http://mapress.com/|doi=|url=http://mapress.com/zootaxa/2007/zt01622p055.pdf|accessdate=January 22, 2011 }}</ref>

Saves you having to rewrite it. ;D --Obsidi♠n^Soul 14:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! There's no way I would have gotten it right. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with vast species lists

Does anyone know of a quick way to format huge species lists? I've just completed formatting a 300+ strong fly genus and my typing hand is feeling the strain. I'm now having second thoughts about tackling any other similar sized genus. Deargan (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the sources you're using. I noticed you haven't put the citation in the article yet, so that makes it harder to advise. Most online sources, including most PDF files can be reformatted into wikitext fairly simply using the right tools. With some PDFs and all purely printed media, you have to type it in manually. Is that what you've done here? Be aware that the parentheses around the authorities are very important, and should not be added or removed. I am sure that at least some of the Copestylum species you have listed should have parentheses around the authority. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, most of them apparently. I've started working on that. The area I need help with is creating this -

Copestylum albertoi Marcos-Garcia & Rotheray, 2007 from this - Copestylum albertoi Marcos-Garcia & Rotheray, 2007 for example, multiplied many hundred times over. Is there some tool which would make this task any less onerous? Also I should say I'm using the Catalogue of Life and Encyclopedia of Life websites for information and lists.Deargan (talk) 07:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I use a text editor I made myself which can use regular expressions in its search and replace function, although any decent text editor would do, as long as you can replace special characters like the new line. I then make the following replacements:

", " becomes ",_"
". " becomes "._" (for names with initials: "C. L. Koch" and the like)
" & " becomes "_&_"
"de " becomes "de_" (There may be more of these depending on what names occur in the list. If it includes "Le Loeuff", say, you would also need "Le " => "Le_". The lists I work with have a lot of "De Man" and "de Haan".)
"\n" (new line) becomes "</small>\n*''[["
" " (space) becomes "]]''_<small>" (The only remaining spaces should be between the binomen and the authority.)
Finally, "_" becomes " "

This does most of the reformatting in a set number of steps. There are always a few problems with two-word surnames that hadn't been noticed, or with inconsistent formatting in the sources, but it generally gets through the lion's share of the work.

Catalogue of Life, incidentally, is not a reliable source of information on the membership of a group. It is quite useful for finding likely authorities, but it includes all sorts of names which are no longer valid, or never were, as well as multiple orthographic variants of the same name. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for authoritative sources, I have come across the following snippets; it looks like a good, comprehensive list may be almost unfeasible. The Kaufman field guide claims that there are at least 39 species of Copestylum in North America, including those formerly classified under Volucella (a reclassification which may well complicate matters). Marcos-García & Pérez-Bañón (2002) state that there are > 300 species, and go on to describe yet another. There is also a paper from 2009 (doi:10.1111/j.1096-3642.2008.00503.x) describing 7 new species, which don't appear to have made it onto any of the online lists yet. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see what you mean. I checked my hastily assembled species list against a search on the BDWD Nomenclator and discovered a rather different list there. I'm not sure if the nomenclator is any more or less reliable than other sources (though it ought to be!) so perhaps I should just settle for a brief introduction to the genus with possibly a few better known species included as examples. Deargan (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scale insects

I have been creating new pages for scale insect families but I have met a problem. The family Monophlebidae has been carved out of Margarodidae according to this source and this means that some genera such as Icerya and the species Icerya purchasi currently appear in both. Wikispecies puts this genus in Monophlebidae. Any views? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has replied to this so I plan to go ahead and move some of the genera as appropriate from Margarodidae to Monophlebidae. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help finding naming papers for myrrha insects

My Google-fu has evaporated. Can not find ANY of the naming papers for some insects with species names "myrrha". See here, especially source 71. It's not really so much for the references as citations, but we really want to read them and see if the "namers" had some comments about the Myrrha myth, motivating them to label these butterflies myrrha. Please help!!!TCO (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did some investigation but I am afraid I could not find any useful information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only one I've been able to find is the protologue for Antona myrrha, which was originally described as Geometra myrrha. Descriptions are given by the author in Dutch and French, but with no etymology or discussion of the epithet. My own suspicion would be that these insects were all simply named after the plants that they live on, either referred to by name (Myrrhis odorata, for instance), or using myrrhus more generally for any aromatic plant. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Would you say those plants are named for Myrrha (or for myrrh...given she and the plant are the same thing anyhow, she turned into the plant). Is myrrhis a general term for bitter or fragrant? Not just referrring Myrrha/myrrh?TCO (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lepidoptera

I've been editing Lepidoptera like there's no tomorrow, but I can't do all the work myself. If anybody would like to go over it and see if they can add as much information as they can, or give me advice on what needs to be extended, moved, reworked, ect. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 21:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC:Use scientific naming conventions?

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list:

Maths, science, and technology

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The use of scientific names is the most beneficial way to go. There are to many common names or on the other end none at all to be reliable. Scientific names are for the most part reliable (well at least more reliable then common names) at higher levels. Here is are aim to make all higher level taxa use scientific names down to the family, unless further compromising dictates otherwise. to make your "vote" add *(your side: '''oppose/support''') reason why. ~~~~

Strong support: Currently the insect orders are a mix of vernacular and scientific, which not very consistent. These are higher ranking taxa which are stable and include many different species with different names. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 12:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very strongly oppose. We are written in English, and for lay readers, not for specialists; even specialists use generic and English terms when speaking to the generality. J. B. S. Haldane spoke of God as "having an inordinate fondness for beetles", not for Coleoptera. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general, we use (or should use) vernacular names when they are commonly used and well-established, and scientific names otherwise. Is there any reason not to use some of the well-established vernacular names for insect orders, like "beetle" for Coleoptera? Ucucha 12:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few reasons actually. First note, using the scientific name is encyclopedic, as the encyclopedias I use all use the aforementioned rather then the vernacular. Second, many higher taxa include species that do not only go by one common name (though debatable). For example Coleoptera includes "fireflies, june bugs, ladybugs, weevils," ect., though those could be called beetles, I've personally never heard someone calla firefly a beetle. Another note is that there is no consistency, half of the other insect orders use the proper scientific name. Scientific names of higher ranking taxa are more reliable (though lower ones are not at this moment do to ongoing research). Can I move this up into the box and include it as an oppose? It will make it easier when a vote is considered. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 13:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is a laymans encyclopedia, so use vernacular names when they are well established, and use scientific names when they are not. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Use vernacular as redirects to scientific nomenclature. Of course, this may require a considerable number of disambiguation pages, as a particular common name (and don't get me started on the ridiculousness that are "ESA approved common names") may refer to a number of different organisms. Aderksen (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, or rather, agree with Ucucha and van der Linde. If the vernacular name is not common, established, and clear, the scientific name should be used, as may be appropriate with Coleoptera. —innotata 16:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note:I'm seeing some consistency in the reasons why in those who oppose. Speaking from someone who once, albeit along time ago, was a "layman", do we not come to Wikipedia to learn, where they are redirected to the page and realize what the scientific name. Another thing to note, we are only considering only high taxa (orders mostly) in Insect, with only 6 using common names with the other 28 using the scientific. Other encyclopedias do not use the common names, are they not also for the common reader, certainly there not only for experts? Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 23:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. We come to find out what a beetle is. That the closest scientific taxon to the common and vague notion is the Coleoptera is a fact about beetles; not the most important fact (if we were only interested in terminology, we'd be on Wiktionary) nor the one which should determine the title, but one the article should prominently mention - and does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was the most important fact, neither did I say it did not mention it. However I have yet to find a reason to not to change it, as using the scientific does not hinder or discourage (in my own opinion) the reader, and considering the pros and cons I'm not convinced that we shouldn't. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 00:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I can see good reasons on both sides; using scientific names for everything is neat, unified, consistent and encyclopaedic. But on the other hand, the majority of readers (I assume), aren't going to recognise these names and because the articles are supposed to be targeted at the reader it almost seems right to use vernacular names. A compromise could be to redirect vernacular names to scientific ones. (-that's what we've already been doing). -- — JamesDouch • Talk 01:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I was hoping to accomplish, but there is no consistency what so ever, maybe we should do this for the insect orders. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 01:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The common name should redirect to the article which would have the scientific name. It would be more accurate, morew consistent _ i.e, more encyclopedic. So that the common man is not confused, the leads would be appropriately worded. AshLin (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Just to be sure we all understand the proposal, you are proposing to move all WP Insects articles, down to the rank of family, to scientific names, right? So:

Insect => Insecta

Beetle => Coleoptera

Hemiptera

Hymenoptera

Louse => Phthiraptera

Chewing louse => Mallophaga

Mantis => Mantodea
Mayfly => Ephemeroptera
Megaloptera

Alderfly => Sialidae

Neuroptera

Antlion => Myrmeleontidae
Owlfly => Ascalaphidae

Odonata

Damselfly => Zygoptera
Dragonfly => Anisoptera

but not:

and are you including these?

Rain beetle (= Pleocomidae, but article would be Pleocoma)
Telephone-pole beetle (= Micromalthidae, but article would be Micromalthus)
Tsetse fly (= Glossinidae, but article would be Glossina)

or the various articles under WP:Lepidoptera?

This list is probably quite incomplete. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well at this point, my main focus is the orders, anything below that I can compromise to, but I believe, yes, that the families should be moved. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 14:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support While this is a layman's encyclopedia, it seems that the use of scientific terms for (at least) the orders of insects would function the same way here as they do in entomology--in the avoidance of confusion. No one looking up "beetle" would be misdirected or misinformed by the article's heading being coleoptera, and once it has been established that this is the technical term, use of the folk taxonomy within the body of the article could probably be used interchangeably with the scientific terms. This would ensure, where common terms might overlap or be misleading, that the placement within actual taxonomy is correct.Lo, i am real 00:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the same reason. Although it is no big deal in my opinion. Redirecting the scientific name to an article with a common name title also works for me.Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note- Just a random note, the family Micromalthidae should be a full page and not a redirect to Micromalthus as it includes at least one extinct genus, Cretomalthus, found in Lebanese Amber. Similarly the extinct Cretocoma means that Pleocomidae should be a family page.

Oppose. It's important that the scientific name be present in the article, but I don't see any overriding reason to disregard WP:COMMONNAME in this case - it's a widely accepted standard across the encyclopaedia as a whole. Birds and fauna both prescribe using the common name, and flora uses common names for any plants commonly known/used outside of botanical circles. For consistency-sake, insect articles should use common names with scientific title redirects pointing to the common name article. The articles themselves should make mention of the scientific name in the first sentence. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If your looking for consistency, then you got it backwards, thousands upon thousands of insect related articles use scientific names, half don't even have common names. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 01:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have it the right way. I'm in favour of consistency across the encyclopaedia as a whole. For subjects that don't have common names, of course the scientific name is appropriate. Scientific-titled articles on insects with common names should be renamed, in line with the vast majority of other articles on living things, along with the vast majority of articles on any topic across the board. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Participants here will be interested in the recent discussion at Talk:Beetle#Requested move, which proposed moving the article to Coleoptera but which reached a rough consensus to stay with the common name (although my assessment of this outcome as been politely queried). Andrewa (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Right now there is no consistency between pages. Using scientific names with redirect pages from common names would fix that issue. Using redirects would also avoid any confusion by lay people looking up "beetle" or"fly". It is not possible to use scientific names to create consistency due to the fact that some orders do not have common names (e.g.Hymenoptera and Odonata). In fact, there isn't even consistency in using common names when one is available (e.g. the Hemiptera page is entitled Hemiptera, not "True Bug" ). AJseagull1 (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

John Smith (2000). "How to Put Things into Other Things". Journal of Foobar. 1 (2): 3–4. arXiv:0123456789. ASIN 0123456789. Bibcode:0123456789. doi:0123456789. ISBN 0123456789. ISSN 0123456789. JFM 0123456789. JSTOR 0123456789. LCCN 0123456789. MR 0123456789. OCLC 0123456789. OL 0123456789. OSTI 0123456789. PMC 0123456789. PMID 0123456789. RFC 0123456789. SSRN 0123456789. Zbl 0123456789. |id=____. {{cite journal}}: Check |arxiv= value (help); Check |asin= value (help); Check |bibcode= length (help); Check |doi= value (help); Check |issn= value (help); Check |jfm= value (help); Check |mr= value (help); Check |ol= value (help); Check |osti= value (help); Check |pmc= value (help); Check |pmid= value (help); Check |rfc= value (help); Check |ssrn= value (help); Check |zbl= value (help)

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]