Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lepidoptera

Latest comment: 1 month ago by Jts1882 in topic Article title discrepancies
WikiProject iconLepidoptera Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of butterflies and moths 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.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Re: Jts1882's aside in an edit summary edit

Jts1882: As an aside, was this dealt with or does it still need addressing? Some of it has been fixed, but yeah, there's a fair bit of various outdated Noctuoid classifications lingering, especially on the less visible pages like lists of [family] genera, lists of moths of [country], and so on. I still come across the occasional mention of a "family Arctiidae" and that's been outdated for longer than most of us have been editing Wikipedia.

It's a wider problem, really. I'm currently in the process of updating the Pterophoridae, which seem to largely not have been updated since 2010-2012, with exception of the occasional addition of a single genus or species to one list or another. Alucitidae is in a similar state (with the genus list actually explicitly cited to the 2010 version of Wikispecies. sigh). You already noted the Rhopalocera issue above.

Prior to my previous break, I did some updating on the massive Eupithecia genus, but didn't get around to wrapping it up (need to get back on that at one point or another), and I never got around to wrapping up my efforts on the Hesperiidae, either, so I'll need to check if anyone else got around to it. Can't quite remember if I ran through all the Apatelodidae to bring them in line with Kitching et al 2018, but even if so, I know there were other parts of the Bombycoidea treated in the same paper that I didn't get around to. (Someone else might have, minimum, it needs checking)

Geometrinae saw Plotkin & Kawahara's 2020 review of the revisions within Geometrinae since 2007, but I doubt that's been fully updated on-wiki, either. Gelechioidea has been quite unstable the past two decades and probably warrants a check to see if it's remotely up to date, as well. Taking a quick glance at our Tineoidea article, I don't see the 2015 revision by Regier et al cited, so that one's suspect too. List of Tortricidae genera claims to be "up to date to 2008". The list goes on and on. AddWittyNameHere 08:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've had a look at the structure in the taxonomy templates. Noctuoidea currenly has six families, as in the van Nieukerken et al (2011) classification, which is consistent with Zahiri et al (2011). The families have the following content using the automated taxonomy system:
  • Erebidae: 20 subfamilies and 10 unassigned genera [Zahiri et al (2012) have 18 subfamilies]
  • Euteliidae: one subfamily with all genera using the automated taxoboxes assigned it
  • Noctuidae: 27 subfamilies and 21 unassigned genera
  • Nolidae: 8 subfamilies and 3 unassigned genera [There are also 8 subfamilies in Zahiri et al (2013) but only six match]
  • Notodontidae: 11 subfamilies and 9 unassigned genera
  • Oenosandridae: 2 genera and no subfamilies
Some of the subfamily templates may no longer be use.
A problem is determining where to put the genera as Lepindex is out of date, as you pointed out with in edits to the project page yesterday. You suggest using Global Lepidoptera Index but the linked only shows a screenful so I can't get Noctuoidea subdivisions. Am I missing how to do this or should we use CoL Lepidoptera? However, CoL gives no subfamilies for Nolidae, while the Zahiri classification uses eight and goes down to subtribes.[edit: not sure what happened there] While the Zahiri classification seems the best to follow, we really should have a secondary source using it. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a collapsed list, clicking on the arrows in front of a taxon de-collapses it showing its child taxa, each of which can then again be de-collapsed to show child taxa.
But yeah, I wouldn't necessarily recommend using the GLI over all other databases, just over LepIndex in that if one's looking specifically for an index of names (and authors of those names) of Lepidoptera, this one comes closest. It's a good resource if one has a specific name to plug in & check on placement, status, authors and so on. The browsing user interface, on the other hand, is far from ideal, and while it's actively being updated and maintained (a major plus over LepIndex), it's not quite up to date yet (there's a reason the version string starts with a 0, I'd say) and remains a "use with some caution".
But yes, if one wants a catalogue rather than an index, CoL Lepidoptera is the better bet by far. (Though, as with all general Lepidoptera databases (and some of those specific to one or two families), I've seen times when it wasn't quite up-to-date. It's a lot better about it than most, though.)
Let's just say we're certainly not alone in finding it difficult to maintain an up-to-date taxonomy of the Lepidoptera, and the lack of existence of a central, maintained database prior to the rapid-speed major revisions of the past two decades really, really hasn't helped there. It's basically trying to move the furniture in a room around while there's still a heap of stuff to sort out on every surface and even the floor, and every time you pull a bookcase from the wall, you discover yet more stuff that has slipped behind it. (Which doesn't excuse how badly behind some of our articles are, mind.) AddWittyNameHere 16:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Calinaga buddha edit

Hi all! Someone sent me a funny screenshot of Calinaga buddha because the common name is, apparently, the freak and I was looking for a source to confirm this. Couldn't find much (I posted as such on the talk page) and I was wondering if anyone from this WP could help with improving the sources and overall article - it's not my métier and I haven't had much luck. Please ping me if there's anything I can help with or if this gets any traction! Best, Kazamzam (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sphingidae links edit

I noticed while poking through a maintenance queue that most of the Sphingidae family seems to have been hurt by the closure of in 2016. I can (gradually) piece together links to the replacement if that is the best solution. Since 1200 species or so is not exactly a small change, better to get feedback sooner than later. Any suggestions or objections? Yendorian (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yendorian: Looks like never really got off the ground, beyond being a pilot scheme. I struggled to find content on, other than the taxon name and authority, and the framework for other content. One archived page I did find for Manduca sexta shares some content with the page on so it is clearly the successor site (by the same author) and an appropriate replacement. It won't be an easy task as the old site used taxon names in the url while the new one requires an ID number. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for confirming. I will start chipping away at the stale references. Yendorian (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion of "List of Lepidoptera that feed on" articles edit

There is currently a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lepidoptera that feed on Aster that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. AryKun (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article title discrepancies edit

I have just read the GA-class article Pine processionary that was a "good read". Looking around I noticed the lack of consistency concerning naming when there are articles like Pine processionary and Oak processionary, then Thaumetopoea pinivora (Eastern pine processionary). It seems there should be some consistency or guidance concerning article naming.
There are articles using "moth", such as the Luna moth, parenthetical (moth) such as Imara (moth) or Corybantes (moth) , or nothing like Hista. Maybe if the article formats criteria had some suggestions concerning concision and consistency it might help. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are two separate issues here. Article titles are based on the name most commonly used in written or spoken English language (WP:COMMONNAME). If there is a widely used vernacular name then this will usually be the article title. However, sometimes a vernacular name is not the most common name, e.g. in cases where different vernacular names are used in different parts of the range of a species, or for obscure species which only get discussed in the scientific literature, in which case the scientific name is the common name in the Wikipedia sense. In your example, is Eastern pine processionary a common name in this sense? My guess is it might be a recent species split, which might mean Pine processionary needs changing. What do the sources say?
The second issue is the use of "(moth)" as a disambiguation term. In those examples the genus name has other uses so the title needs to be modified to an unambiguous name. Imara is a disambiguation page (for the first and last names of people, a geographical place and for the moth genus) and Corybantes redirects to Korybantes (a topic Greek mythology). On the other hand, Hista is only used for the genus so doesn't need disambiguation. Luna moth is the common name for the species. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]