Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects

Good sources for insect/arthropods?

Hello everyone! I asked for good insect sources on the reliable sources noticeboard and got redirected to here! Anyways, I was asking if anyone has any good recommendations for sources for insect and arthropod pages (mainly Lepidoptera). Also if anyone knows if UKMoths is a reliable source, it would be appreciated! RamenThePigeon (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd be cautionary about UKMoths, considering the "contributors" are left anonymous and we can't guarantee they are appropriately qualified. I also can't find any information on Ian Kimber (entomology), only on Ian Kimber (immunology and toxicology). You should check specifically the lepidoptera task force page for references there, other than that googling the species and using stuff like catalogue of life is useful. FranticSpud (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually I stand corrected, the task force lists UKMoths as a reliable source and they probably know better than me. FranticSpud (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I have my own resource page which has fairly extensive coverage of insects: see User:Jts1882/Phylogeny_and_taxonomy_resources#Arthropods. The coverage is incomplete, but I think that is mainly due to lack suitable sources (there are so many insects and grant funding is limited). I'd welcome any suggestions for improvements and additions.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:47, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

BWARS (Bees Wasps Ants Recording Society) of Britain is useful for references for Hymenoptera so I'd recommend adding that. There's also Barry Bolton's work with his AntCat publications which could be linked and discussed as it has specific measurements, descriptions and taxonomy of most species of ants, however it is outdated in places.

Also AntWiki went through a discussion for its reliability as a source, considering the ambiguity of its editing policies (admins let people in on a base-by-base basis), our lack of insight on who writes what and a few other problems (RSN Archive), so I'd probably disclose that. FranticSpud (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't know how this argument would go down at WP:RS. The Wikipedia requirement is that content is verifiable, not necessarily directly supported by a reliable source (see WP:BURDEN). If an AntWiki article provides sources for it's content, then it does make the wikipedia content verifiable. If the information supported by an Antwiki source is challenged, then the sources provided can used for a better citation. Antiwiki also has an advantage as a secondary source, while many of its cited sources are primary.

What is your opinion on antbase and antweb as sources of images?  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:08, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

antweb licenses all their images properly for wikipedia use, i can try and find their statement on it specifically

as for antbase, i’ve not had too much experience with it tbh. i’d imagine it would use the same images as antweb though as the license and quality has led to them being used very widely across ant-related websites and stuff FranticSpud | sit down and have a chitter | 18:54, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Seeking Good Article reviewer

Hello everyone. I've nominated the Huhu beetle (a species of longhorn beetle that is well known in New Zealand) for GA. I would greatly appreciate if someone could review. AxonsArachnida (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Deletion nomination of Michael S. Engel

I've nominated Michael S. Engel for deletion based on significant COI editing and a lack of notability establishing coverage inn Secondary sources. Please comment here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael S. Engel.--Kevmin § 01:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Pselnophorus japonicus

hi there, I noticed Pselnophorus japonicus does not have any referencing. I have looked around and I am not finding much to add. I wonder if someone could add some references if you have access to RS in this area? Thanks for what you do on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I added a reference to GBIF, which at least verifies that the species exists. Chess enjoyer (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

It is recognised by the Catalogue of the Pterophoroidea of the World (CoPoW), which is also available through Checklistbank and is the source used for CoL and GBIF. It was also recognised in Lepindex and subsequently in the Global Lepidoptera Index, but the latter is not updating the family because there is a specialised source doing that (i.e. CoPoW). It's also recognised the World Catalogue of Insects volume on Pterophoroidea_and Alucitoidea (Lepidoptera).

There is a description in a study on Japanese Pterophoridae (Yano, 1963). This is an older work, but should be good for the description.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:49, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

References

Adelgids

Anyone want to recommend a good taxonomic source for a list of extant adelgids of Canada and the US? (And for extra credit: bark beetles are coming up soon.) - Dank (push to talk) 02:38, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

In particular: any thoughts on:

Abbott, John; Abbott, Kendra (2023). Insects of North America.

Gullan, Penny; Cranston, Peter. The insects : an outline of entomology (now in its 5th edition) - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I would use the Aphid Species File for the taxonomy and recognised species. I can't comment on Insects of North America. Gullan and Cranston is a good general work, but like all works with such wide scope (all insects) tends not to be up to date for the taxonomy of particular groups.  —  Jts1882 | talk  06:59, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

For Scolytinae there is Curculionidae of the World Online (CoWO) and Electronic Catalogue of Weevil names (Curculionoidea). The website of the latter seems a work in progress (or abandoned), but that is the source used by Catalogue of Life and can also be accessed through ChecklistBank. It might be useful for recognised species, but the subfamily and tribe arrangement is currently missing, so CoWO might be more useful.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks much! - Dank (push to talk) 10:11, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I found a couple of other taxonomic sources on bark beetles (Scolytinae/Scolytidae) that could be useful. One is a website by an individual, who had published on the subject, Bark and Ambrosia Beetles of the Americas. The second is a series of published checklists/supplements: A Catalog of Scolytidae (Coleoptera).  —  Jts1882 | talk  16:04, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Pyrrhocoris (mainly rottensis, sibiricus and tibialis)

As the title suggests, I have some questions about these insects, since I was editing the page of the genus Pyrrhocoris and stumbled upon this article while I was doing research on the different species in this genus. I've edited the page according to the article, and I was wondering if anyone could check the page out since I have the feeling I may have made a mistake somewhere. As far as my understanding goes, the article in a way describes that all three of these species are actually the same, under different names (nom nov/ junior subjective synonym). I'm sorry if this seems like a silly question, these are some of my very first Wikipedia edits. Viviflies (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

My interpretation of that paper is that there should be two accepted species. The name Pyrrhocoris tibialis has two descriptions: Pyrrhocoris tibialis Stål, 1874 and Pyrrhocoris tibialis Statz & Wagner, 1950. The latter is a junior primary homonym of the former so is invalid and needs a replacement name. The author proposes ‘Pyrrhocoris’ rottensis nom. nov. (not sure why the quotes), which becomes Pyrrhocoris rottensis Kment, 2021 when listed. The author then synonymises Pyrrhocoris tibialis Statz & Wagner, 1950 with Pyrrhocoris sibiricus Kuschakewitsch, 1866, which makes the latter the name of the extant species.

That's my reading of the paper, although I find these nomenclature issues confusing, so I'd like a third opinion. I didn't have access to the full paper so relied on the abstract and the Plazi treatment.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:55, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jts1882: ‘Pyrrhocoris’ rottensis is given with quotes around the genus name presumably because the author also reclassified it as Lygaeoidea incertae sedis, as explained in the abstract. In other words, he doesn't consider it a member of the genus Pyrrhocoris, the family Pyrrhocoridae, or even the superfamily Pyrrhocoroidea but instead a species of uncertain placement in the superfamily Lygaeoidea. The species hasn't yet been assigned to a new genus in Lygaeoidea, all that can be said for certain is that it doesn't belong to Pyrrhocoris, which the species was originally described in. Hence the quote marks. As far as I remember this is a convention used a fair bit in paleontology. Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

...Well, Pyrrhocoris being the genus the species was originally described in at least as "Pyrrhocoris tibialis", anyway. This does seem a little unusual to do on a species renamed in the same paper (I think?), but I kinda appreciate he's not rushing to coin new genus names when its placement cannot yet be determined anyway. (Judging from the Plazi treatments, it seems it's deemed "impossible" to place it precisely, because certain characters needed to do so are missing from the fossil.) Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2026 (UTC)