Talk:Acanalonia

Untitled edit

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

==Dubious==

This article says very little, and what it says is probably wrong. Whether or not 58 species constutes a "multitude" is perhaps open to question, but to state that the distribution of the genus is the United States must be false, given species names like "tehuacana" (Tehuacán) and "ecuadoriensis" (Ecuador). Also, all the species authorities are given with parentheses, even though many of them must have been described in this genus: most of the species were described after the genus was erected in 1839. Any species originally described in Acanalonia must be cited without parentheses. This article is therefore grossly misleading. Someone should replace all the current references (GBIF and CoL are not reliable sources for this kind of thing) with the most recent monograph of the genus, and expand it. The only reliable bit of information I can see at the moment is the single word "planthopper"! --Stemonitis (talk) 09:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey there! I used multitude randomly but any other describing word would do (a number, large number, numerous species) so you are free to change that to however you prefer/think is more suitable. As for the United States, I obtained that from that link which indicates the majority of the species are found in the USA: [1]. But having said that, I was unaware that GBIF and CoL were not reliable sources, may I ask why are they not reliable? (I do not have a taxonomy background you see so I just gave those databases good faith). I based all my references from what I was given so I guess if there inaccuracies in those databases, I will refrain from using them in the future (and we should notify others to be weary of them, perhaps on the talk pages of the related wikipedia projects?). Cheers!Calaka (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh and as for saying very little, please feel free to expand upon it. ;) I can't remember if I tried for this genus, but I know for a lot of the references listed that are pre 1950 like in this case; they are very hard to obtain for a lay person as I don't have subscription/access to the full text publications.Calaka (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 49 external links on Acanalonia. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 05:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic