Template:Did you know nominations/Brevipalpus phoenicis

The following discussion 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  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Brevipalpus phoenicis

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Brevipalpus phoenicis are almost entirely female because the species is parthenogenetic?

• Reviewed: Isamu Kashiide

Created/expanded by Anna Frodesiak (talk). Nominated by LauraHale (talk) at 00:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Size and date OK, hook checks out. Very nice article, with an interesting hook. However, all the cite notes are bare urls - it would be good to tidy them up with friendly display text. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've tidied all those nasty refs - good to go. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Pulled from queue by Crisco1492 after Maculosae tegmine lyncis questioned the hook, saying "Parthenogenesis, seemingly kidnapped by biologists though a cultural phenomenon, allows for ensuing males; the cited source [3] makes no claim of causation but says parthenogenetic and largely female." --Orlady (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Remainder of comment: "παρθένος + γένεσις simply means "virgin birth" with no implication of resulting gender"; sorry for delaying this one, but as it stands the hook seems to be suggesting that if a species is parthenogenetic the offspring are necessarily female, which per Parthenogenesis and Parthenogenesis#Insects doesn't seem to be the case; per this source Brevipalpus phoenicis reproduces by thelytokous parthenogenesis - would you happy for the hook to be reworded accordingly? If so I'm happy to add the ref:

ALT1: ... that Brevipalpus phoenicis (pictured) are almost entirely female because the species reproduces by thelytokous parthenogenesis?

Also, don't know if it should it be Brevipalpi ... are, like "lions are" rather than "lion are"? in which, case:

ALT2: ... that the species Brevipalpus phoenicis (pictured) is almost entirely female because it reproduces by thelytokous parthenogenesis?

Interesting; and thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The source cited in the article doesn't indicate a causal relationship between parthenogenesis and being almost entirely female, and the article and sources do not discuss thelytoky. Try this:

• ALT3 ... that the mite Brevipalpus phoenicis (pictured) reproduces by parthenogenesis and almost all individuals are female?

The article also needs to be revised to conform to the source and support the hook. --Orlady (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea how to do that. Sorry for the trouble on this one. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I found a source that explains/supports the original hook and I added additional words and a footnote in the article. Someone else needs to do a followup review. --Orlady (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe everything is good to go. This should be an easy review. --Orlady (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not comfortable that this answers the original concern. The sources say that it is overwhelmingly female and that it reproduces by parthenogenesis, but the only connection is the claim that this comes from unfertilized eggs. If the complaint is that one doesn't follow from the other then I still don't think we can answer the original objection (I accept I am not a biologist). ALT1 or ALT2? Both are fine. Secretlondon (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

So.. for ALT1 or ALT2 I think. Secretlondon (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... I think the original hook and ALT3 are the hooks that are supported. Source 3 says "Populations are primarily composed of females; males compose less than 1% of the population in Hawaii. Reproduction primarily occurs through unfertilized parthenogenesis. Eggs produce only females." IMO, that supports the original hook, by explaining the causal relationship between parthenogenesis and being almost entirely female. I wouldn't use ALT1 or ALT2 because the unfamiliar term "thelytoky" doesn't occur in the article. --Orlady (talk) 05:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Orlady that the use of "thelytoky" in the hooks is not appropriate if the term is not used in the article proper. (Footnotes do not count.) However, with Secretlondon being unwilling to approve the other two hooks, this should not be showing up as approved on the queues list, so I'm putting in the question mark icon. I think this needs either another pair of eyes or the addition of "thelytoky" at an appropriate place in the text, if feasible/reasonable, to support ALT1 and ALT2 as possibilities. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• This situation is ridiculous. The original hook and ALT3 are fine, but I can't approve them because I proposed ALT3 and I edited the article so it would fully support the original hook. The original hook was problematic a month ago because it said that the preponderance of females was due to parthenogenetic reproduction, but the cited source did not state that this was the cause of the female-ness, and neither the article nor the source explained the biology of how this made the species almost entirely female. Additionally, one person was concerned that the word "parthenogenetic" did not by itself imply femaleness, which is why the word "thelytokous" got added to some ALT hooks. However, this hook is about biology, not etymology. I edited the article to add text and a citation that would support the original hook by explaining how this organism's parthenogenetic reproduction causes almost all individuals to be female. The article now says "Populations of Brevipalpus phoenicis are almost entirely female. This is because the species is parthenogenetic, with most reproduction occurring from unfertilized eggs that only produce females." (I added the words "with most reproduction occurring from unfertilized eggs that only produce females".) The cited source that I added to that sentence (footnote 3) says: "Populations are primarily composed of females; males compose less than 1% of the population in Hawaii. Reproduction primarily occurs through unfertilized parthenogenesis. Eggs produce only females." This needs a quick review and approval by someone who will admit to some knowledge of biology, rather than making judgments solely on the basis of dictionary definitions of the words in the hook. --Orlady (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Approving ALT3 only, though I think I would prefer adding "primarily" after (before?) "reproduces", based on the sources, unless Orlady thinks I'm misreading them. I'm not as convinced by the original hook, because there appears to be some non-parthenogenetic reproduction (in order to produce the 1% of males); I also think the wording of ALT3 is better, as it avoids the are/is conundrum. Striking non-approved hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)