Talk:Goniglossum wiedemanni

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Insects Low‑importance

	Insects portal This 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Diptera

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Diptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of flies 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.DipteraWikipedia:WikiProject DipteraTemplate:WikiProject DipteraDiptera articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Requested move 29 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carpomya wiedemanni → Goniglossum wiedemanni – Old taxonomy --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Hexagonal~commonswiki (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Done. Hexagonal~commonswiki and Plantdrew, should Carpomya and its other species articles be moved as well? --BDD (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BDD:, no moves to other existing articles are needed. I should have looked into this more throughly before I lent it my support (I just did a cursory check that the name existed, and assumed good faith). Carpomya wiedemanni is in fact the newer combination (not "old taxonomy"), and most (but not all) recent sources seem to accept placement in Carpomya. But the situation here is one of those subjective things in taxonomy where the phylogeny of the species in question can support either classification. However, if wiedemanni isn't placed in Carpomya, than "Carpomya pardalina" must be treated as Myiopardalis pardalina to be consistent with the phylogeny. Plantdrew (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. So was this a bad move? I'm interested in taxonomy but by no means an expert. I'm happy to help out with whatever here—just point me in the right direction. --BDD (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad move, but it kind of makes a mess of things since all the databases used as references in this article are going with Carpomya. I'll try to get it sorted out. Basically, somebody named Norrbom published a phylogenetic study in 1997 and moved the two species I've mentioned to Carpomya. There's a book from 1999 with a chapter that (among other things) takes a position against Norrbom's moves to Carpomya (on what seem to me to be fairly good grounds, and again noting that this is all subjective; the science behind it can support either position). While he didn't write the chapter in question, Norrbom is the editor of the book, so presumably doesn't object to much to the opposing position. Plantdrew (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Goniglossum wiedemanni. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130217144422/http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/Diptera/tephriti/Carpomya/CarpKey.htm to http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/diptera/tephriti/Carpomya/CarpKey.htm

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) 00:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]