This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article 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.LepidopteraWikipedia:WikiProject LepidopteraTemplate:WikiProject LepidopteraLepidoptera articles
This list is infested with synonyms and ancient genus names. I don't know who made all these stubs, but these need some serious sorting. Most valid genera have all or at least some species added, all others need some research. If they are synonyms of another genus they need to be linked to that particular genus I guess. Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like they used the NHM's Butterflies and Moths of the World which includes all kinds of unavailable names. Objective junior synonyms, junior homonyms, incorrect subsequent spellings, unjustified emendations, etc. That's not to mention all the valid names that taxonomists have since synonymized. If whoever made these actually knew anything about taxonomy, all this info is available on that site. Most of the pages don't provide any information besides "this is genus". Someone cared about the article count than improving the encyclopedia it seems... Rocket000 (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
