Talk:Heterorhina elegans
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Heterorrhina elegans. 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/20110726174752/http://indjst.org/archive/vol.2.issue.1/jan09kumar.pdf to http://indjst.org/archive/vol.2.issue.1/jan09kumar.pdf
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) 21:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Spelling
[edit]@Dyanega: what do you make of what is said here on page 266 - https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_-7K9ZeHNih8C/page/266/mode/1up (Westwood 1845(?) does seem to have a single r - here) Shyamal (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Scratch that - I misread it the first time round. I am surprised how much more frequently the double-r form has been used... Shyamal (talk) 02:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have a query circulating for evidence that would contradict Smith's 2006 review, in which he specifies usage of Westwood's original single R spelling; he might be incorrect, via prevailing usage of the misspelling with two Rs. It hasn't yet been determined whether the misspelling should be preserved or not. Yes, it's prevalent online, but the ICZN doesn't count anything but print publications. Certainly if the scarab workers get back to me and say we have to reject the original spelling, I'll make the necessary changes. Dyanega (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)