User talk:Djocson

Your submission at Articles for creation: Enchenopa binotata complex (February 23)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Enchenopa binotata complex and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Enchenopa_binotata_complex Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Enchenopa_binotata_complex reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

AFC Decline Notice
Do not remove AFC decline notices from draft articles. They carry a comment "Do not remove", which perhaps you didn't notice. Maybe you didn't know not to remove AFC decline notices. Now you do. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Djocson, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

References

1.	Cocroft, R.B. and R.L. Rodriguez. 2005. The Behavioral Ecology of insect vibrational communication. BioScience. 55(4):323-334.

2.	Cocroft, R.B., R.L. Rodriguez, R.E. Hunt. 2008. Host shifts, the evolution of communication, and speciation in the Enchenopa binotata species complex of treehoppers. Evolution of populations and Species. Pg. 88-100.

3.	Cocroft, R.B. 2005. Vibrational communication facilitates cooperative foraging in a phloem-feeding insect. Proceedings of the Royal Society. 272: 1023-1029.

4.	Cocroft, R. B., H.J. Shugate, K.T. Konrad, K. Tibbs. 2005. Variation in Plant Substrates and its consequences for insect vibrational communication. Ethology 112:779-789.

5.	DeVries, P.J. 1990. Enhancement of symbiosis between butterfly caterpillars and ants by vibrational communication. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 248(4959):1104-1106.

6.	Eriksson, Anna et al. 2011. Inter-plant vibration communication in a leafhopper insect. PLoS ONE 6(5):1-6.

7.	Fowler-Finn, K.D., et al. 2014. Male Enchenopa treehoppers (Hemiptera-Membracidae) vary mate-searching behavior but not signaling behavior in response to spider silk. Naturwissenschafen. 1-10.

8.	Fowler- Finn, K.D., Rodriguez, R.L. 2012. Experience-mediated plasticity in mate preferences: mating assurance in a variable environment. Evolution. 66:459-468.

9.	Fowler-Finn, K.D., Rodriguez, R.L. 2012. The evolution of experience-mediated plasticity in mate preferences. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 25(9): 1855-1863.

10.	Fowler-Finn, K.D., Rodriguez, R.L. 2013. Repeatability of mate preference functions in Enchenopa treehoppers (Hemiptera: Membracidae). Animal Behviour. 1-7.

11.	Fowler-Finn, K.D. et al. 2015. Variation in signal-preference genetic correlations in Enchenopa treehoppers (Hemiptera: Membracidae). Ecology and Evolution. 5(14): 2774-2786.

12.	Greenfield, M.D., Chelsea Medlock. 2007. Temperature coupling as an emergent property: parallel thermal effects on male song and female response do not contribute to species recognition in an acoustic moth. Evolution. 61(7):1590-1599.

13.	McNett, G.O., R.B. Cocroft. 2008. Host shifts favor vibrational signal divergence in Enchenopa binotata treehoppers. Behavioral Ecology. 650-656.

14.	Polajnar, J., D. Svensek, A. Cokl. 2012. Resonance in herbaceous plant stems as a factor in vibrational communication of pentatomid bugs (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae). Journal of the Royal Society 9:1898-1907.

15.	Rodriguez, R.L., L.E. Sullivan, R.B. Cocroft. 2004. Vibrational communication and reproductive isolation in the Enchenopa binotata species complex and treehoppers (Hemiptera:Membracidae). Evolution. 58(3): 571-578.

16.	Stewart, K.W. 1997. Epitome in the language of Stoneflies. American Entomologist 81-91.

17.	Virant-DobeMrlet, M. and I. Zezlina. 2007. Vibrational communication of Metcalfa pruinosa (Hemiptera: Fulgoroidea: Flatidae). Entomological Society of America 100(1):73-82.

18.	Wood, T.K. and S.I. Guttman. Enchenopa binotata complex: Sympatric Speciation? Science 220(4594): 310-312.

19.	Wood, T. K. "Divergence in the Enchenopa binotata Say complex (Homoptera: Membracidae) effected by host plant adaptation." Evolution 34.1 (1980): 147-160.

20.	Wood, Thomas K., and Sheldon I. Guttman. "Ecological and behavioral basis for reproductive isolation in the sympatric Enchenopa binotata complex (Homoptera: Membracidae)." Evolution (1982): 233-242.

Citations and annotations
Treehoppers prefer to mate on their own host plant. Different treehopper species in the complex that are sympatric are reproductively isolated through assortative mating based on female preference for conspecific males (males that have the same species of host plant)

Progenitors of North American Enchenopa have evolved from tropical Enchenopa treehoppers. They have evolved from being multivoltine,which is more appropriate for tropical climate without seasons, to being univoltine for seasonal climate. tropical treehoppers were once polyphagous and became monophagous as they moved from the tropics (with no seasonality) to temperate areas (with seasonality) due to the plants that they fed and hatched from. with more seasonality, plants change phenology. this change in phenology also changes the phenology of the treehoppers laid on the plant eventually tying the treehopper to the phenological cycle of one host plant.

divergence in signals within this clade can be partly attributed to the variation of substrate properties. Ptelea treehoppers often call on petioles of the Ptelea plant, while cercis treehoppers signaled on the stem of the plant. This means that different plants have special acoustic properties that treehoppers living on them have exploited and coevolved with.

There is plant-induced variation in signals. Different plant species have different signal filtering properties.

92% of insects use vibrational communication. Host plant divergence could act as a selection pressure for the evolution of vibrational communication because plants have different structures and could dampen or amplify certain frequencies of signals.

female selection is an important contributing factor to species divergence in this clade. this is the main mechanism behind assortative mating. Females readily respond to conspecific signals compared to heterospecific signals. Some females respond to signals of a more distantly related species, phylogenetically and geopgraphically, while they discriminate strongly against signals of closely related species.

Ptelea treehoppers are hypothesized to be an older lineage with well-established signal-preference system while viburnum treehoppers are new lineages that have yet established stable signal-preference system. Ptelea treehoppers had females preferring males that were at the average frequency and males were calling within the range of the females.

Ants help nymphal survivorship. Low vagility. There is genetic differences between species within the complex. treehoppers on viburnum and celastrus scandens are the most recently diverged according to genetic studies

Host plant-induced assortative mating:

assortative mating

Enchenopa binotata evolved from polyphagous Enchenopa from Central America. Different degrees of fixation and the absence and presence of certain proteins in the different species of Enchenopa binotata supports that host plant divergence contributed to divergence within the complex.

Abiotic factors, like wind, can influence the signaling/response behavior in this treehopper complex. Males tend to signal more in the morning and evening when there is usually less wind. Wind creates noise that can disrupt signaling transmission. Females respond to signals as a localization beacon so the males can find them.

host shifts make way for allechrony. evolution of signals and preferences allow for speciation through assortative mating.

Mate choice is one of the main driver of divergence in signal evolution.

Male and female signaling behavior have contributed to behavioral isolation in this species. the trend is also present in other species of the same clade. (i.e. long male signals had long female response signals.)

Sympatric speciation

Kasey's Comments
Dowen - The information you provide in your article is nicely comprehensive. You cover a lot of different aspects of the biology that make a well-rounded article. You have some sections of really great writing (highlighted below). Suggestions provided for how to improve the presentation of information in some sections, and overall the organization seemed a bit off (but it could be you were moving stuff around?)

Note that Enchenopa binotata is a species complex (not a species). Are not all treehoppers plant-feeding? Can you just state they are sap feeders. Also, you should use scientific notation after the Enchenopa binotata (Hemiptera: Membracidae). In the intro section you should mention that they are plant specialists. It might be nice to talk about how they were originally thought to be a single species that was a plant generalist, but that in fact there are several species, each specializing on a different host plant.

The sexual reproduction section sort of just started out like you had provided information about the plants already. Maybe you moved it around? Instead of saying only the treehoppers can hear the sounds, can you provide a brief description of vibrational signals and how the treehoppers sense them?

When you say they are most divergent in the frequency of their mating signals, it sounds like frequency of producing the signals. I would also introduce duetting. And, the number of times a female responds is actually not really preference – but it correlates with the likelihood of responding, which indicates preference (you should look at the language in some of my papers on this – it is crafted in a specific way).

I would talk about female preference for signal frequency in conjunction with divergence among species in signal frequency. You might consider starting out the reproduction section with how males search for mates, then how they attract them, and how females respond. Citation missing for females mating once. Also, reproducing once is not the same as mating once, so check the language. You will need to add citations after each sentence. If some one edits and moves around the sentences, you want to be sure the citations stay with it. Should morphology go before reproduction? Seems broad descriptive stuff should go first, then details of the mating behavior. Nymphs are gray and black, not usually brown. Rephrase “brown in morphology”

The vibration section starts out with a bang – nice work there! How males produce signals is not yet published, so you cannot say it. But, you can talk about where, since that is cited. This should go above the reproduction section, and be merged with it.

“they molt until they reach sexual maturity” is actually not a true statement. They molt until they reach adulthood, but they are not actually sexually mature for a while (1.5-2 weeks for males, when they start to signal, 4-6 weeks for females, when they start to respond). This might sound nitpicky, but it is important for everything to be accurate!

Your submission at Articles for creation: Enchenopa binotata complex has been accepted
 Enchenopa binotata complex, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Enchenopa_binotata_complex help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Your draft article, Draft:Enchenopa binotata complex


Hello, Djocson. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Enchenopa binotata complex".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the  or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)