Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arthropods

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia's coverage of arthropods. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
Archive

Archives
Archive 1 (April 2006-March 2007)
Archive 2 (March 2007-Dec 2007)


Contents

[edit] Greenspun illustration project: requests now open

Dear Wikimedians,

This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration project (PGIP).

The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this page: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Requests

If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons, or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a given topic in other-language projects.

The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.

thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (Project coordinator)

[edit] Proposed change to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)

There is a current proposal to change an animal-related naming convention, which directly effects the the Manual of Style guideline, and the naming conventions policy. If you are interested, your input would be appreciated. Justin chat 06:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] finally cleaned up the mess with Mantis - a little advice needed still

Well, this weekend I went ahead and cleaned up all of the articles and categories and such associated with the order Mantodea. I had intended to make the primary article for the order the Mantodea article itself, but saw that Mantis was being used as a disambiguation article; by moving the content there to Mantis (disambiguation), I freed up the Mantis article for use as the primary (realistically, the common name for the group is preferrable - if only because there were far more pre-existing links to Mantis than there were to Mantodea, meaning using the former would create fewer new redirects). There are two problems with the way this turned out: (1) the article and talk page history for Mantodea are not visible on the new Mantis page, and (2) since there was also a merge with the content of Praying mantis, the article and talk page history of THAT article are also sort of lost in limbo. I presume the only effective solution is to make a link to the last pre-merge/move version of the histories of each of these, and put the links at the top of the new Mantis talk page, so people can see those histories? Dyanega (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cochineal

Cochineal is an FA but it doesn't look like it's ever been on the main page. I'm dropping by from Wikipedia:WikiProject Textile Arts because this happens to cover both of our projects. Feel like doing a writeup and getting this named the FA of the day? Best regards, DurovaCharge! 09:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A mite rank problem...

See Acariformes. It seems that the "families" therein would have to be treated as superorders. The diversity of Acariformes is too large to deal with it sensibly the other way (see Oribatida which would be hell in a handbasket if treated as a family). Be aware that from superfamily down one is in ICZN-land, making adjustments everything but easy for one thing, and restricting the number of available ranks for another. With the taxobox format we have (no 2 directly consecutive "unranked" taxa) it is simply impossible to do it sensibly here.

In any case it is simply wrong to call the Oribatida for example a family. It would have to be "Oribatidae" - the "-idae" ending is mandatory for animal families (you may think you can get away with it doing phylogenetic taxonomy but WP tries to avoid this except when there is really no other way (such as in theropod dinos). Hence Tarsonemidae and the taxa of comparable rank are the families - but the Acariformes would have to be an infraclass. This is rarely done (BioLib.cz uses it, but that's not the kind of scholarly source I would like.

Here's the radical version (a la BioLib) contrasted with the current one, walking down from Acari(da) to Crotonia (which without any doubt is a genus):

  • Subclass Acarida
    • Infraclass Acariformes
      • Superorder Sarcoptiformes
        • Order Oribatida
          • Suborder Desmonomata
            • Superfamily Parallonothridae <- would have to be "Parallonothroidea" or so
  • Subclass Acarida
    • Order Acariformes
      • Suborder Sarcoptiformes
        • Family "Oribatidae"
          • Subfamily "Desmonomatinae"
            • Tribe "Parallonothrini"
              • Subtribe "Crotoniina"
                • Genus Crotonia

Basically, the classification preserntly used is wrong under several aspects (ICZN-nonconformity being probably the most severe one), whereas the most plausible alternative is unsourceable. What to do? Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, it took me a minor bit of more Googling to find a possible solution: treat Acariformes as superorder and Sarcoptiformes as unranked and then go on as per example 1 above. This is widely used and should refer back to some scholarly source. About the apparently incorrect ending of "Parallonothridae" I am not sure what to do. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This works pretty well and consistently, but one runs into more trouble with the Trombidiformes. Or not actually trouble. Take for example Erythraeidae. I have placed the Parasitengona as "unranked" simply because it was possible. Conceivably, one might treat them as a infraorder. But I have found only one Google hit on such a placement (seems to be serious though). But there are some points to note:

  • such a placement would be logical and is entirely possible, because there is no final authority (infraorders are not regulated by the ICZN). The only technical requirement would be that the taxon itself has been validly established (no matter at what rank as long as its above superfamily)
  • The lack of scholarly sources seems at least in part to be due to the facts that:
    • there is pretty little work about intermediate-level systematics of mites since the mid-1990s.
    • what little there is tends towards phylogenetic taxonomy (which Wikipedia doesn't use if it does not have to) and would therefore not use Linnean ranks at all.

So, either one could use the "unranked" approach, but this is not Wikipedia SOP (use Linnean ranks if it makes sense). Or one could place the Parasitengona etc at infraorder rank, which would make sense but is not really used by anyone (and possibly never will, if phylogenetic taxonomy catches on). The whole issue applies for the major subdivisions of the Anystina (Anysta vs Parasitengona), Eleutherengona (several have been proposed but no consensus exists which ones apply) and Eupodina (eupodoid-tydeid group vs bdelloid group and possibly vs Labidostommatoidea also).

(Labidostommatoidea are best considered Eupodina incertae sedis for the time being, as they shift between the 2 other groups depending on analysis. This behavior is what happens when you have a de facto polytomy, which most cladistics software is incapable of handling properly. The assumption that evolution knowns only strict dichotomies is a major fallacy, as divergences do not happen instantaneously, populations do not consist of 2 individuals and geographical ranges do not have zero diameter... but it's hard to code it any otehr way :( )

Also, what would be the corresponding taxon for raphignathid mites? "Raphignathae" or "Raphignathina"? Both names are equally valid at face value (due to the nonregulation thing, one can choose endings freely). It's a bit like with "Acari" vs "Acarina". Which name was published first, and is this still valid or a junior synonym of something else (it should not be, but we have to be sure)? Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Insect

Trosia sp. (family Megalopygidae)
Trosia sp. (family Megalopygidae)

I found this on flickr, never seen one before.. what's the name of it?--Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 09:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen anything like it. Some... beetle... perhaps...???
Were it not for the very un-moth-like legs (especially the robust angled forelegs), I would say Arctiinae. But these would have shorter forelegs which are stretched out straightly if the insect hangs vertically (like someone who tries but fails to do a pull-up, kinda... see for example Image:Arctia.caja.jpg).
If my life depended on hazarding a guess, I would say Elateriformia, possibly Buprestidae, based on the combination of long, strong and angled forelegs, bullet-like body shape, unclubbed, unbranched and unelongated antennae, hairyness and diverging distal forewings.
But it's so hairy! And the tuft visible at the butt end is confusing (is this the abdomen wisible between the diverging forewings?). And the small head with the narrow space between the antennae is so un-beetle-like! (Or is the "head" just the mouthparts, and the eyes are what is barely visible at the anterior margin of the thorax?) It looks so much like a generic buprestid with a generous dash of Giant Leopard Moth... Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Cerura erminea (Notodontidae: Stauropinae) at rest
Cerura erminea (Notodontidae: Stauropinae) at rest
If lepidopteran, then Notodontidae seems a closer match than others. Of these, some have a different habitus, and AFAIK none would normally hold their forelegs like that - most notodontidans, when at rest, have a shape like an inverted V with the forelegs sticking straight up in a V shape too. Some other Noctuoidea (e.g. Plusiinae) also come close. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, so the original pic on Flickr is called "mariposa" (= "lepidopteran"). In which case it can probably be nailed down to Noctuoidea but then it gets really difficult. Lepidopterans I found that share some (but never all) characteristics are for example:

That's a moth in the family Megalopygidae; that particular genus (I can't recall its name at the moment) is fairly common in the Neotropics, and I've collected them quite frequently in Mexico. Dyanega (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A zygaenoidean? Wow! Thanks for the ID! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Species Identification

I recently posted a question at the science reference desk - here - and thought someone here might be able to help. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reminder of the Philip Greenspun Illustration project

Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects.

Requests are currently being taken at m:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too.

If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 16:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polypedilum nubiferum and Kealia Pond National Wildlife Refuge

I was wondering if WikiProject Arthropods would be interested in contributing or reviewing the section on spotted-wing midges that I'm in the process of adding to this article (I especially need help with species classifcation and Hawaii-related data). There is a list of Hawaii-related midges here, but I can't determine which species inhabit Kealia Pond. (Looks like the data might be found here) Is the spotted-wing midge the same as Polypedilum nubiferum? Please put it on your watchlist (or add the article to your project). Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 03:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone know what it is?

I took a photo of an insect on February 16, near Sha Tin Pass, Hong Kong. Would anyone identify what it is, so that I can upload it to commons using the correct name? Thanks! --minghong (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a nymph of a bug possibly of the family Lygaeidae. Shyamal (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not necessarily a Lygaeid; there is a fair chance it could be a nymph of Pyrrhocoridae or even Largidae. It would require an expert in the Asian fauna to be certain. Dyanega (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
If you have a Flickr account, please login so that you can view the photo in original size. --minghong (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It should be a Physopelta gutta. --minghong (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

And what about this? I found this in a data center. --minghong (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A silverfish. Shyamal (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Uploaded as Image:A silverfish at ONE-iAdvantage.jpg. --minghong (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, I went to Tai To Yan, Lam Tsuen, Tai Po District. Would anyone identify what kind of butterfly or moth it is? --minghong (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Most likely Argyreus hyperbius or a close relative - but you could ask User:HKmoths who knows the region very well. Shyamal (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it looks almost the same. Thanks! --minghong (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know if this butterfly is Neptis hylas, Neptis clinia, Neptis soma, or Limenitis sulpitia? It is so difficult to tell.

--minghong (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It turned out to be none of these, but Athyma perius perius. --minghong (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, this caterpillar:

--minghong (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested photographs

I note that there is no category for requested arthropod photographs. The only thing there is Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of insecta (it should be Insecta, or, better still, insects). There is no WikiProject insects (there should be, but that's another matter...), but there certainly is an arthropods project, so it seems strange not to have a requests page for arthropods. The insect category can still be kept, but as a subcategory of the arthropods one. Richard001 (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who am I?

Can anyone help with these please? Jimfbleak (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] is this a centipede biting us?

I work for a veterinarian/pet store. i found some old smoked pig ear dog treats that had extremly small reddish bugs (they were no bigger than the head of a pencil and were all over the place) on them were clusters of yellowish things that appeared to be eggs (large clusters), after disrupting this box, which had what looked like dried longish bugs that were curled up, several of the employees that came in contact with the area began having small bites, reddish, itching, irritated, annoying. We also were seeing little reddish dots all over the place that were moving, some type of bug. Once we realized it probably came from the box of pig ears we found several larger bugs and examined one under the microscope, the image could have come out of a Sci Fi movie, oval and with either many hairs on both sides of the body or legs. Could this be a centipede causing our discomfort and could we be infested now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antia eos (talk • contribs) 06:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not centipedes, but carpet beetle larvae. Their bristles can cause irritation. The "tiny red dots" are presumably some sort of mites. Dyanega (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Phyllophaga (genus) (May beetle, June bug, June beetle) needs your help

"Phyllophaga (genus) ... Common names for this genus and its relatives in the subfamily Melolonthinae are May beetle, June bug, and June beetle." - "This beetle-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." -- Seems like more could be added to this article on a well-known genus. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, much less than you might think; the text of the article is lacking very little, and I have no idea why it's classified as a stub (I think I'll undo that, in fact). Part of the problem is that there are LOTS of genera that are all called "June bugs" - in all seriousness, what is needed is a generalized article that discusses the term "June bug" and gives links to the various genera to which the name is applied. Having it as a redirect to JUST THIS GENUS is a significant oversight, like having the name "duck" redirect to "mallard". Dyanega (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mantophasmatodea: Add photo or other image please

If anybody could add a photo or other image to Mantophasmatodea, that would be a good thing. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment banner

Should we not modify the banner to have the normal "class=" and "importance=" code? Surely this could be done with a bot or something on the articles where it is used. It would be best in the long run to keep WikiProjects on the same page, e.g. using the same code. It should also allow the assessment script I use to pick up these ratings rather than calling them 'unassessed'. Richard001 (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Myriapoda vs Uniramia

I think there is some sort of confusion here. Myriapoda and Uniramia are both listed as the subphylum of arthropoda for the subphylum containing centipedes/millipedes/ect. I don't really know how to address this problem. My professor says the subphylum is Uniramia.--FUNKAMATIC (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Upon further reading (of the article) I realize that it is my Professor who is wrong. It looks as though Myriapoda are the correct subphylum.--FUNKAMATIC (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Entomology entry

I changed the importance of the Entomology entry from mid to high. It meets the listed criteria of "This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge" -AJseagull1 (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This should have been posted on the talk page of the Article Classification page Sorry. AJseagull1 (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gladiators

FWIW: American Museum Novitates 3539 discusses new gladiator fossils and proposes to demote Grylloblattodea and Mantophasmatodea to suborders of the new order Notoptera based on these finds. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone knows what it is?

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/599/imgp0462nn6.jpg and http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/709/imgp0485qu1.jpg Both shooted summer 2007 (july-august) in Russia, Smolensk region. I would like to publish both photos at the correct wikipedia place... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yozhhh (talk • contribs) 08:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about the bush-cricket, but the dragonfly is most probably Aeshna cyanea (or Southern Hawker)! Kaarel (talk) 05:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I think also that the dragonfly is Southern Hawker, thanks. But the first one is definitely not a bush-cricket; it is much smaller as bush-cricket. Probably, Poecilimon. User:Yozhhh 14:28, 6 May 2008

[edit] Multiple WikiProjects

Given that WikiProject Lepidoptera is a subproject of WikiProject Arthropods, is adding a WikiProject Arthropods on a butterfly or moth page redundant?—GRM (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ant at FAC

Just to note that ant has been sent to FA and can do with more hands to take it to the required quality. It would be great if the folks at arthropod can collaborate to improve articles as has been demonstrated well by the bird wiki project. Maybe this could be a good article to start off with. Shyamal (talk) 08:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gould quote

The quote is attributed to Stephen Jay Gould (1988), but there is no citation. Where did he say this? Richard001 (talk) 08:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)