Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lepidoptera

Active discussions
WikiProject Lepidoptera (Rated Project-class)
This 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Paralaxita species and subspeciesEdit

I've found sources disagreeing on what exactly are the species and subspecies in Paralaxita. I have added a comment on the talk page, but did not want to change anything, because I'm unsure what the most reliable source is on this. Would love for someone to have a second look at this if possible! Achaea (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Photography questionEdit

I do not feel the following are enough to be used for range distribution:

North American Moth Photographers Group
Butterflies and Moths.org

The first source is cited in articles as a measure of range, but no information is given other than dots on the photo page to support if the species in question is introduced or native to the state. We cant establish the fact just because someone took a photo of the x Lepidoptera in y state other than it might be an indication of fact. The second source appears to be a non profit group (again linked in articles) that has dozens of ads present on the site, I am not sure if it is a WP:RS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I think both are comprehensive, current and serious enough to be useful (and harmless) as external links; as for reliability as sources, that's difficult to judge. Certainly they are not definitive as far as range goes, but maybe are helpful as a more general regional source. No ads came up when I looked through them, but I use a basic ad-blocker. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree. Reliable for the most part, but prone to the same issues all other Lepidoptera generalist (that is, not focused on a small subset of all Lepidoptera, like a specific family or subfamily) databases, checklists and other forms of information aggregation are prone to due to the sheer size of order Lepidoptera: incomplete datasets & outdated taxonomic placement. They certainly can't be used to definitely state "this species occurs only here" due to said incompleteness, nor can they be used to state whether or not an area is part of its native range or not. To reference a statement like "Occurs in North America, where it has been recorded from Colorado", it suffices, though. (But where scientific literature stating the same can be identified (not always easy, considering the sheer number of resources still only available as $100+ book), said literature is preferable) AddWittyNameHere 11:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
You can try GBIF for a profession set of distribution data, but it takes looking at each individual occurrence for verification, is hard to work with, is easy to misuse, and is not near complete regarding insects. But it's trustworthy, if used correctly. Regarding invasive or native range, no distributional occurrence record alone can tell you that, it's native status is a theory published by someone. I find the Moth Photographers Group quite useful, but I've mostly been working on obscure, drab moths only experts could identify, which limits the data set. If in doubt about the reliability/status of the record, just qualify the statement, i.e. "according to a record submitted to the Moth Photographers Group the species has been recorded in" yadayada. Make sure each distributional statement is referenced so others can make up their own minds about reliability of source. Leo Breman (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:List of Lepidoptera of MassachusettsEdit

Are there any other columns that would be worth adding? I have been tinkering around with a "size" section for wingspan. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks nice so far, Knowledgekid87. That said, a couple of tweaks I'd suggest:
The photography criterion. Right now it reads somewhat ambiguously: while you probably mean "expert in the field [of Lepidoptera]", it could as easily mean "taken by an expert; additionally, it must be field photography". (=live (or naturally-dead) specimens in the wild only).
I'd also recommend replacing "none" in the Common name(s) part with N/A except where you have references explicitly stating the species does not have a vernacular name. Wikipedia and Lepidoptera databases are not particularly great at staying up-to-date or being complete, and simply not having a vernacular name listed (either here or there) could certainly mean that none exists, but could as easily mean "no one's gotten around to adding it yet".
As for additional columns, my gut feeling says "keep it simple" (the more info to keep updated, the more likely it is to get out-of-date—though tbh, with Lepidoptera articles, and especially lists, whether stand-alone or in-article, that's pretty much a guarantee anyway), but let's see what others say. AddWittyNameHere 14:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi! Some more suggestions:
  • A column for the date of description isn't useful in a fauna checklist; a more standard way to include that info would be to add the correctly formatted authorship info in the scientific name column, e.g. "Agrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel, 1766)".
  • The genus column doesn't seem much useful either (I guess it's here for the genus link, but you don't typically need it on a local fauna checklist and it's easy to find from the species page anyway).
  • There is no reason to put the references with the scientific name, they deserve their own column. Same goes for the conservation status.
  • Family names shouldn't be italicized.
  • Unless you plan to expand and complete the list before publishing the article, please make clear that this is a partial list (there are many more than 200 Lepidoptera in Massachussets, ~1500 are quoted on the BAMONA website alone.)
Hope this helps! --LamBoet (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. I think that there are all the columns you need, if you want to add more columns you could add one column about IUCN conservation status. On the contrary the column 'genus' is useless because the binomial name of the species already contains the genus. Albert the 1st (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

"Stygiella" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Stygiella. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 30#Stygiella until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Author or editor?Edit

I'm trying to get some feedback on the best way to reference Lepidoptera and Some Other Life Forms, sometimes referred to as Funet or Savela. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Author or editor? If you've got any input or opinions they would help. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨  05:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Lepidoptera".