Talk:Acanthocephala terminalis

This article was created by the bot Qbugbot. For more information, see User:Qbugbot/info. For questions and comments, leave a message at User:Qbugbot/talk.

Known Info
I have a book on North American bugs that includes this species, in the book it says this insect is most active in fields and woodlands from summer to autumn, and that the larva feed on various plants, one being ashes.2600:1700:6841:4980:6008:63A5:CCEA:8A42 (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Sexual dimorphism, description, and the associated sources
@Michael_pirrello If you want to remove the common name, I can minimally understand that, but removing sexual dimorphism and the sources for it is absolutely ridiculous. Florida Nature is made and curated by professionals with doctorates. The other source you deleted was made and curated by the Paleontological Research Institution, and cited numerous sources here. There is absolutely nothing wrong with these sources. You also deleted the line, "Their antennae have orange tips, and their hind legs have a flat, leaf-like, appearance." claiming it was inaccurate, which is just false, it is entirely accurate. You also changed the size range and said it was from an "authoritative source" which I agree that the size range is likely more accurate, but you didn't cite the authoritative source, you cited bugguide.net, which can be a good source at times but is not authoritative. The source you meant to cite was this. What is the point of deleting accurate description on a species? GooseSpoon (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I guess accuracy is in the eye of the beholder. You're adding layperson descriptions to an encyclopedia. The "tips" aren't orange, the apical or terminal segment is orange (thus, the name "terminalis.") That's a technically accurate description of the orange on the antenna. The hind legs do not have a flat, leaf like appearance, the hind tibia have a flat tibial flange as do many leaf-footed bugs, but the femur is not flat.
 * As I've said about the Florida nature site, it was last copyright 2007 and the Contact us link is broken, leaving no way to correct errors on the site. That's a red flag for ongoing data accuracy. I also reviewed the earthathome/PRI link and it's the source of the info I've critiqued above, and given that the photo on the site makes the bug appear purple, I just don't take the text or the photo as reliable. Perhaps they're much more in their wheelhouse with paleontology than entomology.
 * I'm also not saying a section on Sexual Dimorphism is inappropriate. I think that's fine, but it needs to be better sourced, and more technically accurate. A good starting point would be the references on http://coreoidea.speciesfile.org/Common/basic/Taxa.aspx?TaxonNameID=1190404. Michael pirrello (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I make the descriptions easy to understand so that anyone can read it, but if you think they should be more scientific, then make them more scientific, don't delete the whole thing. Saying apical or the terminal segment means "the tip" but most folks don't know that. It helps no one to make easy to understand descriptions nonexistent descriptions. As for the contact link, you are blatantly wrong. The contact link works just fine, it links to their email. These sources are run by professionals, which you and I are not. A blurry picture does not make a source unreliable, especially when it is as heavily sourced with both online and physical publications. Trust the professionals, and learn to follow a link. GooseSpoon (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The wording of the antenna description may be nitpicky. But the difference between "tips" and "terminal segment" or something like "last segment" is meaningful. It could be the whole segment of the antenna or it could be just the tip of the last segment. That's a good topic for discussion in this talk page.
 * As far as the sources go, we have both given multiple reasons why these aren't good or reliable sources. I'll do my best to summarize the most important aspects in my opinion:
 * Florida Nature
 * - This site does not cite any sources. Having a "contributions" page does not count as citing sources. I do not see any credentials on the acknowledgement page that would lead me to believe any of them are experts in anything other than spiders or herpetology. Furthermore, the link doesn't contribute anything other than some photos, a common name, and a description about sexual dimorphism. The common name is also listed as being a common name for 4-5 other species on the site, so that's not a useful data point. And the sexual dimorphism isn't cited or demonstrated anywhere. In my experience, their description is simplified but can be true in some cases. And I don't see anywhere on individual taxon pages where the author of the page is listed. So the authors may be professionals, they are not professionals with expertise in the subject matter they are writing about. This feels very "self-published", which does not pass the verifiability test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources
 * EarthAtHome
 * - This one also does not cite any sources. The link you shared has one relevant link that I can find and it is https://www.insectidentification.org/ . You said yourself that this should not have been included as a source on the iNaturalist flag. While the site may be curated by the Paleontological Research Institution, this section of it looks self published again. As I've noted elsewhere, this site also lists wrong information about this species (length, egg appearance, and number of molts). That alone should be plenty enough to disqualify this source. Ncb1221 (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The sexual dimorphism is explicitly demonstrated on that page via images. As for the authors, G. B. Edwards, Ph.D. alone as a "Taxonomic Entomologist" is enough. They may also focus on arachnids, but they are a taxonomic entomologist. As for EarthAtHome, they cite books on insects and other various websites that refer to insects that I doubt you read, so you cannot know that they only cited one relevant source. You also do not know these are self published. And regardless, I've agreed that the length is more accurate with the other source I've mentioned, so the EarthAtHome source would not be used in a sexual dimorphism section, or description. GooseSpoon (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)