Talk:Aposematism

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aposematism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222070509/http://sea.sheddaquarium.org/sea/fact_sheets.asp?id=69 to http://sea.sheddaquarium.org/sea/fact_sheets.asp?id=69

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Origins of the Theory: Wallace, 1867
In the quote here there are strange notations, e.g. an "at" crossed out and the word "seizure" underlined. The frequency of them means this looks deliberate rather than a mistake. Is this a verbatim transcript of a letter meaning it needs a sic? Or do these marks require deletion? Gulielmus Rosseus (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The text of the letter shown by The Natural History Museum, footnoted as our source, shows the underlined words and the struck out word "at". That source includes this information: "This transcript is based on that produced by The Darwin Correspondence Project". The Darwin Project web page shows the words as italicized, rather than underlined, and does not show the struck out word "at" at all. (https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-5416.xml). I could not find an actual image of the letter. Almost certainly, the letter was handwritten, so italicizing would be unlikely or impossible, but underlining would be quite possible. It's an open question whether the word "at" actually appears in the letter and may have been crossed out by the writer. So, we're kind of back where we started: underline seems more plausible than italicizing in the original, and without more documentation, or an image of the correspondence, we can't be sure if "at" appears as crossed out, or perhaps does not appear at all. But the NHM source shows what we might consider more plausible in both matters: underlining and cross-out by the letter writer. DonFB (talk) 05:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)