Talk:External morphology of Lepidoptera

My vision of Lepidoptera morphology articles
The article Lepidoptera to have a summary in a section. Already has one, in fact I'm borrowing text from a section 'Characteristics' from there.

This article to have a lead akin to that of Lepidoptera # Characteristics. Each section of this article on an aspect, such as 'head' or 'antenna', to be reasonably complete.

Additional materials from each of these sections to be placed in generic articles on them for further expansion. For example, additional material on scales in excess of a broad overview to go to Scale (Lepidoptera).

AshLin (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Progress List
Being used by User:AshLin to determine the current state of the article. (Progress as on 24 Nov 2009.)

0. Lead: ''Draft lead. Provides a reasonable overview of Lepidoptera morphology but will need work on it to meet the implications of the title. ''

1. External morphology: ''Draft. Like the lead, it needs work after all other text in its subsections are in. Needs mention of form and shape.''

2. Head:
 * 2.1 Antennae : Most relevant facts included. Needs detailed literature check. Needs microphotographs & a diagram showing parts.
 * 2.2 Eyes : Some facts in, needs more work.
 * 2.3 Palpi : Appears complete.
 * 2.4 Mouth parts : Some facts added, needs more Lepidoptera-specific stuff.

3. Thorax (incl Leg). ''Incomplete. Needs expansion & diagrams.''

4. Abdomen. Needs expansion & diagrams.

5. Wings. Still not comprehensive or complete.
 * 5.1 Shape : Seems reasonably complete.
 * 5.2 Venation : Incomplete.
 * 5.3 Wing coupling : Fairly complete.

6. Scales. ''Fairly well covered. Still has gaps. Needs microstructure images or diagrams.''
 * 6.1 Structure
 * 6.2 Colour
 * 6.3 Function
 * 6.4 Gallery

7. Genitalia: Broad overview, needs literature check, more Lepidoptera-specific material, Needs diagrams, images etc.

8. Secondary sexual characters. Incomplete.

9. Morphology of early stages of life. Stub/starts.

10. Eggs. ''Incomplete. More images, text needed.''

11. Caterpillar. ''Incomplete. More images, text needed.''

12. Chrysalis or Pupa. ''Incomplete. More images, text needed.''

13. Footnotes. Last clean-up on 24 Sep 09.

14. See also.

15. References. Last clean-up on 24 Sep 09.

Add your comments below this line.

Some Comments
 * Amazed by the extent to which it has grown.
 * Thanks. Thats a great compliment coming from you. AshLin (talk)
 * Not sure why "external morphology" is mentioned - the term morphology in this case seems to preclude anatomy.
 * The difficulty of dealing with the subject at three levels in one article - external morphology, anatomy and physiology. Was thinking of including anatomy and physiology together. What do you suggest - morph & physio, OR, external morph + (anatomy+physio)? Now going to combine internal and external morphology. AshLin (talk)
 * The self-referential lead is not recommended SELFREF.
 * Okay, removed self-refs. AshLin (talk)
 * The structure could be divided at the top level by the life stages.
 * Scientifically correct but difficult for a reader to assimilate all at one time. Thought of summarising morphology for larva and pupa in their respective parts. AshLin (talk)

Shyamal (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge
I propose that the part of this article that deals with life-cycles be generalized and merged with Holometabolism. The parts on the specifics of Lepidopterans should be merged with Lepidoptera. The holometabolism page is too short as it is. Having a page like this is like explaining how a restaurant works on a How McDonald's works page.-- FUNK A MATIC      ~talk   21:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree.   Bugboy52.4 |  =-=  21:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, you can generalize and add to Holometabolism, without removing from the Lep morphology. This way, both Lep specialists and people interested in Insects in general have a great source. Ruigeroeland (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree to the merger and agree with Ruigeroeland. There is enough variation in each order of insects to require specific articles for their morphology. Holometabolism should deal primarily with the metamorphosis aspects only and, like insect morphology, needs to be developed independently on its own strength. My second point, its premature to merge. Nowhere do we have a proper morphology article for insects. I would suggest, that interested editors do up the insect morphology, holometabolism and organ-specific articles to at least near-GA status before we decide to disturb the development of present articles. That is, merger and duplication be considered, once this genre of articles in Wikipedia starts meeting user requirements of knowledge, which IMHO has not yet been achieved. AshLin (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Put me down with AshLin and Ruigeroeland. Feel free to expand the article on holometabolism, as it could use some help - but do not detract from the specifics of the Lepidoptera section - especially given that this is where most "normal" people first encounter holometaboly in the natural world. Aderksen (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keeping various discussions & no consensus in this regard. I'm removing the merger tags. AshLin (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Transferred from User talk:Stemonitis
Hi Stemonitis,

I helped develop an article "Lepidoptera morphology" for Wikipedia. Its much better now. Whatever I could get from my online sources I have tried to add. I can't put my finger on it but I think, not being a biologist, I have probably omitted something important in the sections. May I request a quick overview from you and some specific pointers to help bring up the article to be at least complete in coverage. Other issues could be taken up later at GA time, but any comments are welcome. AshLin (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had a quick look (and made a few small, nitpicking changes along the way). It seems to me that the article is fairly comprehensive in its scope, but that the title doesn't entirely reflect that scope. At the moment, it's more like "External anatomy of Lepidoptera". Internal anatomy is only mentioned where it is relevant to the external stuff (muscles for moving the wings, etc.). Maybe the internal anatomy of leps is not appreciably different from other insects — I wouldn't know — if so, that should be stated. There is also little discussion of overall form, which might be expected of a general "morphology" article. Even under a narrower title, I would expect a statement along the lines that "Butterflies and moths vary in size from Microlepidoptera only a few millimetres long, to conspicuous animals with a wingspan of many inches, such as the Monarch butterfly and Atlas moth" (off the top of my head). Similarly for larvae, ranging from tiny leaf miners (are there any parasites or other smaller larvae?) to larvae big enough to eat (Witchetty grubs, etc.). I would recommend either changing the title to better reflect the contents, or expanding the scope of the article to cover everything implied by the current title. I can make suggestions about formatting and so on, too (consistent capitalisation, checking for ambiguous or redirected links, etc.), but it's more important to get the content right first, I think. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! That really was what I was looking for. With your and Shyamal's suggestions, I have a direction to make this what would arguably be the best introduction online to Lepidoptera mophology. AshLin (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Image request - claspers & pupa
External morphology of Lepidoptera (earlier Lepidoptera morphology is developing well. We need images of claspers - in fact of the male and female's sexual organs. Since we already have male & female sexual anatomy drawings we are looking for images of rear end of the butterflies. The claspers should be clearly visible, for encyclopaediac value and the female's parts too. Something like seen here : http://www.butterflyfunfacts.com/handpairbutterflymonarch.php.

We also need a hawkmoth pupa so that we can label the parts clearly. Something like this.

Can anyone get such images for the article please? AshLin (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * See reply on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lepidoptera. Megan| talkcontribs 19:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Megan. AshLin (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. Megan| talkcontribs 18:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I now have a few good photos of a Hyalophora cecropia pupa (I opened the cocoon to determine the sex). Would they be a good model for labeling? I will upload the photos in the morning. Megan| talkcontribs 00:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course you should upload them. Cecropia moth has no pupal photos online so thee is definite EV. Can only comment on suitability once I have a look at the photos. Thanks for pursuing this issue further. AshLin (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here they are. :) Megan| talkcontribs 16:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Very nice. I hope you added the photos to Cecropia! Thanks. Let me see what I can do with them. They look very nice. Thanks, AshLin (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm glad I could help. I only added one photo to the Cecropia article, for I didn't want to crowd the gallery with all of my photos. Cheers, Megan| talkcontribs 12:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Peter Smetacek
An offline Lepidopterist, Peter Smetacek of Bhimtal, India was kind enough to provide a detailed copy-edit as well as to suggest improvements in the text of this article. My thanks to him on behalf of the Wikipedia editors who have contributed to this article and all the readers of this article. AshLin (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Segments vs tagmata
The head, thorax and abdomen or pygidium of arthropods are tagmata - but in spiders and other chelicerates the head and thorax are combined. Each tagma is composed of segments. Arthropods have at most one pair of appendages per segment. The segments of the abdomen are usually easily seen, although it has usually no appendages - but the spinnerets of spiders are modified appendages. The thorax often often looks like a unitary construction, but the legs show that it is make of segments. The head also often looks like a unitary construction, but its paired appendages with various uses show that the head is make of segments - except trilobites had no appendages on the head. --Philcha (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, made the change. Will do a more detailed cp eds later. AshLin (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo gills
Some caterpillars which are aquatic (and I only know of the china-mark moths - such as Elophila nymphaeata) have gill like structures on their abdominal segments as they get larger - presumably tracheal extensions or outgrowths. This doesn't seem to have a mention here but might be of interest for completeness.  Velella  Velella Talk 20:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have a reference, we could add it. If you can get hold of nny mentioned in Dave Hubble's page will do.AshLin (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)