Talk:Amiga arnaca

Merge
Should we merge Chloreuptychia arnaca into this article? If we take the Nakahara et al. article as the basis for this article, Chloreuptychia arnaca is no longer a valid species, right? I'm a copy editor not a biologist, so I thought I check with you about this. Thanks, SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   21:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think it should be merged. The paper is new, but it seems pretty solid, and it only affects one species. I have the information from the old page Chloreuptychia arnaca in the new one (Chloreuptychia arnaca), except a reference which isn't necessary, so it could be replaced with a redirect any time. I wasn't sure whether to do that or request a merge in order to merge the history somehow. (I seem to get it wrong every time I do it.)


 * On a side note, I only saw your message on Chondrosoma after you had it sorted. I'll be glad to help with the taxonomy templates any time.


 * I think, technically, the right way to have done it would have been to rename Chloreuptychia arnaca as Amiga (butterfly) and have left a redirect behind at the old location. At this point I'll go ahead and do a merge and see if that meets the need for keeping the history straight. Keep up the good work and thanks again for your offer of help. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   02:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * And, done. Check it over. I am not confident in how the parentheses should be around the names of the authorities for the synonyms. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   02:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me -- thank you! Bob Webster (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the parentheses should be on a species authority (including the date) whenever the species was originally described under a different genus. details Bob Webster (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)