User talk:Dyanega/archive7

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dyanega. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi, The genus Tibicen has been liquidated and partitioned into 4 distinct genera. All taxa perviously encompassed by the genus have been distributed to new locations. I have 2 papers that verify the division and provide molecular phylogenetic information. Ultimately, new genera which succeeded Tibicen are: Lyristes (European taxa), Neocicada (Eastern North America), Auritibicen (Asian taxa), Hadoa (Western North America, W. of 100th meridian).

 Yakkam255 (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• You've got some details wrong there. Tibicen still exists, for the European species - Lyristes is not a valid name. The Eastern US species are in Neotibicen. Plrease read the Hill et al. paper carefully. Dyanega (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

See here: User_talk:Thine_Antique_Pen#Leaf-cutter_bees Gidip (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Over at Wikispecies a little bit of taxonomy/nomenclatural issue as arisen around Oberthueria (beetle) and Oberthueria (moth). Basically it looks like the former is invalid (a synonym of Tropidocerus, according to an informal online comment) and a homonym of the latter, but we wouldn't want to try and push a small publication (I have done so myself) to publish the combination without having any idea if the sole species Oberthueria guiteli is valid in the first place. Faendalimas suggested we could ask you for some thoughts. Circéus (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• While I cannot confirm the claim that Kirby 1892 (rather than Staudinger 1892) is the author of the moth name, either way it does have seniority over Vuillet's beetle name. Under the Code (Chapter 12, Article 60[1]), a junior homonym cannot be used as a valid name, but if it is a synonym, then the name of the oldest synonym must be used, even if it is junior to the homonym. ONLY if the name is not a synonym does it need a replacement name. Accordingly, if the synonymy with Tropidocerus is not published, you would need to publish either that synonymy (in which case the homonymy problem goes away), OR a replacement name; but I advise you to act quickly and decisively, as there are "scientists" out there who routinely find and replace homonyms, and there is no need for a replacement if this taxon is a synonym. It would reduce the "clutter", therefore, if the synonymy is established before anyone proposes a new name. Dyanega (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Dyanega. I know your busy with a conference right now, good of you to add input. @Circeus: If you wish to do this and think you can feel free to ask for help. This group is not my area of expertise, I work with vertebrates, however, I could help you I would just need to acquire the pertinent literature. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 22:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

To be entirely honest, this lacks what I felt is the key detail (though I would understand if Dyanega can't answer): whether Vuillet species is valid. I would feel no better than the CESA people if we were to publish a new combination which turns out to be self-evidently a synonym of another species in Tropidocerus. Circéus (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The validity of Vuillet's name is crucial; if ANYONE treats it as valid, it must be replaced. That isn't something easily extracted using, say, a Google search, though any hits which prove to be primary literature usages would be pretty convincing evidence. I contacted Kip Will, a carabid researcher, and he says he is aware of the problem, but unclear as to whether the synonymy is firmly-established. Again, if this isn't universally-accepted yet, it either needs to be synonymized formally, or replaced.Dyanega (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I have asked Alexander Anichtchenko if he has knowledge of any synonymies or usage for this name with references. Will see what he has to say. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 00:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nomia aurata, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nomia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Megarhyssa macrura a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Megarhyssa macrurus. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe it was moved from M. macrurus to M. macrura and then it was not possible to go back again when it was realized that the move was incorrect. Have fixed the history. Shyamal (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Yip, what I thought.

In this edit you changed the article Wasp. You removed a sourced claim for the smallest known wasp and flying insect and replaced it with another claim. Please supply a citation for this information, failing which I propose to change the article content back to its previous version. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: It is actually quite well-known and its easy to find the citation. Have added it. Shyamal (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Probably easy to find if you know precisely what you are looking for. Having made the effort to take the article to GA, we are a bit wary about people removing cited facts and replacing them with uncited information! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, you can count on editors who allow their credentials to be readily examined. Shyamal (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, and it is excellent that Dyanega is contributing his knowledge to Wikipedia, but nevertheless, citations are needed for facts of this sort. Perhaps I was a bit aggressive, and if so, I apologise. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry if this is way off, I'm a total noob on Wikipedia, and could not locate the talk page for European Hornet, but saw that you guys were talking here about it. I found an error, but am too afraid to change anything. It says in the English version of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_hornet in the first few paragraphs that the hornet is "usually considered a pest by humans who come into contact with it", which is both a nonsensical statement, but also the citation (no. 3) points to an article that seems completely unrelated to its pest status (because it isn't one), but instead outlines a single observation of a hornet stealing prey from a spider. I just thought someone should know, since I don't know how to do this, but I would like to have it corrected with a "citation needed" or the sentence removed. Peace! / Tom from Sweden

Dyanenga,

I hope this is the right place to respond to you. To answer your question... P. sexpunctatus and P. angolensis are separate species, not synonyms. I am aware of the publication "The Pyrrhocoroidea (Hemiptera – Heteroptera) of the Ethiopian region," and the issue is that the author there did not have access to P. angolensis specimens for comparison to the other Probergrothius species. This is because P. angolensis comes from Namibia and surrounding countries (on the other side of the continent, thus not in the Ethiopian region). A recent paper coming from other members of my lab in Germany "Evolutionary transition in symbiotic syndromes enabled diversification of phytophagous insects on an imbalanced diet" (Sudakaran et. al. 2015), used genotypic evidence that showed P. angolensis (collected on Welwitschia) and P. sexpunctatus (from the Ivory Coast) were genetically distinct.

We have gotten our taxonomic naming information from Dr. Juergen Deckert, who is a Pyrrhocoidae specialist at the Berlin Museum of Natural History. I too was confused about the actual identity of the insects, but Dr. Deckert has told me that the Welwitschia bug is indeed P. angolensis and not sexpunctatus. Another clue is that P. sexpunctatus, as it's name suggests, has six spots on its wings (3 per wing), while the Welwitschia bug (P. angolensis) only has two large spots.

Here are some images for comparison:

P. sexpunctatus (Not found on Welwitschia, six wing spots): - https://www.flickr.com/photos/33813110@N08/6783270353/in/gallery-144288833@N05-72157674049237262/ - https://www.flickr.com/photos/hvw/2144530874/in/gallery-144288833@N05-72157674049237262/ - https://www.flickr.com/photos/catsitchyfeet/4752183023/in/gallery-144288833@N05-72157674049237262/

P. angolensis (Welwitschia bug, two wing spots): - https://www.flickr.com/photos/ivl_wildlife_photography/23353377675/in/gallery-144288833@N05-72157674049237262/ - https://www.flickr.com/photos/ivl_wildlife_photography/23244990032/in/gallery-144288833@N05-72157674049237262/

Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamjmtz (talk • contribs) 16:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I saw the new P. angolensis page. Thanks for adding the little blurb. Adamjmtz (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dyanega: I note that you recently deleted an entry in the "List of organisms named after famous people", on the grounds that the entry related to a social scientist, and was thereby excluded. Now, there has been some discussion in the Talk page for this article, and the exclusion has been amended such that this designates species named after "biologists and other natural scientists". The upshot of this is that I believe there is a strong case the species or Arthropod named after Brian Martin (Social Scientist) is eligible to be included in this article. Would it be OK with you if I restored this entry? Research17 (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response on my talk page. I'll proceed accordingly. Research17 (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing some much-needed clean-up on various Lepidoptera articles! (esp. Erebidae-related genera really need the work...) I'm doing some of that stuff here and there as well, just chose to focus on first getting them categorized so I can systematically go through all Lepidoptera genera we've got articles on to verify if they're even valid and whether they're properly classified. (My guess is that we've got anywhere from several dozen to a couple hundred non-valid (mostly synonyms, but probably a typo or two, too) genera floating around. I know we've got hundreds of genera that are still listed under old taxonomical systems, especially in regards to the whole Erebidae mess. *sigh*) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Yup. Funet is my preferred source as far as taxonomy goes as well, with possible exception of a few less-international sites that focus solely on species in a particular region—but those obviously are only useful for species that occur in those regions. NHM can on occasion be useful, but depends really on the context and what it's being used for. Certainly, if funet and NHM say two different things, there's something like 99.9% chance that it's NHM being outdated again. The other main issue is that most now-Erebidae articles were written prior to the reclassification and no one has gotten around to systematically overhauling them to the new classification, though some partial attempts were made here and there. (The result of which is that a genus sometimes is listed in three different tribe or subfamily articles, has article content saying one thing, a taxobox saying something else and categorization saying yet another thing) When it comes especially to the former Arctiidae, there's the additional mess of its lower taxa--even where articles have been updated to the new classification, they often use the wrong links. Species once-in-Arctiidae, now in Arctiinae very often use the link Arctiinae, which is a redirect to the article on what-used-to-be-Arctiinae-and-is-now-Arctiini; species reclassified as Arctiini frequently use Arctiini, which similarly redirs to Arctiina.

And yes, we can do better. Problem is, I did some recent calculations. We have almost 2% of all articles, almost 5% of all stubs, and usually less than 0.02% of all active editors, and not all of those are primarily focused on maintenance and upkeep of existing Lepidoptera articles. Means that in effect it's a handful of people trying to keep up with nearly a hundred thousand articles and that means things fall by the wayside all too often. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the comment in the Talk section of the yellowjacket article on the change to move it back to a single word. I contribute to Wikipedia where I can and appreciate the support. As you say, I hope it sticks. Regards, Erikebrown (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I took at look at doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.1430 and all I can see is that it says Hedylidae and Hesperiidae are within the Papilionoidea but it does not say that either should be within Nymphalidae - as far as I can tell the results suggests the following tree under the Papilionoidea - (Hedylidae, Hesperiidae),(Pieridae,(Nymphalidae, (Riodinidae, Lycaenidae))) Shyamal (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Your review comments would be quite useful at Talk:Beetle - I am trying to compare the coverage with a few books that I have access to but I am quite sure you could spot some obvious gaps here. Shyamal (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Doug, I'm writing to tell you that I was under the impression that the female Diadasia does sting. They certainly can attack as that one in the photo did...lol. I was chased about 50' from the flower. Can you elaborate please. Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Is there anyway for me to discern whether I'm looking at at male or female Diadasia? And please forget about the: "look for the pregnant bee" bit. lol, thnaks - Pocketthis (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks for your reply. So if the male cannot gather pollen, what is he doing in my flowers? Eating? Having imaginary sex with the carpel? Not kidding. I actually read somewhere that the bees are sexually attracted to the pollen. Thanks : Pocketthis (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dyanega

You reverted my edit on Hercules beetle with the comment please don't link to YouTube content, I was unaware there was a problem linking to Youtube, I can't find any documentation that says Youtube links are not allowed, was the issue with what I was linking to rather than the platform?

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

it is ok. just odd but ok. i find curious that there are list of edible plant, edible flowers, edible leaves. but not edible insects. you speak about toxic insect. ok, is there a list of toxic insect? i have search to know ( perhaps like others people if aphid and if Ephestia kuehniellaare edible. but i found nothing on wikipedia. if some source say "it can be edible" it is better than none. because none include the possibility of toxicity. perhaps we could write that aphid are non- toxic for human? what i mean is that " no mention" mean " we don't know" whereas " hey, we know that there are edible, were could we write it?". it is very difficult to have information on what is edible and if even wikipedia don't speak about that i don't understand. i know that acorn, dandelion, chestnut, clover, plantago, leaves of some trees, cambium of many trees, etc are edible for human. And when i learn new things on wild plants or trees, i write it on wikipedia. Curious thing that i cannot do it for insects. i wonder if writing a mushroom is edible would be ok or not :D Vatadoshu^french 22:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC) if i knew that before perhaps i will not be afraid with a salad with few aphid. perhaps i will not wash it. perhaps i will not put insecticid against them on plants. sometimes, the vision of things change when we know more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vatadoshu (talk • contribs) 22:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

If you're still collecting scientific names that are a familiar in other contexts, try this search. Replacing "(genus)" with "(plant)" in the search will bring up some more. Plantdrew (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Your comments to this editor at User talk:104.129.196.66 caught my eye. The editor has made test edits at a film's accolade page which I reversed as test edits. In one case the film year was changed in the hidden text by one year to a false year. In another instance the director's name of the film was interchanged with the writer's fame incorrectly. It takes someone expert in the article to notice these "playful" though deliberate mis-edits. I write to you since most of the edits from this IP are on insects. When I looked at one or two of those insect edits, then it looked like more of the same, for example, changing singular to plural in grammar requiring the opposite, and other "playful" mis-edits. Are you sure that you want to leave your thank you on their talk page. I am reversing this IPs edits on the film article as test edits which are of no help to the article. Could you check some of the insect articles listed on the contribution list for this IP editor to see if they are "playful" or serious edits? JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I noted that there were no references in Saurita absona and looked online to find some and had no luck. Do you have a reference for the changes you made there? Thanks,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. If you follow my edits, they are traceable to the synonymy of Pseudomya under the genus Saurita, which is cited here: [2]. The placement of absona in the genus Saurita is a direct consequence, as it was described in the genus Pseudomya. It is simply omitted, for some reason, from the list of Saurita species at Funet; ordinarily, Funet would be the cited source, but the inexplicable omission of the name absona (the taxon is completely missig from Funet) makes it impossible to give a direct link. It's not original research in the WP sense; it's straight taxonomy. Dyanega (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm a copy editor working in biology and definitely not a biologist but I'm trying to learn as I go. So, Hübner described Pseudomya in 1819 and Herrich-Schäffer changed it to Saurita in 1855, that made anything in Pseudomya including Pseudomya absona, described by in Draudt in 1915, become Saurita absona? Honestly, I'm not badgering; I'm trying to understand. I can't find a reliable source for either name online. Sorry to bug you.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Close, but not exactly; Pseudomya was recognized as a valid genus until 2004 when Hernández-Baz & Grados synonymized it with Saurita (Folia Ent. Mex. 43 (2004): 213), and at THAT point anything still in Pseudomya (including absona) had to be moved into Saurita. Somehow, the folks at Funet failed to list that particular species when they made their updates. Since that's effectively the only reliable source in the world for ANY moth names, the omission of absona from the list leaves us with no citable references for anything other than the generic synonymy. Dyanega (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Were you able to figure that out from reading the top section of Savela's "Saurita Herrich-Schäffer, [1855]"? Or did you have to read Hernández-Baz & Grados 2004 (in Spanish) to get that?  SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The Funet page - in theory - shows the paper trail, and cited Hernández-Baz & Grados as if it gave evidence for the synonymy, but now that I read the individual species entries carefully, it is clear that Hernández-Baz & Grados placed several of these species in Pseudomya, but that placement is evidently not accepted, as Funet still lists most of them (absona is one exception) in Saurita. The paper by Hernández-Baz & Grados does NOT give any justification for the use of Pseudomya. However, it gets still more confusing chasing that down; checking against the NHM card catalog, there is what appears to be an error, in that Pseudomya (published in 1819) is listed there as a JUNIOR synonym of a name (Pseudohyaleucerea) published in 1971, and not a synonym of Saurita at all. That is literally impossible. It is also literally impossible for Pseudomya to be a JUNIOR synonym of Saurita, which was published in 1855. Moreover, checking the species listed by Hernández-Baz & Grados, all of them are listed by the NHM as being in Saurita EXCEPT for absona, but Funet lists some of the other species (those in the NHM as Pseudohyaleucerea) as being in other genera. Funet's data is decidedly more recent than the NHM catalog, so I tend to give it more weight, but in THIS case BOTH of the sources lead to impossible conclusions. That is, Funet treats Pseudomya as a junior synonym of Saurita and NHM treats Pseudomya as a junior synonym of Pseudohyaleucerea but there is no way that either claim could be correct. Even MORE confusing is that Funet says Pseudohyaleucerea was published in 1980, while the NHM lists it as 1971. Basically, this is all a gigantic mess. Again, the NHM catalog is known to contain many errors, but this time around Funet also seems to be wrong, and I'm having trouble finding anything that could be used to resolve all of the discrepancies. I think, for now, I'm going to leave the WP articles untouched, but I will consult with some actual arctiine experts to see if they can shed light on this. Hopefully within the next week I can get a clear answer. Talk about opening a can of worms! Dyanega (talk) 09:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Like everything, it's much more complicated when looked at closely. Keep up the good work and happy holidays.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi I was just going through the page history for the Lamiinae article and I saw that you had a spat with this user. Now I would not normally think anything of it except when I looked to see what was going on between the two of you it seems that Lavalizard101 had a point about the reference not agreeing with the text after which you removed some of them and added more that agree with your edits. Now to me that looks suspicious and it looks like you were trying to hide an opposing idea. I was just wandering why you thought that the sources opposing your edits were unreliable, and don't give me that they were older that is not a reason for something to be unreliable on its (yes it seems that it is but there are times when older sources are more accurate than younger ones). Waterwhale12 (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi. It wasn't an opposing idea, it was an erroneous source. This is a nomenclatural issue, and it's not a matter of opinion, it's historical and objective, and errors are accordingly obvious and easy to ferret out. Dyanega (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

note that it was only one of four sources originally attributed to the article that supported the separation of the tribes so to claim they were the ones that were erroneous over the one that shows the separation could' be seen as being against opposing ideas. Waterwhale12 (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The tribes are not at all related to one another, and never have been; it was due a confusion between Tetropini (which contains the genus Tetrops) and Tetraopini (which contains the genus Tetraopes). They have never been combined by any taxonomist, anywhere - that was someone's screw-up, resulting from them not realizing they were looking at two different names referring to two different groups of beetles. When other compilations simply borrow data from bad sources, that doesn't mean that any taxonomic authority is agreeing with it, they're just propagating an egregious error. Again, it was an error, and NOT someone's actual published taxonomic opinion intended as an alternative classification; it's not an "opposing idea", any more than it would have been if someone mistakenly grouped leeches (family Hirudinidae) with swallows (family Hirundinidae) - that's just a careless mistake. Maintaining links to alternative classifications is fine, but links to erroneous sources are not helpful to readers. Dyanega (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I've just undone a couple of edits which claimed that two Hemideina species were found in New South Wales. Hemideina is, in every source I've read, endemic to New Zealand; I've added a link to one of several recent papers by Trewick, Morgan-Richards et al. working on the biogeography of the family, and their conclusions are widely accepted. I don't know where the data from the OSF catalogue comes; can you point me to the publication that lists both those species as occurring in Australia? My guess it that it's based on incorrect labelling of museum specimens (as a museum curator myself, I can understand how it happens). But it certainly bears no relation to recent work on the group, as far as I'm aware. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 09:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, OSF is completely wrong about the presence of the genus in Australia ... ThorpeStephen (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Stephen, could you check out the references User:Dyanega has posted to my Talk page and see what you think? —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm hoping to create my first wiki page. Up until now, I've mainly just busied myself with minor edits and the death details of notable persons. While editing an article about beetles, I came upon the name of a Japanese entomologist named Masao Hayashi. I was surprised to discover that he had no wiki page. I'm hesitant to start a page for someone who may not be notable, but I suspect he is based on this collection link: ^[1] So far, I've had no luck finding any biographical info about him. Any suggestions? I wrote to you because of your background. I apologize for writing, if this is an unwelcome demand on your time. It's hard to know to whom one may write. 72.129.236.61 (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, Hayashi has described dozens of species. All in all, at least 67 species have been named after him. ^{[2] [3]}72.129.236.61 (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

You should read Wikipedia:Your First Article for basic help and Wikipedia:Notability. Waterwhale12 (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review of my addition to the Mosquito page. Human reactions to mosquito bites are an allergic reaction to at least one, but more commonly, many of the >30 proteins in the insect's injected saliva. Studies have implicated many species of mosquitos in causing these reactions; it is assumed that the bite of virtually any mosquito (or other biting insect) has the potential to cause these allergic responses. I will append my addition to the Mosquito page as well as the Mosquito bite allergy page in the near future. Please respond to these changes as you see fit. Again, thank you. joflaher (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi - if you've copied material from Laki just now, you need to do a null edit, eg a space or something like that, and an edit summary saying "preceding text copied from Laki. This is necessary for copyright purposes and so that we can trace who originally added a particular piece of text. Doug Weller talk 19:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, a quick query. I have already read some papers on the name 'troglodytes', but is there a synopsis of the availability of this name as a generic epithet? [if that is the correct term] Your opinion would be a boon to my back-burner investigation of the taxonomic nomenclature of simians. Regards, cygnis insignis 16:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if you saw this at WP Insects, but it looks like the insect biodiversity stuff has come up again outside of the consensus text we went with at Insect. There's been some discussion at the new page on whether to delete it or redirect it to Insect biodiversity, so it would be great to have other editors chime in that are familiar with the topic. The talk page there is kind of turning into how it was at the Insect page, so I'm not asking you to delve into all that though since there shouldn't be any need to rehash it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Dyanega, can a once formerly valid genus remain valid without any species in it? I ask because WoRMS appears to still recognize the genus Eucharis even though its only species has now been re-classified as a junior synonym of Leucothea multicornis. This in turn affects the presentation of the page Leucotheidae which, if it is a monotypic taxon, would have to be moved to the article name of the remaining genus (Leucothea). Loopy30 (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

This is in fact true, i have much research for you if still interested you can email me at Lodi@gofkurslf.net Lodidodiparty (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Specifically Spruce aphid. I'm not an expert in the classifying of biological organisms by any stretch (my interest being spurred by these little nasties killing some of my trees), but the US Forest Service Field Guide to Insects is and it says these are true aphid and bear nymphs as opposed laying eggs, so I've re-targeted it to the main article on aphids. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I have found these velvet ants North of Fort St John, British Columbia, Canada, twice in one year. Both were female. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.174.62 (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for the additions to the phylogenetic tree. They don't appear to be in Yue et al 2018. At the moment the tree implies that all the data are from that paper, which is now misleading, so it would be appreciated if you could add the citation for the source you used for the position of the additional groups, and indeed some text that describes the type of analysis that those researchers did. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey there. Hope I can bother you with this. Being a Hymenoptera systematist and all I assuming you know more about this than me. I'm working on Polistes apachus momentarily and I'm wondering if I got things right. I'm especially concerned about the concepts (second) tergite, pronotum, mesonotum and mesoscutum... See this picture here. Is the second abdominal dorsal segment with the two large yellow patches the second tergite? Are the pair of thin yellow lateral lines on the pronotum? How about the two thick yellow lines? Would you mind explaining using the image I linked to, or maybe going over the description part of the article to see if I screwed up?

Cheers, Leo Breman (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Could you please give citations for you move of Brachystomatidae to Brachystomatinae? the most recent publication I am aware of is Bradley & Cumming (2006) "The morphology, higher-level phylogeny and classification of the Empidoidea (Diptera)" that establishes Brachystomatidae as a family.

I had already linked it as the very first reference on the Brachystomatinae article. There have been three new phylogenies since 2006, none of them agreeing with Bradley & Cumming, IIRC. Dyanega (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

This classification is not accepted by Cumming & Bradley (In Savage Et-al 2019) they do reference Wahlberg & Johanson, stating "...controversial and generally not accepted

by the empidoid community, nor is it accepted herein."Simuliid talk 17:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I think Cumming & Bradley are going to end up losing this particular case, given the molecular evidence. There's two large-scale phylogenies, and a few shorter branches worked on, all since 2006: (A) Moulton, J.K. & Wiegmann, B.M. (2007) The phylogenetic relationships of flies in the superfamily Empidoidea (Insecta: Diptera). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 43, 701–713. (B) Germann, C., Pollet, M., Wimmer, C. & Bernasconi, M.V. (2011) Molecular data sheds light on the classification of long‐legged flies (Diptera: Dolichopodidae). Invertebrate Systematics, 25, 303–321. (C) Plant, A.R. (2011b) The Hemerodromiinae (Diptera: Empididae) of New Zealand III. Antipodromia new genus. New Zealand Entomologist, 34, 52–55. (D) Sinclair, B.J. (2011a) Revision of the New Zealand genus Adipsomyia (Diptera: Empidoidea: Brachystomatidae: Trichopezinae), with key to local Empidoid family and selected genus groups. New Zealand Entomologist, 34, 30–36. (E) Sinclair, B.J. (2016) Revision of the Australian species of Hydropeza Sinclair (Diptera: Empididae: Ragadinae subfam. nov.). Records of the Australian Museum, 68, 1–22.

Basically, it's the proposal to split Brachystomatinae off as a separate family that was new in 2006, and has not been supported by broader molecular analyses. They're painting the reverse picture of the "controversy" here. Dyanega (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

What's the 2019 "Savage et al." reference citation, and do they present any new evidence? Dyanega (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I see, also, that other editors had already adopted Wahlberg & Johanson's phylogeny on the Empidoidea article, and it has been stable there for some time. Dyanega (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

It not about what editors think, it about what the science says.Simuliid talk 07:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I oppose some of the restorations you made in the article, and I have listed them below.

• "This is the most frequently encountered Neotibicen species because males prefer to sing from low branches of trees." I suggest this statement be removed because it is an unverifiable opinion and personal observation.

• ″The latter is restricted to peninsular Florida and southern Georgia, while the former is found throughout the eastern and southern United States." I think this statement is better if reworded to: Subspecies australis replaces the nominate subspecies in portions of Florida, southern Georgia, and southern Alabama.

CartleR255 (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have checked more thoroughly before just formatting Nick Falcão's change to Chilean recluse spider. He seems to have made similar changes to other spider articles, which have resulted in reference capture, at the least. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I dedicated the genus both, to an organization and to 1 person that is Hebe de Bonafini! is clearly explained in the etymology! thank you, all the best! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levicius (talk • contribs) 23:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Dedicating a species to someone does not qualify a name for inclusion in the list. The list is of taxa NAMED AFTER people, not dedicated to them. These are different things entirely. I could dedicate a species to Person X, and name that same species after person Y. Or, to give a better analogy, if I name a species "amazoni" and dedicate it to Jeff Bezos, then the species is NOT named after Jeff Bezos, and would not be included in that list. Dyanega (talk)

I can see that you have named other taxa and included them in the page, and those appear to be fine, because they ARE named after the people involved - some component of the actual name of the person appears in the scientific name. In the present cases of Madres, there is NO component of the person's name - the genus name is not Bonafinia or Hebeia or something similar that refers to the person. Dyanega (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

please don't forget to change "answered=no" to "answered=yes" that way it gets taken out of the edit request queue, like you did on Asian giant hornet. Thanks! Nithin^talk 22:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Greetings. Yes, "underground" is a word, but it is an adjective used with a noun - "underground water", but the water can be found "under ground", a location in the form of a prepositional phrase - "under" is the preposition and "ground" is the object of the preposition, thus two words. Combining the words is a common mistake, but still a mistake. Thanks. 50.25.221.206 (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It is the recent research about shield bugs that I uploaded.^[1]

Hi. I responded on your talk page with an explanation. It's fine to cite research, but it needs to be cited in the appropriate places. Dyanega (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I didn't read the rest of the page, just stuck the name in the list. My fault entirely. Since the species is not valid, what should be done with the Bengalia fernandiella article? Redirection? Deletion? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You recently pointed out the facts that i didnt add captions for some taxons in itallics and i didnt interlink them on wiki, i actually want to ask if i should also interlink those that doesnt exist on wiki (i really hope you understand what i meant). Thanks a lot for your observation.Lordgentual (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the update about the interlinking. Please is there any tips or so that you can give me about editing taxon? Lordgentual (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

As per the note at Category:Spiders described in 1757, the World Spider Catalog (WSC) – regarded as the definitive secondary source for spider taxonomy up to the level of family – uses "Clerck, 1757" for spiders described in Clerck's Aranei Svecici. (See, e.g., its entry for Tegenaria domestica.) Other sources use "Clerck, 1758" since the starting date for spider taxonomy is set in the ICodeZN at 1 January 1758. If we over-ride the WSC, it makes referencing tricky. I wondered what you thought about this. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

What I think is that this is an unacceptable policy on the part of the WSC, and it urgently needs to be addressed. Article 3 of the Code is extremely explicit, and to be in compliance is essential scientific practice. I have just sent a message to the WSC admins, hopefully they will not ignore it. In the meantime, I can suggest that the category "Spiders described in 1757" should be changed to a category "Spiders described in Clerck's "Svenska Spindlar" " and make sure that the page Svenska Spindlar very clearly explains that all names in it are deemed to have been published on 1 January 1758, no exceptions, with citation there of ICZN Article 3, even if this means putting in a big blockquote so people can read it for themselves. Any article with a 1757 date cited and a link to the WSC should instead replace that with a link to the Svenska Spindlar article that gives the full explanation. Dyanega (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you, of course (that's why I asked) – but when I've previously over-ridden information in generally reliable sources with a reference to one of the Codes (e.g. using the ICNafp's requirement to correct certain spellings or to enforce gender agreement), I have been told that this is unacceptable OR. It's usually been easy for me to get a reliable plant taxonomic database (IPNI or PoWO, say) to make the correction so that I can then use this as the reference (indeed they have been extremely responsive, including explaining in detail on the occasions I've misunderstood the Code). So this is how I have proceeded for plants when I noticed what seemed to me to be Code violations. I think that we have to wait to see how the WSC responds, given the WP:OR issue. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and it's tricky to change the title of a "TAXON described in YEAR" category, because there are various templates that automatically create navigation links by operating on the year as a number. I think the best solution is probably to move all the articles to Category:Spiders described in 1758 and create a category redirect to it from Category:Spiders described in 1757. But I'll think a bit more about the best way to handle the categories – I don't think changes here do involve any WP:OR. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The sections that I copied and pasted from my ebook copy of The Silence of the Lambs were far too long and were cut off when I posted, so I’ll put them here for you to read:

In the novel, it is stated to be a Death's-head Moth.

“This is the Death’s-head Moth,” he said. “That’s nightshade she’s sitting on—we’re hoping she’ll lay.” The moth was wonderful and terrible to see, its large brown-black wings tented like a cloak, and on its wide furry back, the signature device that has struck fear in men for as long as men have come upon it suddenly in their happy gardens. The domed skull, a skull that is both skull and face, watching from its dark eyes, the cheekbones, the zygomatic arch traced exquisitely beside the eyes. “Acherontia styx,” Pilcher said. “It’s named for two rivers in Hell. Your man, he drops the bodies in a river every time—did I read that?” “Yes,” Starling said. “Is it rare?” “In this part of the world it is. There aren’t any at all in nature.” “Where’s it from?” Starling leaned her face close to the mesh roof of the case. Her breath stirred the fur on the moth’s back. She jerked back when it squeaked and fiercely flapped its wings. She could feel the tiny breeze it made. “Malaysia. There’s a European type too, called atropos, but this one and the one in Klaus’ mouth are Malaysian.” “So somebody raised it.” Pilcher nodded. “Yes,” he said when she didn’t look at him. “It had to be shipped from Malaysia as an egg or more likely as a pupa. Nobody’s ever been able to get them to lay eggs in captivity. They mate, but no eggs. The hard part is finding the caterpillar in the jungle. After that, they’re not hard to raise.”

“She took the Buffalo Bill file, a four-inch-thick pile of hell and pain in a buff cover printed with ink the color of blood. With it was a hotline printout of her report on the Death’s-head Moth.”

“Out of the folds in the back of Mr. Gumb’s robe crawled a Death’s-head Moth. It stopped in the center of his back, about where his heart would be, and adjusted its wings.“ — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictimOfEntropy (talk • contribs) 23:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

There’s a lot more information given about it, but I don’t know how much more you want. I’d be happy to copy and paste the whole book if that’s necessary. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Please stop quoting the post-movie edition of the novel; the original edition was different, and that's what the WP article reflects, not the later editions like your eBook version. I provided a link showing the original text, have you not read it? Dyanega (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Good morning,

Just after some advice. Just seen another ‘highly venomous’, on the Phoneutria fera page. I keep changing these to ‘Medically significant’ (frustratingly, they keep being changed back within a day or two by someone to ‘extremely venomous’ or ‘highLy venomous’). I was going to change this again to ‘medically significant’, however maybe I’m being pedantic, but from the papers on Phoneutria there is nothing 100% confirming this.

As previously mentioned, all LD50 studies were completed on nigriventer, or possibly keyserlingi. (which at the time of the studies were synonyms of fera. These spiders were confirmed to have been collected in the vicinity of the Butanan institute which is way out of feras range. The authors have later corrected this ID to nigriventer when the species were split).

The only real data I can find confirming feras potential medical significant is here

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4881914/#!po=0.781250 In the associated data there is a nice study showing severity of symptoms of the various spiders. This confirms that Phoneutria in feras range have caused moderate and severe reactions.

The only issue is that it doesn’t confirm species within the study, just the genus. There are three Phoneutria species known to frequent the area the study was conducted (fera, reidyi & boliviensis).

While it is highly likely that some of the moderate bites did come from fera as one of the more common species located there, there is also nothing to confirm this. If someone was it pick it apart, you could get the same results if it was say, just reidyi who’s bite was causing the more severe reactions.

Putting ‘probably medically significant’, or ‘more than likely medically significant’ doesn’t read very well though! Perhaps ‘potential medical significance’ as per the main Phoneutria page is best, and inserting the above study? Although again the reference doesn’t irrefutably back up the statement.

Kind regards

Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinbell87 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that link doesn't work. I checked it but I should've checked it while logged out of Facebook. Didn't think of that.

As for whether there are nests or not, obviously I agree there are nests in all those areas. Obviously since they fly up to five miles, not finding the nests yet is NBD.

I can't figure out how to link successfully to a Facebook comment. Would be nice to have since I can't find any other statement from WSDA that they haven't found any yet.

Invasive Spices (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

there is nothing wrong with the loxosceles gaucho page, I did not copy and paste information, I summarized, and put the references, I who created that page, a few weeks ago, and only now are they always diminishing the information I put on it. i live in Brazil and i am still learning english, i summarize the pages in the translator, and switch to english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickafro-latino (talk • contribs) 00:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The combination Batella muscosa as used in our article appears to be unavailable, because Batella Dall'Asta, 1981 is a later homonym of Batella Holthuis, 1955. But I don't usually edit moth articles (just fixing something else when I noticed this), so I just followed WikiData, which could be wrong. It does need some sourced comment in the article, though. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem - and it is fairly serious - is that Dall'Asta's name has not yet been replaced. Dyanega (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the comment about this. I only seriously edit spider and plant articles. For spiders, I know several genus names that appear to be later homonyms that have never been replaced, e.g. Sagana Thorell, 1875 vs. Sagana Walker, 1855, a moth. (The editors of the World Spider Catalog even suggested that I should write this one up myself.) Peter coxhead (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

It can be easy if the author of the junior name is still alive - let them know, so they have an opportunity to replace it themselves before someone in Turkey does it for them. But if the author is dead, then it would be nice if there were a streamlined procedure for replacement. Dyanega (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, Tamerlan Thorell is certainly not still alive! But, yes, it would be good if there were some systematic and standardized procedure for replacement. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dyanega. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.