Talk:Lepidoptera/Archive 1

gender identification
I think we should include pictures or a link to a page showing how to identify most butterflies/moths by gender. I believe it is the same across the Order for pupa, and I know it's a lost cause for the larva, however, I think it would be helpful. I recently had a problem being able to find the information and think it would add to the wiki community. Unforunately, I don't know enough and my camera isn't fancy enough to take decent macro shots. -Kugamazog

superfamilies in taxobox
I have some doubts about the validity of superfamily lists in the taxobox. For one thing it makes the box unreasonably long. Also it seems to suggest that "moth" and "butterfly" are well defined classifications, which other pages here contradict. Perhaps such information should be included in the article body, not the taxobox. (unsigned comment by I welcome any constructive criticism. Wikibofh 3 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)
 * I looked at it and before, the taxo listed "over 130 families". I figured having the 46 superfamilies from one of the texts I'm working from (the Firefly Encyclopedia...I list in References) wasn't too bad.  I'm currently working at stubbing out all of the moth superfamilies.  I'm open for suggestion, but figured this was a slight improvement.  If you (or anyone else for that matter) strongly disagree, I will not be offended. :)  My plan is as follows:
 * blue link all superfamiles (as stubs)
 * slowly go through and fill the superfamilies out to the best of my sources.


 * For what it's worth, I think Wikibofh's edits were helpful. It is true that there is no universally accepted distinction between moths and butterflies, but the schema presented here agrees with general wisdom (AFAIK). Wikipedia should have the (presumably layman) end user in mind when presenting information; while it might not be acceptable to rigidly divide the two groups of superfamilies in a scientific publication, it makes sense to here. Wikipedia isn't meant to stand in for specialized monographs on any given subject. If the taxobox moth/butterfly division is all that botherful, we could always include an explanatory footnote to explicitly state that the division is informal. (To disclaim my own text: I am not a lepidopterist, although I sometimes play one online.) -- Hadal 5 July 2005 06:58 (UTC)

It can be helpful to give non-taxonomic information in the taxobox, but it can be messy, for instance if we ever wanted to list suborders. I think it would be better to point out the two butterfly superfamilies in the article text. In the superfamily list, they can be distinguished with common names:


 * Hesperioidea (skippers)
 * Papilionoidea (most butterflies)
 * Micropterigoidea

That might help draw attention to any important groups of moths, too. Josh


 * So, you're proposing we remove the butterfly and moth headings from the taxobox, and put descriptions on the superfamilies? I don't have a problem with that.  I thought the earlier concern was having the superfamilies in the taxobox at all.  Generally speaking my preference is for the taxobox to only have the next most specific grouping, but that's just a personal preference.  For instance I think that the Insect taxobox is a mess, confusing and not very logical, but that's just me.  It could be for taxonomists it makes sense.  Wikibofh 5 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)
 * That's a fair alternative, and agrees with what we've been doing with fish articles. To do so here would require excising one of the two images (due to width issues), but that's no big deal. Regarding the insect taxobox, I think it's fairly well-organized, considering the material. In that taxobox the orders are subdivided by sub/infraclass; one reason for this is that not all schemes may use a given subclass, and that it provides easier access to the individual orders while giving the reader an at-a-glance idea of where everything fits. As for the superfamilies here: as long as you reference them (as you're doing), they're probably fine, provided we avoid conflicting schemes. If the Firefly Encyclopedia mentions taxonomic authorities for the superfamilies, it would be good to include those too (in the individual articles, of course). -- Hadal 6 July 2005 03:58 (UTC)

Actually I spent days figuring out the whole structure of the butterfly kingdom last winter and spent days doing the taxoboxes so that they were complete. Now that I look at it all my edits are gone practically. I find this whole thing insulting to say the least. No help from me. Williamb 09:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I sympathise. I have had experience of this kind, though not to the scale experienced by you. It helps to post your vision and summary of work completed on this page because anyone contemplating major changes to a page would scan the talk page before proceeding.AshLin

Creation of WikiProject Lepidoptera
I would like to announce the creation of WikiProject Lepidoptera so that we have a forum to discuss and hassle out these issues. Regards, AshLin 06:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved material-Family classification
Can someone reorganize the following and add it back suitably into the article or perhaps as a new article on the classification... Most of the information is repeated in the lepidoptera box in the footer. Shyamal 10:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

List of relegated families
The following groups have been ranked as families in the fairly recent past, and the family names are still likely to be met with in books and on the internet. This list shows where the supposed families are now classified.

Classification according to Fauna Europaea

 * This is beautiful! But I see it only has those taxa that occur in Europe. Sigh. It would probably be too long (and difficult to construct as a table?) if it included the global taxa, even if the subfamilies were relegated to the family pages. BTW, is there an easy way to make tables?
 * Is there a preferred source for the systematic treatments, such as Kristensen, or Scoble ? Satyrium 14:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

image
i replaced the old picture with an FA-quality moth. enjoy. --The Lizard Wizard 06:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

number of species
The article lists the number of lepidoptera species as 180,000. The website claims to have 260,000 accepted names. TeunSpaans 22:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice picture
Image:Grand paon de nuit.jpg If somebody feels like inserting it into the article... Ajor 12:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Image:Grand paon de nuit 2.jpg This one is even better... Ajor 12:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The id is Saturnia pyri (Family Saturnidae). In English called as the Giant Peacock Moth or the Giant Emperor Moth. Added to the article. AshLin 14:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Need for rework on this article
This article, despite being the premier article of WikiProject Lepidoptera, has not developed over time. It had a taxobox but that vanished; I have placed another just today. It had some taxonomic lists, but they are gone too. The sections also don't seem to be what the user would like to know from this wiki. We need major rework to bring it to at least Good Article status.

I have archived the previous talk so that we can start afresh. I propose that we work out step by step and move forward to improve it.

Step one, what information does the user expect to read here? Or what information is logically to be found here?

Can we have suggestions in the form of a heirarchy or logical sequence of section headings? Once we get a reasonable model, we can go ahead from there.

Regards, AshLin 19:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with . I was looking for an article on caterpillar anatomy and morphology and couldn't find one, so was in the progress of starting one. This title should be about Lepidoptera order (with a taxobox) and list the suborders and families. The anatomy and morphology sections should be split off into a separate article. Ecology and relationship to people is yet another topic. There are no prizes for having the biggest article!  Surrey  John   (Talk) 09:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Under what comparison do you envision the split between sections? If one looks at, for example, the order Araneae, a much similar scheme can be noted. The same happens for the class Insecta, and, outside of the pages relating to arthropods, the Mammalia class article follows the same set-up - additionally, the Primates order is a featured article. None of these articles are about taxonomy alone, at all. Granted, there is an obvious difference between the various stages of an holometabolous insect, particularly concerning larva and imago, and the distinction is due. Nevertheless, does that warrant an article on itself? Furthermore, there actually is a dedicated page about lepidopteran morphology (which can be assisted by another page for entomological terms), which might be a possible good place for your expansion regarding larvae. Also, perhaps you didn't realize but you addressed a seven-year-old post. It is a given assumption that this article has improved since then. Snjón (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for replying. Yes I agree that some articles on a taxa, usually at the class or order level, do go into the subject at quite some depth, and all these class/order require some form of description, especially to distinguish the taxon and its members from other taxon. However, as you get into family, genus and species, articles tend towards listing their constituent members. There doesnt seem to be any hard and fast rule, but that isn't necessarily a problem.
 * Where I think improvements could be made, is where these articles become rather overcrowded, trying to cover too much subject matter. If Caterpillar anatomy was split off from Lepidoptera into its own topic, it could be dealt with in greater depth, be better cross-referenced from other WP pages, and the topic could be more easily found on search engines. At the moment a Google search comes up with the Caterpillar page well down the hit-list, which contains nothing about anatomy. The general public are most unlikely to search for "Lepidoptera anatomy", and even if they did, would only find an article on the Scale. I know I cant change the world in a day (it takes at least a week!), but would there be much objection to splitting out Caterpillar anatomy to a separate topic?  Surrey  John   (Talk) 10:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, your initial statement sounds self-explicative. Once articles go into lower taxa they find a gap (of sorts) of information, even though articles on single species can actually be extensive, for example, the page for Panthera leo (the lion) is actually larger than the page for both the family and the order it belongs to. Even the way species and groups of animals are part of our culture, so to speak, affects the way an article is built. Something I'm sure you are able to recognize. Which eventually leads this to more or less of a view on aesthetics. A dedicated article wouldn't be something to oppose per se, but there are considerations. Now I'm relatively curious as to what can be in fact produced regarding the theme. What do you have in mind exactly? Will you go over general morphology alone or take a good pointer into the variation that occurs throughout the order? Or is your idea just a page discussing the "general" sense? Snjón (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Snjón@undefined: My observations were purely from a systems analysis perspective, looking at design and reader's requirements, while searching for information about caterpillars. This content is difficult to find (search) and cross-reference if embedded into articles with a Latin/scientific name as the title. If I did split it out I wouldn't envisage any substantive additional content myself (I am not an entomologist). My initial thoughts would be to use a larger size of the anatomy diagram (thumb) as the basic for a "Caterpillar anatomy" article, with each part having its own header (A-C) and sub-header (1-7) corresponding to the parts shown in the diagram.
 * Also as a general rule or guideline, and addressing 's comment, I think that each taxa article should include where the taxa is places in the species family tree, showing it parent and child members (this should include scientific and English names and ideally also the distinguishing differences). For consistency between articles, ease of navigation, and as a quick informative overview, there should allays be a Taxa info box. Surrey  John   (Talk) 09:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well alright, go for it. (Sorry for the late feedback). Snjón (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "Distinguishing Characteristics"
Should this description stay in list format of be rewritten in prose? If it's rewritten in prose, I think it should be a description of the adult insect, and the information about larvae and pupae should go to "Life cycle". Thoughts? A little insignificant Giving thanks to all that is me 15:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that it should be writen in prose, but this a collaboration of AshLin, so maybe s/he should give an opinion. Bugboy52.4 | =-=  17:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He thinks that the characters may be kept as list or written as prose but not seperated. Ashwin in real life but am a FOSS enthusiast hence named AshLin by my friends! AshLin (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * KK, I but back the Distinguishing Characteristics for earwig Ifrogot xP. Any thought regarded as putting them into a paragraph form? Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-=  17:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Structure
Any regards about the structure of this article? I wasn't sure, so I based it a little on Ant. Any opinions? Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-=  17:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Lepidoptera is a really huge topic (hopefully someday it will make it to FA), so we should provide information as brief as possible. I think the ant format is the best choice. Zoo Fari  17:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So its good? Bugboy52.4 ¦ <font color="#66FF00">=-=  18:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I expanded a lot of sections, but it seems no one is helping :( There is a lot of work to be done. <small style="background:#007FFF;border:#66FF00 2px dashed;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px"><font color="#66FF00"><font color="#66FF00">Bugboy52.4 ¦ <font color="#66FF00">=-=  23:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

We need to get this article sorted out. There's many sections that are just lists or devoid of info, including an empty "Evolution" section and a lot of information relating to evolution in the "Phylogeny" sections.

I don't know about other people, but I know from experience that I work better using lists of specific tasks, and that's why I find it easier to address GA review concerns. But some basic things need to be fixed or cleaned up in the article- we can't ask the reviewer to write it for us. So could we set up a task system or something? For example: maybe we could assign people to different sections along with an overview of what needs to be done or improved. Thoughts? A little insignificant Giving thanks to all that is me 13:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sign me up. Would you allow me 'Morphology & Physiology'. It needs to be concise. We again seem to be replicating the morphology/physiology articles. AshLin (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, but try to use the entomology book for info, its a rely good book.

Maybe a Little Insignificant can work with the Evolution section, and I'll do the rest. <small style="background:#007FFF;border:#66FF00 2px dashed;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px"><font color="#66FF00"><font color="#66FF00">Bugboy52.4 ¦ <font color="#66FF00">=-=  20:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of being assigned to sections. I was going to mention that earlier. I'll sign up for defense and predation.  Zoo Fari  22:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! <small style="background:#007FFF;border:#66FF00 2px dashed;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px"><font color="#66FF00"><font color="#66FF00">Bugboy52.4 ¦ <font color="#66FF00">=-=  23:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll do evolution then. Oh, and someone should include some info about their diet, etc. I didn't see anything about that when I looked earlier. A little insignificant Giving thanks to all that is me 00:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Behavior section will include diet and stuff, but not as another sub heading. And maybe we the predation section should have something about moths and bats like the moths defense against bats. <small style="background:#007FFF;border:#66FF00 2px dashed;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px"><font color="#66FF00"><font color="#66FF00">Bugboy52.4 ¦ <font color="#66FF00">=-=  00:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do. I may work with the entire behavior section as a whole if I have time.  Zoo Fari  01:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A few comments: the defense section should perhaps be expanded as defensive and protective adaptations - since it needs to cover predators, parasites, pathogens, physical threats, cold, heat and dessication. Life-history adaptations such as diapause, slow growth as in Gynaephora, toxin sequestration, ant associations needs to be included. The diversity of life-styles needs to be covered rather than sticking to only the stereotypical lepidoptera- so things like aquatic lepidoptera and more generally the "microlepidoptera" need a bit more coverage and these need to be cited carefully without making generalizations that appear to apply to the entire group. Shyamal (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For some reason I doubt the reliability of "Enchantedlearning.com," but i'll leave that to the reviewer. <small style="background:#007FFF;border:#66FF00 2px dashed;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px"><font color="#66FF00"><font color="#66FF00">Bugboy52.4 ¦ <font color="#66FF00">=-=  20:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just laying out a format right now. I'll be adding details as soon as I get the basics.  Zoo Fari  22:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's-a-get it together, peeps!
Almost there, guys! The article is almost in a good and stable state. A couple sections left before we can slack off for the holidays:


 * Polymorphism, just a couple notes now, need to be expanded into beautiful butterflies sentences. We can probably use some info contained in other sections, so I don't think this needs much in the way of new research.
 * Flight! Bugboy wrote a nice flight section in the Insect article, I'm thinking the section here should be a summary of the other one with Lepidoptera specifications.
 * Communicado, which should be fun to write. Research and sources can be found on the internet, including this one (provided by someone else.)
 * For that matter, here's a general note: '''When looking for sources online, remember you might find a wider array of results by searching for "butterflies" or "moths" than you might by searching for "lepidoptera."
 * Last is Relationship to people, which means researching and writing, which should be fun! Also, see the note about researching above.

Methinks we can work on this together, and if we can get this out of the way the sooner we can relax without having to take care of it after New Year's and all that. So what say you? ALI nom nom 01:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to dedicate Saturday to finishing up most of the stuff. <small style="background:#007FFF;border:#66FF00 2px dashed;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px"><font color="#66FF00"><font color="#66FF00">Bugboy52.4 ¦ <font color="#66FF00">=-=  02:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Referencing
References are important in order to bring up to Good Article status. With that in mind, there are a lot of refs that are not using cite templates, which I can convert, but some don't include page number and Chapter. <small style="background:#007FFF;border:#66FF00 2px dashed;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px"><font color="#66FF00"><font color="#66FF00">Bugboy52.4 ¦ <font color="#66FF00">=-=  16:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you include page number, would chapter be necessary?  Zoo Fari  00:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a hundred percent sure on that, but put it just in case. <small style="background:#007FFF;border:#66FF00 2px dashed;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px"><font color="#66FF00"><font color="#66FF00">Bugboy52.4 ¦ <font color="#66FF00">=-=  02:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

lepidopteran vs lepidopterans
I noticed we're constantly using "lepidopteran" for plural forms of lepidoptera, but the lead states "lepidopterans". Which one should it be?  Zoo Fari  07:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree that is a problem: How do we refer to the species of the order in general? Do we say Lepidoptera species, Lepidopteran, or Lepidopterans? I think a consensus is in order; I think we should use Lepidoptera species and Lepidopterans... any other opinions? <small style="background:#007FFF;border:#66FF00 2px dashed;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px"><font color="#66FF00"><font color="#66FF00">Bugboy52.4 ¦ <font color="#66FF00">=-=  12:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree on that.  Zoo Fari   19:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So far as I am aware (and was tought) Lepidoptera is both singular and plural. Lepidopteran = of Lepidoptera (i.e. possesive noun) and should not be capital L unless at the start of a sentence. Hope this helps. HKmoths (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Antennae
The thorax section mentions some info on antennae. Shouldn't that be merged into the head section?  Zoo Fari   19:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the whole point of adding that as a seperate paragraph was the hope that it would be expanded, but I let it up to the person who wanted to expand on that section to do so. <small style="background:#007FFF;border:#66FF00 2px dashed;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px"><font color="#66FF00"><font color="#66FF00">Bugboy52.4 ¦ <font color="#66FF00">=-=  19:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I found this source that maybe we could use to expand the thorax section and merge the antennae info afterwards. What do you think?  Zoo Fari   19:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Almost done...
We've made great progress! It looks like things are starting to get tidy. -- Zoo Fari  23:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree we made progress but I feel we are just about half-way there. There's lots more to do. None of the sections is encyclopaedic enough as of yet. AshLin (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I should be the one to blame... I took a little mini-brake and wil, be bake to work. I see the Polymorphism section has been worked on, but I'm mostly concerned about it's state. I was looking at the Russian article, and I liked the way it was organized.. any thoughts on certain sections that should be added or thing in particular I should work on before I get started sometime this weekened? <small style="background:#007FFF;border:#66FF00 2px dashed;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px"><font color="#66FF00"><font color="#66FF00">Bugboy52.4 ¦ <font color="#66FF00">=-=  01:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No finger-pointing, especially at oneself please. Wikipedia is not a slave-industry! Take your breaks, come back & work at your interest. WikiOgres are an important ethnic group in WikiLand! I have been adding desultory facts to Polymorphism. Feel free to work on it, especially on balanced polymorphism etc. Only remember that each phenomenon will require a more detailed article or stub to back it. I'll check out the Ru link. AshLin (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Something to add to sexual dimorphism?
There is strong sexual dimorphism in a lot (or all?) species of Bagworm moth. I made some species articles recently. Females are wingless and resemble larvae, while males look like typical moths (i.e. have wings). Might be usefull to add? Ruigeroeland (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Go ahead & add it as a an example of sexual dimorphism. It has one of the most contrasting differences. We'll rewrite for style & encyclopeadiac value later when adequate facts are filled. AshLin (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Absent much?
Sorry for my extraordinarily long absence... but has anything been acomplished? I'll be getting back to it right now. <small style="background:#007FFF;border:#66FF00 2px dashed;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px"><font color="#66FF00"><font color="#66FF00">Bugboy52.4 ¦ <font color="#66FF00">=-=  16:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Feeding
Nothing in this article about the associations between lepidopterans and plants? No feeding behaviour except in the section on humans? How am I supposed to do my homework!? :-P But seriously, a section collecting that sort of information would be helpful. --Danger (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The long road to GA status
This article has been WikiProject Insects' current collaboration since December 2, 2009. I think it's probably time to move forward. I have looked over the article, and I can't see too many pressing issues. The references could do with tidying up (some works are repeated, albeit for different chapter; some have important details missing), and the prose could be tightened, but overall, it's not too far off the required standard. One substantive comment I have to make is that it seems strange to include the Viceroy-Monarch example under Batesian mimicry, only to admit that it's actually Müllerian mimicry. It would be better to find an unambiguous example of Batesian mimicry.

The place where most effort is needed, I think, is the ecology. There is a brief mention under "Distribution and diversity" of a general association with flowering plants, but I'm sure there must be much more that could be written. My advice is to expand on that, and then nominate the article at WP:GAN; the helpful reviewers there will let you know if anything else is amiss. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The article content is still not complete imho. In addition, to what you pointed out, the morphology etc still needs improvement. The mimicry section is too large and I cannot guarantee that it accurately reflects the state of nknowledge. My problem is that NOT being a professional biologist but a fauji and an abhiyanta, I have to get hold of stuff, learn it, understand it, corelate it, place in context etc which makes it very slow and difficult. I began working on the External morphology of Lepidoptera so that I could summarise it for this article; the anatomy and physiology of Lepidoptera are still to be done. As External morphology of Lepidoptera has reached a better level than Lepidoptera, perhaps we could consider that first. AshLin (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I will be taking note of all that while I am working on the article. <small style="background:#007FFF;border:#66FF00 2px dashed;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px"><font color="#66FF00"><font color="#66FF00">Bugboy52.4 ¦ <font color="#66FF00">=-=  14:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Merging Lepidopterist into this article?
I started discussion on Talk:Lepidopterist Scientific29 (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Last steps..
The simple stuff.
 * References that are bare or not using cite templets need to be fixed.
 * Paragraphs that are missing references need some
 * Typos
 * Sentences that are unclear, or not understandable to readers that are not experienced in the subject.

The Complicated stuff.
 * Internal morphology needs expanding
 * IMPORTANT: Some contradictory sources, does the corpora allata or the corpora cardiaca produce PTTH, or both? So far I put both

<small style="background:#007FFF;border:#66FF00 2px dashed;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px"><font color="#66FF00"><font color="#66FF00">Bugboy52.4 ¦ <font color="#66FF00">=-=  14:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relationship to people can use expanding
 * Another standing problem is that I'm not a hundred percent sure what information goes where. For example, The info about the eggs being made of chirion, should that be with the morphology? Or how caterpillars can sequester the toxins they eat from plants to deter predators, would that go in defense and predation? Or butterflies' mutual association with ants goes in ecology? or diapause in egg laying, should that go in the diapause section?
 * Phylogeny needs correcting and expanding
 * Taxonomy
 * to be continued...

NOTE to self: The internal diagram needs dorsal tubules to be changed to heart chambers. Also need to add sources

Comments from Smartse

 * The use of koinoboint and idiobiont in the parasitism is confusing - you should explain what these terms mean.
 * Kionobiont was clarified by another scietific term, and I fixed the hidden note added by it. <small style="background:#007FFF;border:#66FF00 2px dashed;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px"><font color="#66FF00"><font color="#66FF00">Bugboy52.4 ¦ <font color="#66FF00">=-=  16:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a whole section on polymorphism which you define as "within a single species" but then there is discussion of mimicry between different species... Maybe move some of this into the defense and predation section of ecology.
 * could you clarify that. <small style="background:#007FFF;border:#66FF00 2px dashed;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px"><font color="#66FF00"><font color="#66FF00">Bugboy52.4 ¦ <font color="#66FF00">=-=  17:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, basically what I mean is that the polymorphism section should only discuss the variation within a species. The final two paragraphs about mimicry are not about polymorphism and that's why I think they would be better dealt with in the ecology section. SmartSE (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I copied the text into word and corrected the errors I found, but I think more may exist.
 * I added a few hidden notes after where I found a sentence didn't make sense and I wasn't sure how to fix it. SmartSE (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment, the problem is that we need a reviewer and people to help me fix up what needs to be done, especialy during the reviewing process. Have you considered being the reviewer of the article? <small style="background:#007FFF;border:#66FF00 2px dashed;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px"><font color="#66FF00"><font color="#66FF00">Bugboy52.4 ¦ <font color="#66FF00">=-=  17:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No probs, I'm afraid I won't be able to help further as I'm going to be busy IRL for a while. Good luck! SmartSE (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Spelling
Insted of "le-pee-DOP-tə-rə", wouldn't the correct spelling be "le-pi-DOP-tə-rə"? <small style="background:#007FFF;border:#66FF00 2px dashed;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px"><font color="#66FF00"><font color="#66FF00">Bugboy52.4 ¦ <font color="#66FF00">=-=  12:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Illustration missing from taxobox
The taxobox has an extensive caption, but the illustration to which it refers is missing. Jacob (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Wing structure / veination / pattern
No mention in the article about the wing structure, the wing veination or wing patterns. These are useful points that enable identification of the many Lepidoptera species. Note that wing veination may take a numbering system or is based on the Comstock-Needham system (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect_wing) - four main veins (in Lepidoptera) arise from the wing base - Sc (subcostal vein), R (radial vein), M (medial vein) & Cu (cubital vein). Wing pattern should focus on mapping out the names given to the edges, corners and regions of the wing, as well as pattern types (stigmata, fascia, streaks). HKmoths (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Good
Nice article, it helps, but why such big paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.84.111 (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Suborders
I started on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycaenidae and was trying to determine the taxonomy of butterflies for a research paper I’m editing. I just wanted to know how butterflies are classified. I also checked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossata in my attempt to find the suborder Rhopalocera. But the butterfly page did not match the Lepidoptera page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepidoptera which listed four suborders (including Glossata), none of which is Rhopalocera. I’ll leave this to an entomologist to figure out, being an ecologist and cyperologist myself. Someone needs to check out various butterfly pages and figure out who is what (suborders pages need to match other wikipages. Sedgehead (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Sedgehead

Additions
I have added an example of a butterfly causing crop damage. Thanks!

Ichooxu (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Why have external links to non-english language lepidoptera websites?
I have deleted external links that refer to non-english websites. Why is there such little talk on such a major article? bpage (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Western population of the monarch butterfly
I am very glad that an interest is being shown in this article. At first glance, it seemed to me that no one had continued to improve it. The edit that I did to the caption on a photo of roosting monarch butterflies is very specific to the western population of monarch butterflies but not to the population of eastern monarch butterflies. Each population overwinters in different places. It is not accurate to assume that the photo represents the typical locale where monarchs overwinter. Most monarchs overwinter in Mexico. The photo of the roost in CA is representative of western monarch overwintering behavior, but not representative of all monarchs overwintering. My edit was to clarify. I make a lot of typos, but this wasn't one of them. PLEASE, please, feel free to continue to review and edit this article because I think that it needs it. I also invite you to review and edit any of the other insect related articles that I work on. There seems to be such little activity in the lepidoptera portal. Best Regards to You. bpage (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Too Big and Not Specific
This article is too big and not specific. It may be well written and has some excellent and valuable contributions, but it is covering several topics, not just the order Lepidoptera. Unfortunately it should be a fail, and if it is a pass, then the endorsement may prevent improvement.

I was looking for an article on caterpillar anatomy and morphology and couldn't find one, so was in the progress of starting one. This title should be about Lepidoptera order (with a taxobox) and list the suborders and families. It is not consistent with other order articles.

The anatomy and morphology sections should be split off into a separate article. Ecology and relationship to people is yet another topic. There should be no prizes for having the biggest article! Surrey John   (Talk) 09:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Error in the phylogeny diagram
Hi, I'm new here. I was looking at the diagram in the Phylogeny section, and I'm not sure it is right. It looks to me like the coloured band representing the Angiosperm Radiation is in the wrong place. The comment beneath the diagram says this occurred between 130 and 95 Mya, but that's not what the diagram shows. I have also checked the Labandeira article and the Encyclopedia of Insects (both quoted as sources of the diagram) and they are different from this diagram and show this band with the correct time period. Can you double-check this yourself and see what you think? Regards Piano beat (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hungry little beasties, poor little plants
I don't know where to put this comment so I'll put it here, though I think it's more appropriate for the individual plant pages and not this page as it's not specifically about this page. I've found a lot of pages on Wikipedia about plants with a 1-liner comment about Lepidopteras eating the plant that the Wikipedia page describes. This is very interesting and all, but why is it so important that we all know what Leipdopteras eat? Is it more important that we know that these pre-pupal butterflies eat so many different plants and not, say, deer, rabbits, slugs, or even humans eat these plants too? Just wondering why these animals were picked out over other animals that eat the plant that the Wikipedia page describes, over all animals that could prey on the plants. Granted I think a good effort is placed on fungi/bacterium that eat these plants ("Plant Diseases").
 * Although your comment is understandable, it is also understandable that a good reason (presumption) these plants you mentioned are known anyway, is because of their relation to lepidoptera as host-plants, and this might be why anyone created a page for them in the first place. To put it shortly, people who know about cheetahs will generally know about gazelles - this is not to justify the paltry information on many stub articles, but it might answer your question, in case it wasn't rhetorical. Snjón (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Lepidoptera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070622044831/http://www.leps.nl:80/ to http://www.leps.nl/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110727194040/http://leptr.org/ to http://www.leptr.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 17:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lepidoptera. 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/20110719175800/http://hoylab.cornell.edu/arthur/ratcliffe_fullard_arthur_hoy2009.pdf to http://hoylab.cornell.edu/arthur/ratcliffe_fullard_arthur_hoy2009.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110311182351/http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in080 to http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in080

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) 07:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lepidoptera. 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 tag to http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/media/publications-journals-nzjr-1996-058.pdf
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120530141617/http://www.gre.ac.uk/pr/articles/2008news/a1537---moths to http://www.gre.ac.uk/pr/articles/2008news/a1537---moths
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090209184546/http://www.ipm.uiuc.edu/fieldcrops/insects/corn_earworm/index.html to http://www.ipm.uiuc.edu/fieldcrops/insects/corn_earworm/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080122110443/http://www.butterfliesandart.com/Butterfly_Farms/Butterfly_Farms.htm to http://www.butterfliesandart.com/Butterfly_Farms/Butterfly_Farms.htm

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) 15:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lepidoptera. 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/20110720011820/http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/ent425/tutorial/Communication/sound.html to http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/ent425/tutorial/Communication/sound.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720092257/http://www.extension.umn.edu/yardandgarden/YGLNews/YGLN-June1503.html to http://www.extension.umn.edu/yardandgarden/YGLNews/YGLN-June1503.html

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) 05:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)