Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arthropods/Archive 3

Greenspun illustration project: requests now open

Dear Wikimedians,

This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration project (PGIP).

The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this page: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Requests

If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons, or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a given topic in other-language projects.

The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.

• General information about the project: m:Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project
• Potential illustrators and others interested in the project should join the mailing list: mail:greenspun-illustrations

thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (Project coordinator)

Proposed change to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)

There is a current proposal to change an animal-related naming convention, which directly effects the the Manual of Style guideline, and the naming conventions policy. If you are interested, your input would be appreciated. Justin ^chat 06:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

finally cleaned up the mess with Mantis - a little advice needed still

Well, this weekend I went ahead and cleaned up all of the articles and categories and such associated with the order Mantodea. I had intended to make the primary article for the order the Mantodea article itself, but saw that Mantis was being used as a disambiguation article; by moving the content there to Mantis (disambiguation), I freed up the Mantis article for use as the primary (realistically, the common name for the group is preferrable - if only because there were far more pre-existing links to Mantis than there were to Mantodea, meaning using the former would create fewer new redirects). There are two problems with the way this turned out: (1) the article and talk page history for Mantodea are not visible on the new Mantis page, and (2) since there was also a merge with the content of Praying mantis, the article and talk page history of THAT article are also sort of lost in limbo. I presume the only effective solution is to make a link to the last pre-merge/move version of the histories of each of these, and put the links at the top of the new Mantis talk page, so people can see those histories? Dyanega (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Cochineal

Cochineal is an FA but it doesn't look like it's ever been on the main page. I'm dropping by from Wikipedia:WikiProject Textile Arts because this happens to cover both of our projects. Feel like doing a writeup and getting this named the FA of the day? Best regards, Durova^Charge! 09:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

A mite rank problem...

See Acariformes. It seems that the "families" therein would have to be treated as superorders. The diversity of Acariformes is too large to deal with it sensibly the other way (see Oribatida which would be hell in a handbasket if treated as a family). Be aware that from superfamily down one is in ICZN-land, making adjustments everything but easy for one thing, and restricting the number of available ranks for another. With the taxobox format we have (no 2 directly consecutive "unranked" taxa) it is simply impossible to do it sensibly here.

In any case it is simply wrong to call the Oribatida for example a family. It would have to be "Oribatidae" - the "-idae" ending is mandatory for animal families (you may think you can get away with it doing phylogenetic taxonomy but WP tries to avoid this except when there is really no other way (such as in theropod dinos). Hence Tarsonemidae and the taxa of comparable rank are the families - but the Acariformes would have to be an infraclass. This is rarely done (BioLib.cz uses it, but that's not the kind of scholarly source I would like.

Here's the radical version (a la BioLib) contrasted with the current one, walking down from Acari(da) to Crotonia (which without any doubt is a genus):

• Subclass Acarida
  • Infraclass Acariformes
    • Superorder Sarcoptiformes
      • Order Oribatida
        • Suborder Desmonomata
          • Superfamily Parallonothridae <- would have to be "Parallonothroidea" or so
            • Family Crotoniidae
              • Genus Crotonia

• Subclass Acarida
  • Order Acariformes
    • Suborder Sarcoptiformes
      • Family "Oribatidae"
        • Subfamily "Desmonomatinae"
          • Tribe "Parallonothrini"
            • Subtribe "Crotoniina"
              • Genus Crotonia

Basically, the classification preserntly used is wrong under several aspects (ICZN-nonconformity being probably the most severe one), whereas the most plausible alternative is unsourceable. What to do? Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, it took me a minor bit of more Googling to find a possible solution: treat Acariformes as superorder and Sarcoptiformes as unranked and then go on as per example 1 above. This is widely used and should refer back to some scholarly source. About the apparently incorrect ending of "Parallonothridae" I am not sure what to do. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This works pretty well and consistently, but one runs into more trouble with the Trombidiformes. Or not actually trouble. Take for example Erythraeidae. I have placed the Parasitengona as "unranked" simply because it was possible. Conceivably, one might treat them as a infraorder. But I have found only one Google hit on such a placement (seems to be serious though). But there are some points to note:

• such a placement would be logical and is entirely possible, because there is no final authority (infraorders are not regulated by the ICZN). The only technical requirement would be that the taxon itself has been validly established (no matter at what rank as long as its above superfamily)
• The lack of scholarly sources seems at least in part to be due to the facts that:
  • there is pretty little work about intermediate-level systematics of mites since the mid-1990s.
  • what little there is tends towards phylogenetic taxonomy (which Wikipedia doesn't use if it does not have to) and would therefore not use Linnean ranks at all.

So, either one could use the "unranked" approach, but this is not Wikipedia SOP (use Linnean ranks if it makes sense). Or one could place the Parasitengona etc at infraorder rank, which would make sense but is not really used by anyone (and possibly never will, if phylogenetic taxonomy catches on). The whole issue applies for the major subdivisions of the Anystina (Anysta vs Parasitengona), Eleutherengona (several have been proposed but no consensus exists which ones apply) and Eupodina (eupodoid-tydeid group vs bdelloid group and possibly vs Labidostommatoidea also).

(Labidostommatoidea are best considered Eupodina incertae sedis for the time being, as they shift between the 2 other groups depending on analysis. This behavior is what happens when you have a de facto polytomy, which most cladistics software is incapable of handling properly. The assumption that evolution knowns only strict dichotomies is a major fallacy, as divergences do not happen instantaneously, populations do not consist of 2 individuals and geographical ranges do not have zero diameter... but it's hard to code it any otehr way :( )

Also, what would be the corresponding taxon for raphignathid mites? "Raphignathae" or "Raphignathina"? Both names are equally valid at face value (due to the nonregulation thing, one can choose endings freely). It's a bit like with "Acari" vs "Acarina". Which name was published first, and is this still valid or a junior synonym of something else (it should not be, but we have to be sure)? Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Insect

Trosia sp. (family Megalopygidae)

I found this on flickr, never seen one before.. what's the name of it?--Zer0~Gravity ^{(Roger - Out)} 09:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen anything like it. Some... beetle... perhaps...???

Were it not for the very un-moth-like legs (especially the robust angled forelegs), I would say Arctiinae. But these would have shorter forelegs which are stretched out straightly if the insect hangs vertically (like someone who tries but fails to do a pull-up, kinda... see for example Image:Arctia.caja.jpg).

If my life depended on hazarding a guess, I would say Elateriformia, possibly Buprestidae, based on the combination of long, strong and angled forelegs, bullet-like body shape, unclubbed, unbranched and unelongated antennae, hairyness and diverging distal forewings.

But it's so hairy! And the tuft visible at the butt end is confusing (is this the abdomen wisible between the diverging forewings?). And the small head with the narrow space between the antennae is so un-beetle-like! (Or is the "head" just the mouthparts, and the eyes are what is barely visible at the anterior margin of the thorax?) It looks so much like a generic buprestid with a generous dash of Giant Leopard Moth... Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Cerura erminea (Notodontidae: Stauropinae) at rest

If lepidopteran, then Notodontidae seems a closer match than others. Of these, some have a different habitus, and AFAIK none would normally hold their forelegs like that - most notodontidans, when at rest, have a shape like an inverted V with the forelegs sticking straight up in a V shape too. Some other Noctuoidea (e.g. Plusiinae) also come close. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, so the original pic on Flickr is called "mariposa" (= "lepidopteran"). In which case it can probably be nailed down to Noctuoidea but then it gets really difficult. Lepidopterans I found that share some (but never all) characteristics are for example:

• Estigmene acrea (Noctuoidea: Arctiidae: Arctiinae: Spilosomini) - see e.g. here
• Ecpantheria deflorata (Noctuoidea: Arctiidae: Arctiinae: Arctiini) - see e.g. here
• Notodontidae, namely Ptilodoninae
• Noctuidae, namely Agaristinae which include woodnymph or "bird droppings" moths, Euthisanotia (= Eudryas?) which, intriguingly, sometimes hold their forelegs angled when at rest as the unidentified critter - see e.g. Eudryas grata here Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a moth in the family Megalopygidae; that particular genus (I can't recall its name at the moment) is fairly common in the Neotropics, and I've collected them quite frequently in Mexico. Dyanega (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A zygaenoidean? Wow! Thanks for the ID! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Species Identification

I recently posted a question at the science reference desk - here - and thought someone here might be able to help. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Reminder of the Philip Greenspun Illustration project

Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects.

Requests are currently being taken at m:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too.

If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 16:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Polypedilum nubiferum and Kealia Pond National Wildlife Refuge

I was wondering if WikiProject Arthropods would be interested in contributing or reviewing the section on spotted-wing midges that I'm in the process of adding to this article (I especially need help with species classifcation and Hawaii-related data). There is a list of Hawaii-related midges here, but I can't determine which species inhabit Kealia Pond. (Looks like the data might be found here) Is the spotted-wing midge the same as Polypedilum nubiferum? Please put it on your watchlist (or add the article to your project). Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 03:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know what it is?

I took a photo of an insect on February 16, near Sha Tin Pass, Hong Kong. Would anyone identify what it is, so that I can upload it to commons using the correct name? Thanks! --minghong (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a nymph of a bug possibly of the family Lygaeidae. Shyamal (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not necessarily a Lygaeid; there is a fair chance it could be a nymph of Pyrrhocoridae or even Largidae. It would require an expert in the Asian fauna to be certain. Dyanega (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have a Flickr account, please login so that you can view the photo in original size. --minghong (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be a Physopelta gutta. --minghong (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

And what about this? I found this in a data center. --minghong (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A silverfish. Shyamal (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Uploaded as Image:A silverfish at ONE-iAdvantage.jpg. --minghong (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, I went to Tai To Yan, Lam Tsuen, Tai Po District. Would anyone identify what kind of butterfly or moth it is? --minghong (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Most likely Argyreus hyperbius or a close relative - but you could ask User:HKmoths who knows the region very well. Shyamal (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it looks almost the same. Thanks! --minghong (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know if this butterfly is Neptis hylas, Neptis clinia, Neptis soma, or Limenitis sulpitia? It is so difficult to tell.

• View 1: http://www.flickr.com/photos/minghong/2445013739/
• View 2: http://www.flickr.com/photos/minghong/2445842364/

--minghong (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It turned out to be none of these, but Athyma perius perius. --minghong (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, this caterpillar:

• View 1：http://www.flickr.com/photos/minghong/2444930473/
• View 2：http://www.flickr.com/photos/minghong/2445798378/

--minghong (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested photographs

I note that there is no category for requested arthropod photographs. The only thing there is Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of insecta (it should be Insecta, or, better still, insects). There is no WikiProject insects (there should be, but that's another matter...), but there certainly is an arthropods project, so it seems strange not to have a requests page for arthropods. The insect category can still be kept, but as a subcategory of the arthropods one. Richard001 (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Who am I?

Can anyone help with these please? Jimfbleak (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Phyllophaga (genus) (May beetle, June bug, June beetle) needs your help

"Phyllophaga (genus) ... Common names for this genus and its relatives in the subfamily Melolonthinae are May beetle, June bug, and June beetle." - "This beetle-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." -- Seems like more could be added to this article on a well-known genus. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, much less than you might think; the text of the article is lacking very little, and I have no idea why it's classified as a stub (I think I'll undo that, in fact). Part of the problem is that there are LOTS of genera that are all called "June bugs" - in all seriousness, what is needed is a generalized article that discusses the term "June bug" and gives links to the various genera to which the name is applied. Having it as a redirect to JUST THIS GENUS is a significant oversight, like having the name "duck" redirect to "mallard". Dyanega (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Mantophasmatodea: Add photo or other image please

If anybody could add a photo or other image to Mantophasmatodea, that would be a good thing. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Assessment banner

Should we not modify the banner to have the normal "class=" and "importance=" code? Surely this could be done with a bot or something on the articles where it is used. It would be best in the long run to keep WikiProjects on the same page, e.g. using the same code. It should also allow the assessment script I use to pick up these ratings rather than calling them 'unassessed'. Richard001 (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Myriapoda vs Uniramia

I think there is some sort of confusion here. Myriapoda and Uniramia are both listed as the subphylum of arthropoda for the subphylum containing centipedes/millipedes/ect. I don't really know how to address this problem. My professor says the subphylum is Uniramia.--FUNKAMATIC (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Upon further reading (of the article) I realize that it is my Professor who is wrong. It looks as though Myriapoda are the correct subphylum.--FUNKAMATIC (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Entomology entry

I changed the importance of the Entomology entry from mid to high. It meets the listed criteria of "This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge" -AJseagull1 (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This should have been posted on the talk page of the Article Classification page Sorry. AJseagull1 (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Gladiators

FWIW: American Museum Novitates 3539 discusses new gladiator fossils and proposes to demote Grylloblattodea and Mantophasmatodea to suborders of the new order Notoptera based on these finds. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone knows what it is?

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/599/imgp0462nn6.jpg and http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/709/imgp0485qu1.jpg Both shooted summer 2007 (july-august) in Russia, Smolensk region. I would like to publish both photos at the correct wikipedia place... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yozhhh (talk • contribs) 08:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about the bush-cricket, but the dragonfly is most probably Aeshna cyanea (or Southern Hawker)! Kaarel (talk) 05:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think also that the dragonfly is Southern Hawker, thanks. But the first one is definitely not a bush-cricket; it is much smaller as bush-cricket. Probably, Poecilimon. User:Yozhhh 14:28, 6 May 2008

Multiple WikiProjects

Given that WikiProject Lepidoptera is a subproject of WikiProject Arthropods, is adding a WikiProject Arthropods on a butterfly or moth page redundant?—GRM (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ant at FAC

Just to note that ant has been sent to FA and can do with more hands to take it to the required quality. It would be great if the folks at arthropod can collaborate to improve articles as has been demonstrated well by the bird wiki project. Maybe this could be a good article to start off with. Shyamal (talk) 08:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Gould quote/quotes about arthropods

The quote is attributed to Stephen Jay Gould (1988), but there is no citation. Where did he say this? Richard001 (talk) 08:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have broadened an article on insects I created at Wikiquote to be on all arthropods (it can always be split up if enough material should accumulate). Please add any relevant material. Richard001 (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Chrysiridia rhipheus at FA

Members may like to contribute to article review / improvement here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chrysiridia rhipheus. Shyamal (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Identification request

Hi there, I photographed this insect on my front door today. My guess is it's some kind of wasp, but if anyone could be more specific, I'll upload it here and place it in the relevant article. If it helps, the location is south west England. Cheers! Totnesmartin (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A Mecopteran. Shyamal (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Panorpa communis, perhaps? Totnesmartin (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that was a redlink so I've just whipped up a brief article on it. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thoracotremata

Merge Ocypodoidea in Grapsoidea until better data is available, as per Schubart et al. (2006)? Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

More crab mayhem

See Zootaxa 1558: 39–68 (first page and abstract here) - Brachyura seems to be in need of a serious taxonomic makeover; most of the taxa discussed in the paper do not even appear on Wikipedia yet, namely the superfamilies Goneplacoidea and Chasmocarcinoidea. They might be included in Xanthoidea - some taxa placed in the former appear as taxon stems of families of the last -, but I have no idea what to make of that, or of the amount of change involved. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ants? Aphids? Two species of aphids?

I am a bit confused by the description of this photograph [1]. The description claims that this photo shows ants and aphids, but I am not sure I see ants, or at least any species of ant I am familiar with. To me, I see aphids and something that looks like a beetle. Are those large black beetle-like things a type of ant? Another type of aphid? --Filll (talk | wpc) 13:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree I see no ants. The large ones are adult 'females' as in Parthenogenesis Tmol42 (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Meganeura:Insect breathing

Meganeura says:

"Controversy has prevailed as to how insects of the Carboniferous period were able to grow so large. The way oxygen is diffused through the insect's body via its tracheal breathing system puts an upper limit on body size, which prehistoric insects seem to have well exceeded. It was originally proposed (Harlé & Harlé, 1911) that Meganeura was only able to fly because the atmosphere at that time contained more oxygen than the present 20%. ...

However, more recent research indicates that insects really do breathe, with "rapid cycles of tracheal compression and expansion".[3] If correct, then there is no need to postulate an atmosphere with higher oxygen partial pressure." (References in original)

Can someone please take a look at the source article referenced in this; does it really support the idea that insects "actually breathing" negates the hypothesis of a Carboniferous atmosphere with higher oxygen partial pressure? It seems to me that the one doesn't automatically make the other much more or less likely.

My understanding is that an important constraint on insect size is that they don't transport oxygen via hemoglobin (nor apparently hemocyanin, as far as I can tell), but rely on simple diffusion of oxygen into tissues. Any comments on this?

-- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 06:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You are quite correct. The study showing expansion and contraction of tracheal passages gives NO indication whatsoever that this results in a relaxation of constraints on size; basically, all it means it that the gas at the gas/tissue interface is refreshed faster than previously assumed, so the diffusion can take place at the maximal rate (not that the maximal rate is any higher - it's STILL diffusion across the cell membranes). It's not very different at all from realizing that most fish can pump their gills to increase the rate of gas exchange - but that doesn't mean gills still don't work via diffusion. In plain fact, I'm astonished that the authors made such grandiose claims about it being "a previously unknown mechanism of respiration in insects analogous to the inflation and deflation of vertebrate lungs.” - every bee and wasp researcher in the world has known, for centuries, that bees and wasps pump their abdomens rapidly to inflate and deflate the huge air sacs in their abdomens. This is SO not unknown. Sigh. Dyanega (talk) 07:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirects on "G. species" disambiguation pages

Please see this discussion so that we can come to a conclusion about redirects used on "G. species" disambiguation pages.

Thank you, Neelix (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 7209 articles are assigned to this project, of which 420, or 5.8%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Statilia parva

There’s a Statilia sp. of mantis being cultivated in North America and Europe that people are calling S. parva. Online research shows no record of this scientific name outside of the hobby nor older than 2 years. While this is probably a case of synonymy impossible to unravel without access to print sources (probably geschrieben auf Deutsch), I am do worry that maybe someone just confused two species or otherwise effectively "made up" this name circa 2006. Can anyone insect-savvy editors offer insight? I have two ooths in my possession and would like to know more. - House of Scandal (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have 2 pictures of grasshoppers and 2 pictures of something else

• 
• File:GaogiersCricket2.jpg
• 
• 

• I think both are grasshopper (Caelifera species). Tettigoniidae would be the other option but they lack the long antennae. - House of Scandal (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank You Gaogier ^{How can I help?} 23:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Please identify

Could someone help me identify this beetle? --Jarekt (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• 
• 

The first photo is a bad angle, but from the second it appears to be a female Prionus - most likely Prionus imbricornis, given the location, but it's not necessarily 100% guaranteed. Dyanega (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked up few pictures of Prionus imbricornis in

• http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/foresthealth/pubs/oakpests/p25.html
• http://bugguide.net/node/view/40069/bgimage

and they are very similar except for the antennas. --Jarekt (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC).

The antennae are different because the photos are of males, which have very different antennae from the females. Dyanega (talk) 04:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. I learn something every day.--Jarekt (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

identification help for two Costa Rica insects

Hi, I took a few insect pictures during a recent trip to Costa Rica, which I thought might be useful in a Wikipedia article somewhere, but I'm having trouble identifying the species for some of them (or the genus, or even the family for that matter), not having any reference books on Costa Rican insects. (I asked the guides at our hotel, but they only had reference books for vertebrates.)

I haven't uploaded them to commons yet, until I can name/categorize them properly, but two that came out reasonably well are (posted on Flickr):

• this black-and-white wasp(?)
• this "stink bug" (as the guide called it) (I'll crop the image better before posting, if I can identify it)

(These were both taken in a lowland tropical rainforest in the Osa Peninsula.) Thanks for any pointers.

—Steven G. Johnson (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The wasp is in the family Ichneumonidae, the bug is in the family Coreidae. Dyanega (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

New WikiProject proposal: Biota of the UK and Ireland

I've proposed a new WikiProject named WikiProject Biota of the UK and Ireland which would encompass all species and conservation efforts within Britain, an extremely interesting area. The project would include vegetation classification, Category:Lists of British animals, Category:Conservation in the United Kingdom, Category:Ecology of the British Isles, Category:Forests and woodlands of the United Kingdom, Category:Fauna of the British Isles and anything else to do with the flora and fauna of Britain. If anyone is interested just leave your name on the proposal page. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Arctic bumble bees

Anyone here able to have a look at Arctic bumble bees? Are there any other Arctic insects? The others I found were Arctic Ringlet and Arctic White. Any others? If so, please add to Category:Wildlife of the Arctic. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Coconut crab FAR

Coconut crab has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Evolutionary history of life

I've taken on the insanely ambitious task of rewriting Evolutionary history of life. One of the points that has come up in discussion is the evolution of eusociality. I've found some relevant refs, which make me sceptical about the haplodiploidy / kin selection explanation (e.g. termites & naked mole rats are diploid), but I'm no insectologist, and would appreciate input at Talk:Evolutionary history of life on this or other topics. -- Philcha (talk) 08:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Arthropods

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Videos

Commons:Category:Arthropod videos has been created. There are about 20 of them now. Richard001 (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Arthropod

I've had a go at getting Arthropod into good shape for [Wikipedia Version 0.7. I doubt whether there's time to get it up to A-class or GA, but I'd hope B-class would be easy enough. Please comment.

Then we can consider the V 0.7 offer of free copyediting. -- Philcha (talk) 11:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Good article review: spider

Spider has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I happen to have got a good invertebrate textbook out of a library (for Arthropod & Mollusc), so I'll do what I can for Spider. I'm no entomologist, my main interest is paleontology, so I think I can handle the antomical and phylogeny stuff OK, and maybe the medical stuff, but almost certainly need some help with refs for ecological, economic, and cultural / folklore aspects. -- Philcha (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Paraponera versus Paraponera clavata

Is there any reason why this article is placed on the name for the genus, Paraponera, rather than the species name, Paraponera clavata? Paraponera is (still) monotypic, right? • Rabo³ • 14:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a reason, but not one that would override the rule regarding proper article titles - it is a monotypic genus, and the article should be moved. The problem, as always, is that you can't do a simple "move" when there is already a redirect using the desired article title. That's when you need someone with administrative privileges like Shyamal to help out. Dyanega (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Moved. Shyamal (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This seems to require a clear policy, WP:TOL actually seems to suggest that monotypic genera should be handled at the genus article: "However, for a genus that contains a single species, the genus name should be used since it is included in the binomial. For instance the order Amphionidacea, which has the single species Amphionides reynaudii, is discussed at Amphionides" Shyamal (talk) 01:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion on this at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(flora)#Monotypic_genera. Shyamal (talk) 11:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Calwer's beetle pics

i just uploaded almost all pictures from Carl Gustav Calwer's "Käferbuch" here. maybe some guys here want to include some of the pics into existing articles, and create new ones for the other ;) --Sarefo (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

id?

Cruddy snapshot of an unknown species.

Forgive the quality of this photo; it was taken near Albany, Western Australia, near some bushland around a golf course, recently. I noticed it crawling across my path, it appeared to stop as my footsteps drew closer. Anyone able to id it? cygnis insignis 16:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Most likely a caterpillar of a Psychidae. Shyamal (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Orsotriaena

The species Orsotriaena medus has had the politically incorrect common name of "Nigger" and an IP editor keeps replacing this bit with "African American". Attempts to engage in discussion seem not to be working and I appear to be close to breaking the WP:3RR - wonder if others can weigh in on the issue. Shyamal (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Pea crab and Pinnotheridae

There are two stub articles on pea crabs in general. Maybe the two articles should either be merged, or perhaps differentiated in some way? They were not directly linked (other than in the taxobox) until I just did that. I also put the project template on the pea crab article talk page. Best wishes from a mollusk person, Invertzoo (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Myrmecinae

I just came across this page and I don't know what to do with it. It seems that this subfamily doesn't actually exist, and this ia actually a misspelling. But IMHO it is an equally likely misspelling of Myrmicinae and Myrmeciinae. Should this be a disambiguation page? -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a misprint / misunderstanding. Google got me New Myrmecinae from Central America (Coleoptera, ...), which is about beetles. -Philcha (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The current article is definitely about ants, and the content should perhaps be merged somewhere. But I don't know where. And then that title can be used for the subfamily of beetles. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It gets worse - Google Scholar for "Myrmecinae coleoptera" gets lots of hits on ants. The exceptions are articles by the author of New Myrmecinae from Central America (Coleoptera, ...) and published mainly in the early 1950s. Perhaps he was the victim / perpetrator of a naming cock-up (quite common before the WWW). I think this case needs an expert on the history of insect taxonomy, which I'm not. --Philcha (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I've found the culprit: "Sturm". He's the authority for the genus Myrmex. It's asking for trouble to name a genus of beetles "ant" in Greek. If that genus is placed in a separate subfamily, as it seems to have been done in the 50s, that would naturally be the Myrmecinae. The genera Myrmica, Myrmecia and Myrmecina are all proper ants. (Bloody taxonomists!) -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Australian plague locust

Hi, as a non-expert in the area, would it be possible to get a hand with an appropriate infobox for this article please. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 00:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Emerald cockroach wasp

Hello. I recently tried scoping out the habitat where I saw this wasp, per my comments over at Talk:Emerald_cockroach_wasp#In_Hawaii. Today, I took a series of photographs which I think (I'm not entirely sure) show the remains of a roach who has just gone through the reproductive process of the Emerald cockroach wasp. I would like to post several photographs here for identification by experts if it is appropriate, and if it is confirmed, add the photograph(s) to the article. Viriditas (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Insects of Laos

Request for expansion. Can somebody add some articles? The Bald One ^{White cat} 17:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Insect records

Hi everyone. I am a regular editor with no special interest in (or knowledge of) arthropods, but a while ago, after I found that there was no article on the world's most venomous insect, I created the article myself (Pogonomyrmex maricopa) and since then I became interested in adding more info from the The University of Florida Book of Insect Records. After a while I started a page (here) to help track the progress of that endeavor, which consists in adding the different chapters as references for the articles on the insects covered by the book, or inserting/adding to/correcting the information in articles (or even creating new articles when these don't exist).

So, I'm here to invite anyone interested in the subject to take a look at the page and collaborate in the project if you like it. --Waldir ^talk 23:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Classification

I need help confirming and identifying two species in the image description fields, File:Apis mellifera wailea maui hawaii 01.jpg and File:Xylocopa wailea maui hawaii.jpg. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Melon fly

I just created Melon fly and it could use some correcting. Is there an insect wikiproject? Thanks--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A bunch of new photos

I had a wonderful opportunity last night to photograph a very nice specimen collection, mostly insects. I'm still in the process of uploading, which I'll be doing over the next few days, but I think there is already enough to be worth dropping by here and mentioning. The uploaded images will all be in Commons:Category:Insect Safari. Neither the lighting conditions nor the camera I happened to have with me were ideal for photographing tiny things behind glass. Some of the resulting pictures are flawed, but I think most are pretty good.

Some typical examples:

• 
• 
• 
• 

I don't know much about insects, and have not usually tried to classify any more closely than their order, but I suspect some of these are rather rare, and we may lack other images of quite a few. Let me know if there is anything that needs cleanup because it would be useful for an article; and I'd greatly appreciate any help with better descriptions. - Jmabel | Talk 05:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

ID Help

I've failed to identify these:

• 
• File:Unidentified Damselfly 6171.jpg
• File:Unidentified Damselfly 6171 2.jpg
• File:Unidentified Damselfly 6142.jpg
• File:Unidentified Damselfly 7020.jpg
• File:Unidentified Damselfly 6991.jpg
• File:Unidentified Damselfly 6991 2.jpg

All found in Tasmania, Australia at different times of year, check the upload date for some indication of time. Thanks in advance Noodle snacks (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD notice

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andy_Lehrer Shyamal (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Arthropod article headings

Starting from Scutigera coleoptrata I was trying to find a better organizational structure. I found a confusing array of organizational structures throughout the articles. I'm aware that not every species can be organized in exactly the same way, but some general order as to where e.g. Morphology or Interaction with humans go and what subheadings should be called would help. It would aid in enticing people to expand articles and reduce the amount of clean-up required once a unified structure is found. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Others may disagree with me, but I would suggest that, after an introductory paragraph, the following sections should eventually be included in any article about an animal (not necessarily in this order):

1. Description - basic size, and notable features, how it can be distinguished from other related organisms, and how it can be distinguished from other organisms living in the same geographical area.
2. You may want to include details of the life cycle in the description, or make a separate life history section if there's a lot of material on it.
3. Where it hasn't already been covered by the introduction, details of the distribution. This will be more important in things like invasive species, where not only the native range needs to be defined, but also the non-native range, with details of when it got there, how it got there, how rapidly it has spread, etc.
4. Ecology - what kind of habitat it lives in, what it eats, what eats it, any other important interactions
5. Human importance (if any) - whether as a pest, a foodstuff, a disease vector, etc. The heading may depend on the particular reason for this status.

I agree that Scutigera coleoptrata isn't (yet) the best example of how this should be done! --Stemonitis (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Naming convention

It has been suggested that Wikipedia change its naming convention for all articles on biological organisms to use scientific names. This is being discussed here at WP:NC. It may be in your interest to take part. --Jwinius (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Insect evolution needs review

Insect evolution seems to have a great many "guesses" and colloquial statements without cites, if anybody would be interested in taking a look at it. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Panicle rice mite

I just created Panicle_rice_mite and the taxobox has me completely mystified. Species? Superfamilies? Sub-whacha-me-jiggers? I only have two names, and the government knows exactly who I am. This thing has eleven names and I can't find a single one. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy and nomenclature can be a little daunting. Your mite also has only two words in its name, Steneotarsonemus spinki. The rest of the taxobox is the classification of that species name into larger and larger groups (as you work up the box). This comprises seven main ranks, and a whole bunch of in-betweenies, which fortunately we don't really need at this level. I've fixed the taxobox on your article so that it says what it needs to, and taken out some of the less important bits. If you ever need more help, don't hesitate to ask. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Stemonitis for fixing the article! Thank you for the information. I really like mites. If they were the size of dogs, we would run, and yet they are crawling all over us. So cool! I will bug you with more questions for sure.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

ID

Does anybody know what this critter is? I spotted it a couple of weeks ago in Booti Booti National Park, New South Wales, Australia.

• 
• 

Thanks, --Quartl (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Identified as Chrysolopus spectabilis. --Quartl (talk) 09:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

is this a centipede biting us?

I work for a veterinarian/pet store. i found some old smoked pig ear dog treats that had extremly small reddish bugs (they were no bigger than the head of a pencil and were all over the place) on them were clusters of yellowish things that appeared to be eggs (large clusters), after disrupting this box, which had what looked like dried longish bugs that were curled up, several of the employees that came in contact with the area began having small bites, reddish, itching, irritated, annoying. We also were seeing little reddish dots all over the place that were moving, some type of bug. Once we realized it probably came from the box of pig ears we found several larger bugs and examined one under the microscope, the image could have come out of a Sci Fi movie, oval and with either many hairs on both sides of the body or legs. Could this be a centipede causing our discomfort and could we be infested now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antia eos (talk • contribs) 06:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not centipedes, but carpet beetle larvae. Their bristles can cause irritation. The "tiny red dots" are presumably some sort of mites. Dyanega (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Damn red dots. I remember them well... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.167.168 (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Carpet beetle larvae are usually found indoors and are known to spread infestation, so it would make sense that the insects in the dog treats were carpet beetle larvae. Cassiegz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC).

Tanna japonensis

I recently created the article Tanna japonensis, and it's now queued for Did you know....

I'd really appreciate some more expert eyes on this; I know nothing about the topic. I relied on Japanese translation and library books.

I'm hoping that, with more research, I might be able to make similar articles on other species in the genera.

All comments very welcome. Regards, --  Chzz  ►  19:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

ID help

Some unknown beetles and butterfies here, thanks jimfbleak (talk) 07:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed project of interest - organismal biomechanics

Hi all, I'm trying to start a Wikiproject to cover Organismal Biomechanics, and I was wondering if anyone else would be interested? Articles such as animal locomotion. gait, muscle, and similar would be our targets. See my userpage for a list of what I'm planning to work on, including some truly awful articles in desperate need of attention. See proposal page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_Organismal_Biomechanics. I'll keep anyone who signs up updated via their userpages until I get a project page made. Help of all kinds is appreciated, from brain dumps to wikifying, grammar and dealing with references. Mokele (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Name for new article

Steelblue ladybird (Halmus chalybeus)

I'm going to add a brief article on a ladybeetle found in New Zealand, the Steelblue ladybird (Halmus chalybeus). What name should I use for this species? If I use the common name, do I use ladybird, ladybug or ladybeetle? And (again, if using the common name) I use a lowercase 'l', right? Richard001 (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You use whatever the people in New Zealand call it. If their word is "ladybird" (as it appears to be: "Halmus chalybeus" steelblue site:nz), then the article goes at steelblue ladybird (with a redirect from Halmus chalybeus, naturally). The fact that people on other continents, or non-laypeople use "ladybug" or "lady beetle" is of little consequence; the common name is "steelblue ladybird", so "steelblue ladybird" it is. Capitalisation is less clear-cut, in general, but there is a clear precedent for lower-case beetle names here. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys hope I didn't tread on anyone's toes but I changed this article to its scientific name. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Cochineal

This FA could really use some cleanup so that it could finally main page, and to assure it maintains that status. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

yellow in biology

This article -yellow is a collaboration rticle - was hoping some bio poeple had good sources of yellow in nature to rewrite Yellow#In_biology more like Green#In_biology. Anyone keen? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)