Talk:Ypresiomyrma

Added image, reconstruction of Y. orbiculata

I have done a reconstruction of Y. orbiculata from the type fossil, and have filled in unclear details with morphology from the extant, closely related Nothomyrmecia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M. A. Broussard (talk • contribs) 00:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ypresiomyrma/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 20:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• I took the only photo in this article, so I might as well review it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Cheers for taking this on. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• One thing, isn't the two Y. rebekkae specimens the holotype and paratype? There can only be one holotype, yet you refer to them as holotype queens.

Corrected.

• "Fossils of Ypresiomyrma were first studied and described by Bruce Archibald etc. in 2006" Well, this is incorrect, since you mention further down that some of the species were described earlier (1999), just not as part of the genus. So retroactively, they were still fossils of Ypresiomyrma. So maybe just reword and say the genus was first described by Archibald etc. in 2006.

Done.

• Tribe needs link, malar, and synapomorphic could need explanation.

Done. Explained what malar is in the article since no article on it, although I have redlinked it.

• "that the antennae of the type species could not be properly determined" What is meant? The shape or type of them? How does one determine an antenna?

The shape I would assume, since the morphology of the antennae is important to identify ants. Since the antennae was absent, Baroni Urbani believed the ant cannot be confidently identified, although another species had antennae that shared key diagnostic traits for Formicidae, which is why he classified it as incertae sedis within Formicidae.

• "which means the fossil is definitely an ant" So there was doubt it was even an ant? This should be said clearly before.

Done.

• "noted that the development of the malar area was different to the synapomorphic reduction of the malar" This sentence makes little sense. So in what group is it reduced?

The malar is reduced in most of Myrmeciinae except for Ypresiomyrma. Done.

• Why are two cladograms needed? They don't show different topology, simply more taxa, making the smaller one redundant.

Removed.

• No word on how the three species are interrelated?

I'll look at the original source and see what distinguishes the three species from each other and among other things.

Wait, that was already done. I read the source and I cannot really see any info that correlates with your issue.

• "and a noticeable sting." Sting or stinger?

Corrected.

This should also be corrected a couple of other places in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Done, I think.

• "numbered UCCIPR L-18 F-749 and UCCIPR L-18 F-750 for the part and counterpart" Even though they belong to the same individual, I think only one can be the type specimen?

Would this be the case for the other two species?

• No, in compression fossils the part and counterpart are often considered a single specimen, and both counted as the full holotype.--Kevmin § 21:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

So.... after Kevmins comment, does this comment need addressing in any way? Burklemore1 (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No, just the other unaddressed issues are needed. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem, apologies for the inactivity today. Burklemore1 (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• " It is convex and domed," What is "it"?

Mesosoma, done.

• "this is due to the early taphonomic process" Term could be explained.

Done.

• "did not recruit nestmates to food sources" COuld be explained a bit more, recruited and led to?

Did a tiny rewrite, but I'm not sure what can be explained further.

• "most likely used their large eyes to capture prey" Wouldn't it rather be to find prey? How does one capture something with the eyes?

Reworded.

• "The abundance of Ypresiomyrma specimens collected suggests that these ants mated in swarms" Wouldn't it rather be because of the abundance of queens?

Done.

• "which contains three species, first described in 2006." Again, first species described in 1999.

Sentence rewritten to imply the genus was described in 2006.

• "The alates were poor flyers" Term only used in intro.

It is in the ecology section, but I have rewritten it a bit if you meant something specific.

• If bulldog ants are a specific, extant genus, why is this genus presented as such in the intro?

Removed, since this restricted to Myrmecia.

• "ants in the subfamily Myrmeciinae of the family Formicidae" Don't think you need to mention Formicidae here, as it is synonymous with ant.

Done.

• A last thing, I think species, years and authors could be listed in the taxobox with no problem. Not sure why it has become a trend to write "see text". FunkMonk (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Good point, I have incorporated it in. I should be able to address your remaining issues in the next hour btw. Burklemore1 (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• "with eight to 12 teeth" You should always be consistent in whether you spell out numbers or not.

Done.

• Alright, looks good, so passed. Some nice articles you're churning out there! FunkMonk (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I think the biology section of the GA nomination page shows I have been a bit busy lately. :) Burklemore1 (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

new species, Ypresiomyrma orientalis Dlussky et al 2015

There is an additional species described earlier this year by Dlussky. Ypresiomyrma orientalis. Here's the link to the paper. [1] --Kevmin § 01:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll incorporate the info into the article, though I'll probably need you to double check my edits, since I'm not very specalised with palaeontology. Burklemore1 (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Notify me when it's added, then I'll check it out. FunkMonk (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Will do. I have already done some updates, but I'm going to add the description of the species in now. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Species update done, and I hope you dont mind me overwriting the edit-conflict @Burklemore1:.--Kevmin § 02:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, I was only up to my second sentence. Pinging @FunkMonk:. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

One thing, "Okanaga" is not mentioned anywhere in the article to refer to the two American species, only in the new section. Should be mentioned earlier then, if it is to make sense for the reader. FunkMonk (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I've changed it to "British Columbian", since the article clearly states the fossils originate from there. Burklemore1 (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

But isn't it important to at least mention Okanaga somewhere in the article? It is even mentioned in some cited article titles. FunkMonk (talk) 10:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to pop in, as someone who actually lives in the Okanagan, I know that "Okanaga" is a misspelling for the former. IJReid ^discuss 13:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Okanaga was a typo on my part, I meant to type Okanagan highlands, as that is the paleontology term for the string of Ypresian lakes extending from Smithers BC down to Republic, WA. Note that the title of A,C, & M 2006 is Bulldog ants of the Eocene Okanagan highlands"--Kevmin § 14:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that makes some sense. I actually live within the highlands I guess, although I've never heard the cascade mountains referred to as highlands. IJReid ^discuss 23:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, the Cascades aren't part of the highlands. Its the area to the east of the Okanagan River/Lake Osoyoos and the Columbia River. The Cascades are west of that and considered a different province.--Kevmin § 00:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Ooh, yah that makes sense. The highlands are in the region between the Rockies and the Cascades, in the Kootney-ish area. IJReid ^discuss 03:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Funny coincidence, IJReid, go find some ants! FunkMonk (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure how to change your suggestion, so I should have left that to Kevmin. Oops. If you find find fossil ants btw, name them after fellow Wikipedians. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, do you people know anyone know who is willing to conduct a source review for my Fac? I think it's all good with three supports and a completed image review. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You have to request those here nowadays:[2] Oh, I see you did already, now it's just waiting. It will not be failed when it has three supports. FunkMonk (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just curious if anyone out there would be interested, even though I did send a request. I'd assume it will be listed A FA once that review is finish though. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hehehe, any ant I name is gonna be Foveromyrmex wikipedianorum - "awesome ant of wikipedia". :) IJReid ^discuss 15:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

LOl, sounds like we may be similar distances from OK hignlands fossil sites Ian. Im about 5 hours drive from the Stonerose Interpretive Center, and love that area--Kevmin § 21:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, never been there, but I know its about a 4 hour drive from here to Vancouver, but thats in the opposite direction. IJReid ^discuss 23:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ypresiomyrma. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20150715213405/http://antbase.org/ants/publications/21067/21067.pdf to http://antbase.org/ants/publications/21067/21067.pdf

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Fore-wing

@Kevmin: I saw your revert. The article uses "forewing", "forewings" and "fore-wing". I was standardizing on the most common use and the one used in Insect wing. Does that make sense to you? Thanks,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Got it, I didnt see that there were multiple formats, now I understand what you were doing.--Kevmin § 01:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)