Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects
|This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Insects and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4|
|WikiProject Insects||(Rated Project-class)|
Good article reassessment nomination of Colony collapse disorderEdit
Colony collapse disorder has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Could someone have a look at Africanized bee? A new editor replaced and "Unreferenced section" tag with a source that does verify the entire Queen management section (or even most of it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Y'all may want to look at this edit . It appears to be a good faith addition (the editor only made two edits) but needs some copy-editing by an expert 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Use of the term "naiad"Edit
I am working on improvements to the article Uropetala carovei, the New Zealand bush giant dragonfly. I have come across the term "naiad", but need some help. Several recent reliable sources use the term "naiad" in describing the immature form eg  and Milen Marinov; Mike Ashbee (2019). Dragonflies & Damselflies of New Zealand (first ed.). Auckland University Press. ISBN 978-1-86940-892-3. OL 28725690M. Wikidata Q116734647. However, the article Nymph (biology) says that the term is no longer in favour, and cites a 2016 paper from Systematic Entomology.. I am unclear about what term to use, and would appreciate feedback on the talk page of the Uropetala article. Marshelec (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- In my reading of the 2016 paper, the authors actually state that it is not particularly problematic to use the terms. Here is a verbatim quote from the conclusion section (bolding mine) :
- Evidence shows that the terms ‘larva’, ‘nymph’ and ‘naiad’ – particularly the latter two – refer merely to evolutionary grades rather than to distinct, nonhomologous types of juveniles. This does not mean that if they are defined on a descriptive basis they are not recognizable, and certainly the majority of juveniles are easy to be classified into one of them. They, however, do not have a biological meaning deeper than that of the term ‘maggot’ used for the characteristic larval form of higher Diptera, or ‘grub’ for that of chafers. Such terms are frequent in entomology and there is no need of eliminating them from our terminology, but one should not think that they have a precise biological definition and therefore a ‘correct’ (i.e. scientifically meaningful) use. Because the term ‘nymph’ – much less so ‘naiad’ – is already widely used in descriptive entomology, and can perhaps have some educational value when used for particular kinds of larvae, we find their usage acceptable, albeit not particularly useful. We encourage editors and reviewers to let the authors decide whether they want to adopt the established idiosyncratic terminology fixed by tradition or rather follow the homology-based terminology – none of the ways seem to cause any confusion. The worst practice would be to force the authors to use a particular kind of allegedly ‘correct’ terminology and thus prevent its natural semantic evolution.
- - Redei, D., & Štys, P. (2016). Larva, nymph and naiad - for accuracy’s sake. Systematic Entomology, 41(3):505–510. doi:10.1111/syen.12177 Shyamal (talk) 11:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Could someone who knows where the authoritative sources are check up on the synonymy of this species? CoL  has it as a synonym of Pnigalio agraules, however that doesn't seem to follow from their stated source dataset (Universal Chalcidoidea Database). (The Arthropoda Species File, suggested as a source on the main project page, doesn't even recognize the genus) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)