Jump to content

Talk:Insect

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jlittlenz (talk | contribs) at 00:39, 19 September 2017 (New question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Good articleInsect has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 13, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
May 20, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
November 14, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article
WikiProject iconInsects GA‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article 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
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

small bugs

I need information on a small order less bug about the size of a grain of sand. The description of the bug is very small order less and very shinny. Please if you know of such a bug please let me know Thank You Lynne Perkins (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have pointed user towards the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Haploidavey (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity

First, while the section in this article on Diversity refers the reader to Insect biodiversity as the main article, that article is poor. Further critique belongs there, but it is not worthy of "main article" status.

Second, there are some confusing numbers that I am changing. I get that there is a big difference between catalogued and estimated numbers. This discrepancy, in two sentences, is not that.

... About 850,000–1,000,000 of all described species are insects. Of the 24 orders of insects, four dominate in terms of numbers of described species, with at least 3 million species included in Coleoptera, Diptera, Hymenoptera and Lepidoptera. ...

Based on the numbers in the chart that follows, the numbers of these four orders range from 670,000 to 855,000, I changed the "at least 3 million" to "at least 670,000". The "recent estimate" on number of beetles, now two years old, I shifted with a date replacing "recent" to its own paragraph following the chart.

Note that there are inconsistencies in the numbers in the different articles, with the Hymenoptera article giving a number of 150,000 described species and Diptera 125,000 described species. While I easily accept wild fluctuations in the number of estimated species, these huge discrepancies in described species is curious. None-the-less, for some consistency I have also changed the Hymenoptera chart # for a high to 150,000, to match somewhat better the article itself. The Diptera number I am leaving as is, as the article has a midrange number that fits ok with this chart.

GeeBee60 (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Ectognatha"

"Ectognatha" is an apparently monotypic clade (containing only the Class Insecta that, according to the Taxobox, ranks below it), not recognized on ITIS. Seriously, go to ITIS and search it. The Class Insecta, on the other hand, is recognized on ITIS.

So how does one edit an Automatic Taxobox? Can we please just stick with Class Insecta, ranked immediately below Superclass Hexapoda? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel that ITIS should trump other sources?--Kevmin § 20:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1. Because it concerns itself with all life, rather than being limited to some given upper taxon. Such a system fully acknowledges the ultimate genetic relationship, of all life.
2. What's wrong with skipping a monotypic unranked group with a ranked member (in this case, that sole member is the Class Insecta)? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am also having trouble understanding how a clade that contains only another clade deserves a separate position or isn't in fact the same clade. Isn't Ectognatha currently just a synonym for Insecta? For example [4] says Ectognatha contains Archaeognatha, Pterygota and Zygentoma - i.e. Insecta. [5] Outright says Insecta = Ectognatha.—DIYeditor (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Mysterious El Willstro: the only way to remove this from the automatic taxobox is to edit the corresponding templates and they are protected. I have started discussions on Template talk:Taxonomy/Insecta and Template talk:Taxonomy/Ectognatha. Thanks for pointing out this issue. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ITIS is not a reliable source for the taxonomy though, since it fully ignores all extinct taxa, and thus is extremely biased in the relationships it shows. Look at Ginkgoales and then look at ITIS. 99.5% of the order is blatantly omitted. This means the assertion of "Because it concerns itself with all life, rather than being limited to some given upper taxon" is false.--Kevmin § 00:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See also the discussion of the phylogeny at Hexapoda for the phylogenetic positioning of Ectognatha in relation to non insect hexapoda.--Kevmin § 00:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah Hexapoda shows them as synonyms. "In true insects (class Insecta) the mouthparts are exposed or ectognathous, while in other groups they are enveloped or endognathous." See the one of three cladograms there that even lists Ectognatha where it has no other children than Insecta - i.e. they are the same clade. Also see the two RSs I gave above. Ectognatha = Insecta. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hexapoda shows they are usable interchangeably in SOME taxonomic treatments, but the first cladogram shows that they are NOT the same clade. Ignoring the taxonomy and just saying "there is only one child, so they are the same" is not accurately reflecting the phylogenetic relationships.--Kevmin § 14:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a WP:RS for Ectognatha being different from Insecta? Hexapoda does not clearly indicate that, provides no sources for that, and a wikipedia article is not a RS. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here for a start. As I have said, its a clade that has several different defintions (senso lato and senso stricto).--Kevmin § 19:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think maybe Ectognatha should have its own article with citations if a due portion of sources agree that it refers to a distinct clade or one described a different way. If what you say is accurate then it doesn't make sense to me for Ectognatha to be a redirect to Insecta. Maybe a redirect to a specific section of Insecta on the topic. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
//ITIS is not a reliable source for the taxonomy though, since it fully ignores all extinct taxa//
No, it doesn't. It takes some doing, but there is a setting on the ITIS Website that allows searches of extinct taxa. Here is a Search Results Page with 3 taxa found, 2 of which are extinct: http://www.catalogueoflife.org/annual-checklist/2017/search/all/key/Trilobite/fossil/1/match/0. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Mysterious El Willstro: can you please include the URL for the "here" in your comment above? Thanks.
More generally, I entirely agree that ITIS is not a reliable source for modern taxonomy. Look at the entry for Hexapoda: its external source is a 2002 book. Look at the entry for Arthropoda: it uses the subphyla Chelicerata, Crustacea, Hexapoda and Myriapoda, whereas the current consensus is clear that Crustacea is not a valid taxon, being paraphyletic with respect to Hexapoda. The underlying problem is that neither ITIS nor anyone else is currently in a position to produce a sourced consistent rank-based classification for much of the tree of life, for many reasons, including: (1) experts disagree (2) where there is a consensus within a taxonomic group, it is often inconsistent with the consensus elsewhere (3) systems that work for extant species often don't work when extinct taxa are included (4) rank-based classification has largely been abandoned by most researchers in phylogeny (5) research is ongoing in many areas and views change regularly. This is not to say that ITIS shouldn't be a source, but it can't be the source. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the common ancestor isn't in the excluded subgroup, that is nothing a qualifier designation such as Grade Subphylum or Grade Class can't fix. In cases where one lineage maintains punctuated equilibrium longer than another, the greater retention of ancestral traits argues for the usefulness of grades (parataxa) as long as they are distinguished from full clades using a qualifier such as those I just mentioned. (Granted, ITIS doesn't use "Grade" as a qualifier in such cases, but they should. I have to cut off that tangent before I run into WP:NotAForum territory.) Anyway, it's not like the former "Kingdom Protista," which excluded its common ancestor and no qualifier such as grade could possibly make it at all useful. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Mysterious El Willstro: but we mustn't add such qualifiers. We have to use what appears to be the most reliably sourced, up to date, consensus classification for the taxa we deal with in Wikipedia, while acknowledging the existence of other reliably sourced classifications. In some cases, this may mean using ITIS's classification, but in many cases it clearly won't, for the reasons I've given. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this particular case is not even so much about ranks. It is about the fact that Ectognatha redirects to Insect anyway, being a clade that is synonymous with the Class Insecta and hence does not warrant a separate listing (ranked or otherwise) in the Taxobox. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the sourcing for your Catalog of life 2000 entries, they are universally (from what I can find) simply ported over from The paleobiology Database, a notably incomplete and often out of date database. Plus COL is not the same as the ITIS entries.--Kevmin § 14:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the issue

Returning to the issue of "Ectognatha", although it's not totally settled, the consensus phylogeny for hexapods seems to be as follows:[1]

Hexapoda

Collembola (springtails)

Protura (coneheads)

Diplura (two-pronged bristletails)

Ectognatha

Archaeognatha (jumping bristletails)

Zygentoma (silverfish)

Pterygota (winged insects)

The issue that arises is what "Insecta" should refer to in this cladogram (if anything). It can refer to Insecta sensu lato = Hexapoda (when Ectognatha is a clade within Insecta), or it can refer to Insecta sensu stricto = Ectognatha (when Ectognatha is just a synonym for Insecta).[2] It's not entirely clear which usage of "Insecta" we should follow, because it's easy to find sources that use either as well as those that avoid "Insecta" althogether, although the sensu stricto use seems more common. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kevmin's source[3] showed a different and more narrow sensu stricto for Insecta, distinguishing it from Archeognatha and Zygentoma. How do we decide what is authoritative for purposes of the taxobox since we have sources for it being three (or more[4]) different ways? Maybe Insecta should be renamed to Ectognatha in the auto taxobox and discussed only in sections of the Hexapoda and Insect articles explaining the competing uses and their history? Sticking to Ectognatha would eliminate the ambiguity. As to whether the Insect article should be a discussion primarily of Ectognatha, that seems reasonable and the most widely supported. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's certainly a sensu strictissimo sense where Insecta = Pterygota, and it does seems to correspond to some intuitions about what an "insect" is, namely that it has (or had) wings. I also agree that using only the clade names from the cladogram above in taxoboxes might be the best approach, with the Insect article discussing the different meanings (see Plant for an example of where this is also needed), but primarily covering Ectognatha. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added a section Insect#Definitions to try to explain the competing definitions/circumscriptions. It undoubtedly needs more work. The phylogeny and classification information is seriously out-of-date; I don't have time to fix this now. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think that makes things much more clear and the table in particular is understandable to a nonexpert. I think it would be useful to add your cladogram above to Hexapoda. Would it need to be cited? —DIYeditor (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The cladogram is from Kjer et al. (2016): the full citation is {{Cite journal |last1=Kjer |first1=Karl M. |last2=Simon |first2=Chris |last3=Yavorskaya |first3=Margarita |last4=Beutel |first4=Rolf G. |date=2016 |title=Progress, pitfalls and parallel universes: a history of insect phylogenetics |journal=Journal of the Royal Society Interface |volume=13 |page=121 |doi=10.1098/rsif.2016.0363 |lastauthoramp=yes }} The Kjer article is a thorough review of insect phylogeny. Yes, the cladogram needs to be added, and the related phylogeny and classification discussed, in a number of places: in this article, at Hexapoda, at Evolution of insects and at the articles about the subgroups of Hexapoda. All are notably out-of-date. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kjer et al. (2016), doi:10.1098/rsif.2016.0363
  2. ^ Sasaki et al. (2013), [1]
  3. ^ Olson et al. (2016), [2]
  4. ^ Ax (2000), [3]

Let me put this way

The way the Taxobox is currently written, the Class Insecta is nested into the unranked clade Ectognatha. Based on the 2 definitional scenarios @Peter Coxhead: explained above, it should either be the other way around or have "Ectognatha" listed as a junior synonym for Insecta. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Peter and I agreed above that Insecta should be replaced with Ectognatha for purposes of the auto taxobox, do you disagree? Insecta is an ambiguous term whereas Ectognatha refers to a clear and specific clade. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me as long as it's one name or the other. The Taxobox, as it was, is inconsistent with existing Redirects that imply synonymy of both names. ("Ectognatha," "Insecta," and "Class Insecta" all redirect to this Article.) The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're all agreed that here we treat "Insecta" in the sense in which it's synonymous with Ectognatha, so both shouldn't appear in the taxobox. I tend to favour replacing Insecta by Ectognatha, but this, in my view, needs a wider consensus, and as yet I don't see enough editors joining in here. For now, I'll remove Ectognatha from the taxonomy template. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Insect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strange sentence, perhaps uses the wrong word?

The section on phylogeny has this:

Most extinct orders of insects developed during the Permian period that began around 270 million years ago.

That doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Perhaps the intention was "most extant"? If that is indeed true (that is, most orders existing today developed in the Permian), then the sentence would make a lot of useful sense. Jlittlenz (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Insect&oldid=801323315"