Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lepidoptera

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia's coverage of butterflies and moths. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

West Ukraine: one native population of Maculinea rebeli Hirsh found by Sergey G. Popov in 2006. Source:http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=72794699140493&mkt=uk-UA&lang=uk-UA&w=56a23754&FORM=CVRE
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Mimicry in lepidopterans

I notice the project has placed a banner on the mimicry article, though mimicry applies to diverse taxa, not even limited to the vast animal kingdom. Perhaps an article on mimicry in lepidopterans would be a good idea. There have been whole books written on mimicry in butterflies alone, and the number of cases is enormous. There is no way any existing articles can hope to adequately treat this, so I think a mimicry by taxa approach is the best one. Richard001 (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

It might be an idea to include the 'req photo' field in the banner template and create a subcategory of requested insect photos, so the project can manage Lepidoptera specific image requests. Richard001 (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note if you use the reqphoto template please use the syntax {{reqphoto|insecta}} so that it is placed in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of insecta, or as suggested create a sub-category under insecta.

[edit] Heath Fritillary life cycle images—request for help

The Hungarian Wikipedia page for this species [1] has images of caterpillar and pupa. Can someone who knows how to transfer images and copyright data please help me get these into English WikiCommons? Thanks—GRM (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Done some time ago — GRM (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New 'species' page

I'm not sure if I've gone about this correctly but I was surprised that some of the Australian species appeared to have no pages dedicated to them. In other WP projects (such as bird) it seems OK to create a species-page and add media and text cumulatively. As I have quite a few reasonable butterfly images it seemed a shame not to be able to display them so I've created one (for Graphium eurypylus [2]) As I'm more-graphically inclined I would rather add images than text, so is this acceptable to the 'wider' community? Aviceda talk 03:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely - according to WP policy all species can have a page - by the principle of implicit notability. btw links within wikipedia can be created using [[ ]] tags rather than the single bracket used for ext links. Shyamal (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Oops - that was a misspelling for Graphium euryplus so I redirected the eurypylus page. Please re-add the pictures there. Shyamal (talk) 03:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out - it appears that the euryplus was actually the error page. I will move the page back in the other direction. Shyamal (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance Shyamal, will leave editing until I get some free-time, hope the images are useful. Aviceda talk 19:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Top importance

I notice there is no 'top' importance category here. Is this intentional? I also notice the 'high' importance one is very full, e.g. Monarch Butterfly (a single species, albeit well known) is considered of the same importance as Lepidoptera itself. Surely this should be corrected by addition of a 'top' category for articles like Lepidoptera, butterfly, moth etc? Richard001 (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I dont know how we missed this! AshLin (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moth genera lists

There seems to be a lot of moth genera lists within Category:Taxonomic lists (genera, alphabetic), there are 27 pages for each family (one for each letter of the alphabet and a start page). Surely each genus would be better organised into one family category with a sensible introduction and TOC? Why the need for all those pages and extra maintenance created when a category serves this purpose very well, and can be searched by letter.

Example:
For the family Arctiidae there is:
List of arctiid genera
List of arctiid genera: A
List of arctiid genera: B
List of arctiid genera: C etc
as well as the category Category:Arctiidae

Or has this already come up and discussed? Jack (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You have me to blame for these lists! I did think long and hard before I started to create them: I felt the category alone would not be sufficient because any genus article created would almost certainly be an orphan (ie not linked from any other actual page), which is slightly frowned upon in WP - also the category would only include existing pages - my personal opinion is that the sea of redlinks in these lists should act as a spur to page creation! I had planned to create a lot of lep genus pages but time constraints and my usual problem of getting seriously sidetracked has meant I have not created as many as I had hoped, although hopefully I will be doing this in the future.
If there is a consensus that these lists are superfluous then delete them by all means. I have not created any for a while (doing the whole of Noctuidae drained me somewhat!) and I will not create any more while this discussion is ongoing Richard Barlow (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Richard, the way I see it: each family page should have a classification section (if the family contains subfamilies such as Arctiidae then create classification on the subfamily page) that way the genera will be linked to (incl. red links). This can be seen in the systematics section of Arctiinae (a subfamily of Arctiidae).
I do realise that there are a lot of genera within many moth families but I believe that the lists are excessive and are unlikely to spur page creation as it is a long way to go to find them. Redlinks on a family/subfamily page would more likely do the job. Does anyone else want to state their views/suggestions on this topic? Cheers, Jack (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Swedish Expedition to Burma and India

Hello everyone.I came across this very nice photo of a sphingid type [3]. No time to search the site but no doubt there will be much else from this intersting expedition.Robert aka Notafly (talk) 10:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photographs

Hello folks!
I have a little stash of butterfly and moth pictures that I took while I was on vacation in Seattle last weekend. I don't know the slightest thing about what sorts of butterflies they are, but if you want to take a look at them and tell me which ones, if any, you can use, I will upload high-res versions of them to commons for ya. They can be found here, and are numbered so you can just tell me which numbers you want. Number 10 I cannot give you a high res version of because I'd like to put it in my next gallery show and having a high res version of it free on the internet would sort of defeat the purpose, methinks. But you can still have the 800x600 px version. I have a few more that I haven't processed yet and will upload later, so keep checking. Let me know-
L'Aquatique[talk] 21:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Identification Request

I took this photo of a butterfly this morning, and I need some help identifying it. I think it's either an Appalachian Tiger Swallowtail (Papilio appalachiensis), or an Eastern Tiger Swallowtail (Papilio glaucus), but I can't tell which one. It seemed to me like an unusually large butterfly, and I was definitely in the Appalachian mountains at the time (village of Valle Crucis in Watauga County, NC, USA) so it could be an Appalachian, but I know the Easterns are much more common so I wanted to get some expert help on the ID before uploading the image. Thank you. - Ken Thomas (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, this line of inquiry didn't seem to be bearing a tremendous amount of fruit, so I went ahead and uploaded the image to Commons as an Appalachian Tiger Swallowtail, and added a note to the description explaining that I may have misidentified the species. - Ken Thomas (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
[4] suggests you are correct, but I know little about North American butterflies. Shyamal (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Links to Rothschild

Hi there, maybe somebody is able to clear the links to Rothschild to the correct wikilink ? Among others on these butterfly articles :

If there is no lemma for this person maybe to: Rothschild family.

Thx Sebastian scha. (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Most likely that all should go to Walter_Rothschild,_2nd_Baron_Rothschild. Shyamal (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the links to him. Thank you. Sebastian scha. (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Butterfly evolution needs help

Butterfly evolution needs help.--Wloveral (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it not rather badly titled? Perhaps good to merge the content to Lepidoptera or Butterfly. Shyamal (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Could you do the merge?--Wloveral (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Have redirected it to Butterfly and added whatever was new. The cladogram did not seem any different from what is already in Butterfly (except that it did not indicate the structure within the Hesperiidae) so dropped that. Shyamal (talk) 04:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)