User talk:Agrias aedon/sandbox

feedback
Hi I just wanted to offer some preliminary feedback on what's in your sandbox. An issue that stood out to me is that you may be using excessive inline citations. It's great (and mandatory) to provide references to reliable sources, but you want to avoid citation overkill. Only list the citations necessary to validate what you're adding. You also have some excessive bolding (section heads are not bolded, for example), and you may also want to reconsider your layout. What you currently have makes the table of contents very long and difficult to navigate. You might want to consider having all genera and species under the single header "Classification" and then use bulleted lists as an alternate layout. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Feedback for BOT6726 peer review
I think maybe the previous user on Talk was referring to the overuse of inline citations for the species list? I'm not sure. I didn't find the citations to be overkill, but I did think it might be better, for example, when you say (references above) to just re-use the citations you're referring to there so that all the references are clearer. I did spend time adding parentheses to the names/years after specific epithets because it was not consistent across the board. However, there are a lot in the article, and I didn't make it through all of them. I have noticed that other Wiki pages don't really use the parentheses either. For example, the Papilio Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papilio) uses no parentheses but a smaller text to reference species authors. I think whatever you choose is probably fine, but it should be consistent for the entire list in your article. User:Lbrensk 3:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Emily
'''[Throughout, please make sure that you format headings, etc. correctly. For example, "History of classification" and "Biology" should be formatted with two == not three. Also, you need to have the typical introductory text at the top of the page; that is currently missing. Your taxonomy box is also not formatted properly.]'''

The butterfly subtribe Euptychiina (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) is a diverse group within the tribe Satyrini, occurring throughout Central and South America, in addition to a few species known from North America. Euptychiina is a predominantly lowland group, with theexception of one Asian taxon Palaeonympha opalina Butler, 1871 and the Andean genus Forsterinaria Gray, 1973. Despite its membersbeing common, this subtribe has been a challenging subject for taxonomic and phylogenetic studies for many years because of their dull coloration, intraspecific variation, lack of clear morphological characters, and morphological homogeneity. However, with the exception of pioneering work by W. Forster and L. D. Miller, the group received little attention from butterfly researchers until recently due to their typically dull brownish coloration. Currently, 50 genera and over 400 described species are recognized within this subtribe, but the group is estimated to contain over 500 species in 70 genera. The current classification of Euptychiina is based on the Lamas checklist, who retained and reorganized many of the genera erected by Forster. Forster described 33 euptychiine genera that are now widely accepted, but since he erected these genera without testing monophyly and synapomorphies, many of his genera are now [have been] recovered as polyphyletic or paraphyletic in recent molecular phylogenetic studies.

History of Classification
A. Butler was probably the first to propose a systematic classification for many euptychiine taxa, excluding species now in the "Taygetis clade". In his monograph of Euptychia (then used as a catch-all genus to include most euptychiine species), Butler divided the genus into seven groups (Division I to VII). Subsequently, Butler proposed an updated classification for the group and recognized 27 "species groups" within Euptychia sensu Butler (1867). G. Weymer recognized 29 "species groups" within Euptychia sensu Butler, in addition to treating Taygetis and Amphidecta in his monograph of Satyridae in the "Macrolepidoptera of the American Faunistic region" by A. Seitz. Based on Weymer (1911)'s classification, Forster (1964) introduced 33 euptychiine genera and his classification is largely retained in Lamas (2004), a work considered as a vital foundation regarding Neotropical butterfly classification. The recent years saw [Recent years have seen] an explosion of interest in euptychiine systematics, resulting in many changes in generic classification of the group as well as improvement in our understanding of its species diversity. Although the subtribal name was first introduced by L. D. Miller when he treated Euptychiina as a tribal level taxon "Euptychiini", the genus Euptychia Hübner, 1818 was historically used to place many euptychiine species now no longer classified in that genus, perhaps explaining why the generic name Euptychia was used in a much broader sense to include many other euptychiine species. Consequently, Forster included this name "Euptychia" as part of new generic names he described, a trend also followed when the new generic name Atlanteuptychia was introduced for Euptychia ernestina Weymer, 1911. However, other recently described euptychiine genera do not follow this trend (references above).

Biology
'''There exist detailed early stage biology information for 30 euptychiine species [This is not sufficient. You need to provide actual detailed information about what this information entails. In addition, similar to the pages like this for other groups, you need to include some description of morphology that applies to all members of this group.]'''. Hostplant records are known for approximately 100 species, those records are mainly grass and bamboo species, although the genus Euptychia is known to feed on mosses and lycopsids.

Generic classification and species accounts (as of February 2019)
'''[This section as you currently have it needs to be changed. Long lists of species like this are not particularly useful, and the place to put them would be on individual pages for each genus. I recommend reverting to a list of genera like what was here before, but with the number of species indicated for each one, and then linking the names to genus-specific pages where you put the extended spaces information. Also - a species' name includes the genus epithet. Something like "arnaca arnaca" is NOT a complete species name; for all of the species in these lists, you MUST include the abbreviation of the genus, for every single one of them.'''