This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
A fact from Polystoechotites appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 January 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that fossils are included in Polystoechotites due to being poorly fossilized, rather than due to relation?
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
... that species of the lacewing genus Polystoechotites(pictured) are possibly not closely related? Source: Archibald & Makarkin, "Taxonomic approach" paragraphs 2 & 3
ALT1: ... that fossils (pictured) are included in Polystoechotites due to being poorly fossilized, rather than due to relation? Source: Archibald & Makarkin, "Taxonomic approach" paragraphs 2 & 3
ALT2: ... that one species of Polystoechotites was described nearly a centrury before the genus itself? Source: Archibald & Makarkin Polystoechotites piperatus entry
Overall: ALT1, duly tweaked, is approved, the other two are meh IMO. (Also, technically the source paragraph given merely defines parataxa, but the paper goes on to state that Polystoechotites, as a "collective group", is a parataxon, so all good there.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
ALT1, duly tweaked, is approved, the other two are meh IMO. (Also, technically the source paragraph given merely defines parataxa, but the paper goes on to state that Polystoechotites, as a "collective group", is a parataxon, so all good there.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)