User talk:Dyanega/archive5

Bombus subgenera/species list
Hey Dyanega. Just wondering if you think adding a "complete" subgenera/species list to the bumble bee page is a good idea or if it would just create clutter. The source of the list would be: S. A. CAMERON, H. M. HINES, P. H. WILLIAMS. (2007) A comprehensive phylogeny of the bumble bees (Bombus). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2007, 91, 161–188.Corbiculad 00:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My inclination, at this point, would be not to actually list all the subgenera on the page, but instead make sure that all the species pages place each species in the correct subgenus following the new classification. What you MIGHT do is to compose a separate article - a "List of world bumblebee species" (there's just over 200, if you don't count subspecies) - and organize that article by subgenera. About the only change that might need to be made to the bumblebee article would be to change the number of subgenera from 37 to whatever number those authors have used. I certainly wouldn't bother making separate articles for each subgenus. Peace, Dyanega 16:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yellow Jacket
Thanks for the heads up on the yellow jacket image. From the information I got from a friend it was identified as a Yellow Jacket rather than the Polistes dominulus(European paper wasp). Rather than let the image go to waist I will put it in that section instead.

The funny thing is that, this was is called the European Paper wasp but I live nowhere near Europe. The photo was actually taken in Toront, Canada, I guess they are not exclusive to the continent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverspark (talk • contribs) 18:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Strepsiptera
Dear Doug, I have been looking over material on Strepsiptera and I have very limited access to current research literature. Borror-Triplehorn-Johnson (6ed) uses Mengeidae which appears to be now reserved for an extinct group with the extant members moved into Corioxenidae (which is not mentioned in the outdated outline material I have). Do you know of a key to the families listed on the Strepsiptera page ? TIA Shyamal 04:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I knew, the status of the classification was as reported on the Tree of Life web page, which is linked; the Mengeids referred to by BTJ are presently placed in the Mengenillidae. The TOL page may contain a reference with a key, though I'm not certain. Dyanega 00:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
You deserve a barnstar for your comments at Talk:Morgellons. Axl 09:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Mimicry articles
Hello Dyanega, you've probably noticed I've been working mainly on mimicry articles lately, and I'd like to hear your thoughts on their development. How long do you think the main mimicry article should be, and how technical? I'm thinking of having two conceptual articles: evolution of mimicry and classification of mimicry to discuss the core theoretical aspects, allowing the main article to be more friendly to the lay person. I'm also hoping to have several daughter articles for specific mimicry types, such as acoustic mimicry, Müllerian mimicry, mimicry in plants etc. Since many of these don't exist yet, the main article is still in somewhat of a shambles, with some parts being underdeveloped and others too detailed. Do you think this is a good plan? Richard001 00:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My own inclination would be to keep it as a single article for as long as possible, and only start splitting sub-topics off if the article truly becomes unmanageable; the conceptual articles would be nice, but possibly a little esoteric and therefore not worth spending a lot of time on until you think the main article is really in solid shape. One thing to consider is developing the mimicry category, where articles dealing with organisms that are considered to be mimics are hunted down and tagged as such, to expand the cross-referencing to the main article. I can see that being a very helpful tool in organizing the available examples. Peace, and keep up the good work, Dyanega 00:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
for this and the fix before. Must have been a late night for that typo! // Fra nkB 04:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Bee Photo
Hi Dyanega:

I am very new to Wikipedia, and recently added a photo (taken by myself) to the Honey Bee page, which you subsequently removed, citing that it was a commercial photo. Do you consider it to be a commercial photo, because it was released under the Attribution license? Or because you believe it to be a "borrowed" image? Are attribution photos not allowed in the articles? If not, I am willing to release the photo into the public domain. If it is simply a matter of permission ... as it is my image, I certainly have given permission for its use.

Thank you for any clarification you can provide,

MrWikiFix —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwikifix (talk • contribs) 18:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

...apology
Okay sorry about that. But as an investigative researcher and journalist I am a resource of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hivementality (talk • contribs) 00:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up beehive
Thanks for stepping in and cleaning up beehive. It needed that. --Doradus 21:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Coccinellidae
Thanks. --John 16:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

vandalism
I saw your comment on Shyamal's page, and I've blocked a couple of persistent vandals for a while. I don't watch most insect pages, but if you let me know of any persistent vandals, previously warned, I'll block if necessary. Jimfbleak —Preceding comment was added at 17:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ant revert
The edit by Meldor that you reverted was actually legitimate. It puts a star against the interwiki link to indicate and it appears that is indeed a Featured Article FA on that language wiki. Shyamal 04:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Apiology Page
Hey Dyanega,

Thanks for your work on the apiology article! Do you think there should be a seperate article created for Melittology? I am a grad student studying bees in AZ. AJseagull1 06:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

p.s. i used a lot of the userbox templates from your user page. hope that's cool. AJseagull1 06:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Beetle family
What family is this likely to be of. Less than an inch long and chooses to fly, found in open grassland and visits flowers. Shyamal 03:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Based on the prothorax, I'd say it has to be an Oedemerid. Dyanega 06:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Shyamal 07:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Warriors vs Soldiers
I believe you are right, but who came up with the terminology? AnteaterZot 08:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So not E.O. Wilson, then? About when did people notice there were castes? I ask because there is no article on insect castes. AnteaterZot 21:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Carpenter Ants
I placed an expand tag on Carpenter ant because it is way too short an article for such an economically important topic. Having just read your user page, I suspect you might be in a position to do something about it. AnteaterZot 21:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As a genus page it's fine. But, what about those Wikipedia users who have carpenter ants in their house? They don't care about taxonomy, and the page is called "Carpenter ant", not "Camponotus". AnteaterZot 22:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Then they need to determine what species they have, and the article should help them do so, or at LEAST inform them that there are many possibilities they need to consider - there are dozens of different carpenter ants, just like there are hundreds of different termites, and tens of thousands of different bees and wasps. It's sort of like saying "Every day I'm being attacked by an animal in my neighborhood. What should I do?" - the proper response depends entirely upon knowing what kind of animal it is (even if you narrowed it down to "dog" that still isn't specific enough). Dyanega 22:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've made some changes in that direction. AnteaterZot 22:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Apis laboriosa smith
hello Dyanega,

Judging by what's on ur user page, I guess that you must quite an authoritarian figure in entomology. Therefore, in all wikipedian tradition, i am posting a query.

I have read in a couple of places that Apis dorsata laboriosa is no longer called so and now the Himalayan cliff honeybee is called just Apis laboriosa.

Just wanted to confirm, because i would like to make a few changes to the 4 bee species that are indigenous to South Asia.

Regards, 203.91.140.133 (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Eusociality
The article is in a bad state without references. Could I have a soft copy of your "The definition of eusociality" Crespi and Yanega. Behav. Ecol. 1995; 6:109-115. Shyamal (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a link to a self-archived version of that paper? I can see only an abstract here and did not find it here  Shyamal (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Have done a round of cleanup and have cited paraphrased versions of the definition debates in more recent reviews. Some of the material can be comfortably deleted - as they are also repeated in other linked articles. Shyamal (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and inclusive fitness article
Understood, and pretty much in agreement. I previously did only copy editing--not for me, really, to tell someone else what to post, I thought--but we are working on the article to hash out a more busineslike version. It's just taking a lot of time that I don't have outside3 my regular job. Maybe over Christmas break we'll get it done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.187.23 (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Coleopteran groups
How current is this List ? Shyamal (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I compared the two lists and the only items needing reconciliation (annotations would be useful to the current list) are Cyathoceridae and Urodontidae (and Microsporidae which you already noted). 10:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyamal (talk • contribs)

Category:Empusidae
Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Category:Empusidae. It is considered vandalism. If you think an article should be deleted, please use deletion process, in stead of blanking the page. Od Mishehu עוד מישהו 07:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

a response
Responding to this:

Hi. Just so you know; while the technically preferred spelling of "bumblebee" is indeed "bumble bee", it is still the less common spelling variant among authoritative sources at this stage of things. As far as I can tell, this is primarily because non-American English speakers almost invariably use "bumblebee" as a single word still today, and Wikipedia has a fair bit of inertia in such regards. While it may not be consistent, this is one case where it is far easier to accede to the majority usage. The use of "honeybee" as a single word shows more clear signs of being phased out, even outside of the US, so I and other editors have been working to make the various WP articles internally consistent in using the "honey bee" variant. Perhaps that example will eventually be followed by a transition to "bumble bee", but I don't see it happening soon. Peace, Dyanega (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Merriam-Webster actually gave me almost precisely the same response when I told them that "honey bee" is the more correct spelling. They insisted that "honeybee" had a slightly higher incidence of usage in the journals that matter. I wrote back and told them that "wrong is still wrong". Maybe we have tipped over the edge now with "honey bee". My worry is that wikipedia is now "THE" authority and the stance that wikipedia takes becomes the defacto standard. I would love to take a stand on correctness. I suspect that when folks are in doubt, they will check wikipedia and then use that spelling... which will perpetuate the problem (if you can call it that).

So... I agree to a degree, but ultimately disagree. Wikipedia has a lot of power to drive standards now. I think we should be as correct as possible. So, my vote is: spell it as it should be and make a note as to common usage, not the other way around.

Happy Holidays!

-tonica

Pyrops candelarius vs Pyrops candelaria
Hi. Thanks for cleaning up the article that I started on this bug.

I see you moved the article from Pyrops candelaria to Pyrops candelarius. Do you have any souce to back up this claim?

Google has 526 entries for my original title. link to google search. But only 11 entires for the new name that you gave it. link to other google search

I'm no expert so it's possible that I was wrong. But I was just wondering why you changed it. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I happen to be an expert in nomenclature and taxonomy. There is a formal, official Code governing the proper spelling of scientific names (the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature). One of the rules is that the name of a species must agree in gender with the name of the genus. The name "Pyrops" is masculine, and all names in the genus must be formed to also be masculine. While it is true that nearly everyone in the world refers to the species as "candelaria", those folks who do so are all wrong, and their ignorance of the rule is no reason to perpetuate the misspelling. That's exactly why rules of nomenclature exist; so when there is a difference of opinion, there is one clear and definitive answer. The genus Pyrops is masculine, therefore, all the species names in the genus must also be masculine. Dyanega (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining it. Yes, I agree with you - those other people are wrong. I was wrong. Thanks for teaching me. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise
Hi Doug: Thank you for the recommendations. As I am starting with editing in Wikipedia I am continuously but still slowly learning what and how to do about editing, and helpfull comments like yours are allways welcome. I will be taking into account your sugestions. As for the move it happened in a starting confusion, when in some way I had the impression that I had been editing the pages Potter wasp and Eumeninae at the same time and then, to avoid duplication I decided to keep all the edits in the Eumeninae page, thinking that the scientific name was more accurate than the common name (I was thinking like a taxonomist and not like an enciclopedy editor in that moment, sorry). Cheers, Bolosphex (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Digging into a fruit?
Wow... it is really the first time I have heard of a record precisely like that. I am not very familiar with Epipona as the genus is not present in Paraguay and I just collected it one time in Nicaragua. But about other Epiponines, what I remember in Telica volcano, Nicaragua, many year ago, is having seen several Synoeca septentrionalis eating Nancite (Byrsonima crassifolia) fruits, wich are just about 2 cm across and sweet. That's the way I would expect a social wasp finding (ocassionaly or on purpose) a burrowing larva, although I did not see such thing happening at that time. But avocado fruits are large and not precisely sweet and I do not remember (personaly, which does not mean it couldn't happen) them as especially atractive for social wasps. It is probable that they were primarily atracted by a rotting fruit, if that was the case. I have seen Polybia and Agelaia wasps being atracted by rotting fruits and even carrion (some Agelaia species are well known for doing the latter). In such situations they are usually found eating the rotten matters, but it could well be an opportunity (I think) to prey on other insects visiting or developing on the spot. As long as I know a same pattern of behaviour is appliable to either predatory and parasitic wasps: they first seek for a place suitable to find a prey and after finding it they proceed to look for a prey in that place. Anyway, the observation is interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolosphex (talk • contribs) 12:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

blowfly photo
Re your comments on the Talk:Blow-fly page, I've added a tighter crop of the photo I'm proposing as a replacment, and would appreciate your comments. Martybugs (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Bengalia
Hello, Prof. Lehrer is back with his usual load of personnal attacks, but directed against you this time. Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Sorry I did not reply in time to protect the page. It seems that another administrator has done it. --  ¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤   19:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation
--Zeitgespenst (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Good Article review for Mimicry
Your name was mentioned in a discussion about a Good Article reassessment for Mimicry. If you have any opinions that you would like to share about that article, please consider posting them here. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

ID of photo
Hi. You incorrectly identified a photo of a queen bumblebee as a carpenter bee; I have restored the original image. It's a fine photo, but it's not what you thought it was. Dyanega (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As an aside, looking in your bee/wasp gallery, you have several misspellings and misidentifications in addition to this particular misidentification. The list: Apis mellifera is often misspelled as "melifera"; your "male Lasioglossum" is a male Halictus species; "Polistes gallicus" is not a valid species name (the correct name is Polistes dominulus); there is no family "Xylocopidae" (which you misspelled "Xylopcopidae") - carpenter bees are in the family Apidae; the Halictus species name is spelled "scabiosae" (not "scabiose"); Bembix and Philanthus are in the family Crabronidae (not Sphecidae). If you need help with IDs and nomenclature in the future, please feel free to post links to images on my talk page, and I will happily offer my assistance. Your photos are excellent, and it's a shame to not have the correct names to go with them. Dyanega (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's good to have an entomologist among us, thanks for your remarks ad help ! Yes, I'm sure I'll need it quite often, as I feel quite ignorant is this matter. Maybe part of the responsability for those family mistakes goes to Michael Chinery and his book "Insects of Britain and Western Europe (A & C Black, London, 1986), my primary source of information... As for the black bee, I'm not convinced yet: please notice the colour of the wings (purple) and of the tips of the antennae (redish). These bees made their appearance in Lisbon about one week ago and they are now everywhere! If they are all indeed queen bumblebees, what species do you think they belong to? Are all the black bees at the end of my gallery of the same bumblebee species? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I got it! It is indeed a bee, a female Anthophora plumipes. In this species there is a strong sexual dimorphism, with the females being all black - Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to insist, but please take a closer look at this picture. The eyes almost reaching the jaws and the rust-coloured pollen brushes on the hind legs are all characteristic of A. plumipes. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I was also doing my home work... Please look here -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No need for apologies. I have learned more about insects in the last year (in Wikimedia and Wikioedia) than in my entire life before! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Cochineal edits - thank you!
Big thanks for this edit. I know I should be more bold (and your edit summary encapsulates just why) but, mmm, I'm shy about making substantial changes to other editors' conributions. Thanks again! --Shirt58 (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Phegonidae
I was looking for information on this beetle family that many folks spot the larvae in the night out here and ask about it and its relation to Photuris beetles. There is almost NO information on the family (what is it now?) on the whole Internet. Hope some information on this can be unearthed. thanks. Shyamal (talk) 12:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The correct spelling is Phengodidae. You have no phengodids in India; the only possible bioluminescent families in your area are Lampyridae (the family that Photuris belongs to) and Rhagophthalmidae. Dyanega (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah ok. Many thanks. Rhagophthalmidae it must be then. Shyamal (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Categories
Thanks for explaining about categories. I am very new here and trying to learn, but I am getting the wrong lessons sometimes. Why is there a Category: Bumblebees with only one article? Why is Category: Bees under categories Hymenoptera and Apoidea? These problems are nothing compared with the ones that I find in Wikipedia Español. Too bad that there is no Spanish speaking clone of you! All the categories and articles in Hymenoptera are in complete disarray. Argh! Polinizador (talk) 12:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Taxacom related comment
You wrote: "...and no model will work without *participation*. Frankly, I have a hard time imagining ANY way to convince every taxonomist in the world to collaborate with all the others on a *voluntary* basis: there are too many "rugged individualists" who will refuse to join in the effort, if not actively work to undermine it for their own selfish reasons.

If you don't think the Wiki model is a viable approach to the matter, even if modified to require approval for changes, then what alternative do you see that will draw in all the world's taxonomists to contribute?"

I have come to similar conclusions and tell folks that win-lose seems to be the way it is for collators versus individual contributors (related), win-win collaboration appears impossible so why not a lose-lose collaboration (individuals lose, communities gain though).

cheers. Shyamal (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Barcoding notes
Dropped some notes on Talk:DNA barcoding and would be interested in your opinion. Also I have DOI'd 4 papers (1 new and 3 not new at all ones) that may yield good refs here - I find the debate on mol-barcoding to consistently miss one major point: something very very similar has been tried before. It did not work as it was supposed to. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Naming horrors
You may find the PDF links on Nyctibatrachus hussaini of interest. Shyamal (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback rights
I just discovered that rollback rights can be granted to help fight vandalism. You should now find a rollback link in the history that makes reverts easier. Shyamal (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

history of kin selection
The important paper is Hamilton's 1964 one in the Journal of Theoretical Biology -- The Genetical Evolution of Social Behavior. This is the most cited paper in evolutionary biology.

The 1963 note by Hamilton does not have the maths in it, nor as lengthy a discussion. It was written second, submitted to Nature, rejected and published in the American Naturalist. The 1964 paper was written as part of his PhD thesis, and with difficult maths, and the fact that it had to be split into two, took longer to peer-review and publish.

There are two incidences of pre-Hamiltonian kin selection. (1) R.A. Fisher The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (1930), q.v. the chapter on mimicry. (2) Haldane (1955). Neither seem to have fully understood its implications, nor did they show, like Hamilton did, that this works for all gene frequencies and is fundamental to fitness, evolution of eusociality in haplodiploid organisms. The Haldane quote is quotable, as Haldane often was, but an oversimplification and it is wrong to attribute it to him.

Alan Grafen concludes "inclusive fitness was a major conceptual advance in biology, wholly original with Hamilton". To see why, please read the paragraph before this quote at: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~grafen/cv/WDH_memoir.pdf search for Haldane and start reading there (though the rest of it is relevant too)

See also http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1988/A1988Q116000001.pdf

and if you can Seger J, Harvey P (1980) The evolution of the genetical theory of social behaviour. New Scientist 87:50-51

and Narrow Roads of Gene Land vol. 1.

I think Dawkins goes on about it somewhere too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I am not a dog (talk • contribs) 17:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't like your tone.

Secondly, please show me where Maynard Smith credits this idea to Haldane. Have you read the Grafen paper? I am not a dog (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, the term kin selection originates with Maynard Smith -- Hamilton always preferred inclusive fitness. That led some at the time to attribute kin selection to Maynard Smith, but not Haldane. Maynard Smith, e.g. Evolutionary Genetics (1998) correctly credits it to Hamilton. As Grafen notes, it is a common mistake to attribute it to Haldane. And as I have pointed out, the first known instance is Fisher. There may be others yet unknown before him. I am not a dog (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Maynard Smith got his idea of kin selection off Hamilton anyway, it was he who peer-reviewed Hamilton's paper for J. Theor. Biol. And then it crept into his consciousness. That he initially did so without crediting Hamilton led Hamilton not to like him for a while. Again, Narrow Roads of Gene Land, vol 1. I am not a dog (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Grafen
Just how revolutionary was this work? There were frequent accusations of lack of originality, which were found hurtful. However, the view cannot be sustained that Hamilton’s work was merely an elaboration of an idea that should be credited to Haldane or Fisher. They had both previously published some of the ingredients, but neither had seen or even partly understood the magnitude and significance of the problem that Hamilton identified. Fisher never pointed out that his argument about aposematism contradicted the assumptions of his fundamental theorem. Haldane published his 24-line passage in a paper (Haldane 1955) in a semi-popular journal. Neither Fisher nor Haldane indicated that there was a general problem about how natural selection acted on social behaviour, and so naturally neither claimed to be tackling it. Neither gave the impression they attached more importance to these arguments than to the others on adjacent pages. In the large, then, there is no question of pre-emption. Even with a more detailed point, it is easy to overvalue the earlier work. A modern audience reads Haldane’s use of the chances of sharing a gene and, being familiar with inclusive fitness, immediately thinks of the coefficient of relatedness, and is then tempted to credit Haldane with the importance of relatedness in social behaviour. But there is no evidence that Haldane ever made that leap from gene-sharing with particular relatives to relatedness in general. There was, however, a definite moment at which Hamilton realized the significance of the coefficient of relatedness and found that, in place of separate models making special assumptions, he could instead construct a single general model in which relatedness had a crucial role. Finally, the idea that individuals acted as if maximizing some quantity that generalized Darwinian fitness was not even hinted at by Haldane or Fisher. Indeed, so novel was this idea that I know of no passage in their work in which such a hint could even have found a natural place. Yet it is precisely this aspect of inclusive fitness that forms the centrepiece of Hamilton’s achievement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I am not a dog (talk • contribs) 17:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Precursors
When an idea originates, there are often precursors to it. Hints that people had started going down that road but had stopped travelling down it for some reason. The obvious example is natural selection itself. Some had thought about natural selection before Darwin. But none had synthesised it all together to create a theory of evolution. So Hamilton has precursors too, yes, but please don't attribute something to Haldane that wasn't his. Haldane contributed enough to biology and would be embarrassed to be attributed with something he did not do.

The important paper is Hamilton's first 1964 paper, published second. I am not a dog (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

inclusive fitness v kin selection
inclusive fitness, kin selection, Hamilton's rule are all basically the same thing, viewed from a different angles (Dawkins' famous Necker cubes I suppose). Hamilton preferred inclusive fitness, the term "kin selection" was invented by Maynard Smith. It's swings and roundabouts but the history is more-or-less the same. I am not a dog (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: inappropriate edit to Death's-head Hawkmoth
Hi Dyanega, thank you for your message. The problem in Death's-head Hawkmoth was caused by many wrong interwikis in foreign wikipedias. I have now moved all interwikis related to Acherontia atropos to the page Acherontia atropos. If something is wrong, please tell me, and I will correct it. --Pipep (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Youtube links
Well I was under the impression that if you can't cite from the external link then better not to have it in the section? But checking WP:EL it would seem that YouTube links are ok if appropriate to the subject. I wasn't aware that the user had been adding links all over the place. I'm still of the opinion that references are a better option than adding too many external links to an article. But if you think that the link is ok then feel free to revert my edit.--Sting au  Buzz Me...   10:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Just a small personal thank-you for your work on the Morgellons article, and for dealing patiently but firmly with the POV-pushers there. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Mexican geography stubs
Hi Dyanega - good to see a couple of new stub articles on Mexican geography. One suggestion though - instead of adding both geo-stub and mexico-stub to the end, just adding mexico-geo-stub will save you (and stub sorters) a little work. All countries now have their own geo-stub templates - and some countries, including Mexico, have state specific ones, too. Keep up the good work :) Grutness...wha?  01:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

stingless
I probably have to accept the fact that the name "stingless" bees will stay most present... However, I hope you understand that something is right or wrong because it is most stated or cited in the web or literature. To give two examples: "killer bees" and "killer whales" are most common - both in language and google. It is still wrong then (though I must admit that stingless is not as bad as "killer"). I do not know if this is only a personal opinion, but I think that nothing should be named after something it does not have/possess (especially if it is actually wrong). There are plenty of ants and insects lacking a sting or eyes or wings etc. "stingless ants", "wingless bees" imagine that! Thank you, however, for letting include "meliponines" though! At least the name meliponine is not wrong then! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.130.72.222 (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Some images
You may be able to help putting families on some of these invertebrate images. Feel free to edit the captions. All specimens from the Central Himalayas. User:Shyamal/images4 Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 05:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Velvet Ant?
On the velvet ant talk page you said that your an expert on them. I was wondering if you could tell me if this is a velvet ant? Pic 1 Pic 2 Pic 3 Pic 4 We saw this little guy trucking across the sand in the desert just outside the Mojave National Preserve in California. We followed him until he found a plant and started eating something on it. There were others around like him, but most of their "shells" looked shrivled up, as opposed to this one which looked really beautiful. I thought it was some kind of ant, and was wondering if it had some eusocial function. But it would make more sense if it was a velvet ant, because it looked solitary. Thanks in advance. I was really fascinated by this thing: I had never heard of velvet ants before. :) Brentt (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a blister beetle, in the genus Cysteodemus. They ooze caustic fluid from their joints. Pretty cool-looking beetles, though. Dyanega (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, really? Thank you for that. It wierd how much Coleoptera and Hymenoptera look alike. Is the distinction cladistic? Are all Coleoptera more closely related to each other than they are to any Hymentoptera and vice versa do you know? Because, so many Coleoptera look like ants. . Brentt (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Picture for Rod (cryptozoology)
Hi! I somehow ended up on Rod (cryptozoology) from somewhere else (you know what this place is like), I noticed on the talk page that you're an entomologist (I bet you have plenty of articles to work on!). Do you think it would be possible to set up a pair of cameras like in the article and get some shots of a moth or something to provide an illustration? Seems like you might know about setting up that kind of picture. :-) We could put the "rod" image at the top to illustrate the concept in general, and its counterpart in the "explanation" section to illustrate that.

Of course, the article text itself needs some serious editing, it's all over the place at the minute... I've watchlisted it to try and remind myself.

Thanks for your time! -- tiny plastic Grey Knight  ⊖  12:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ant
Have gone ahead and thrown Ant to the WP:FAC process for evaluation. Not sure if it will make the mark for "brilliant prose" - but several editors have offered their help to its improvement. Do take a look at the review comments when you have some time. Shyamal (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI Morgellons
Discussion at NPOV Noticeboard here. Ward20 (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

minor edits
Hi Dyanega. Thank you for writing about Morgellons at my talk page. I will try to be giving the mainstream view less weight but please edit my POV if I am not being enough kind to the fringe theories IYO. I wanted to let you know, your edits at Morgellons were inadvertatnly marked as m or minor. In WP:MINOR "Any change to the information, pictures, or other things in the article is not minor, and should not be marked as minor." Yours were not minor edits b/c they add information to the article, minor edits are usually stuff like punctuation, spelling, and I need alot of that I know! Just FYI! Thanks again! RetroS1mone  talk  21:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Morgellons
Hi Dyanega,

I am writing to save you time, you need not respond to my last post unless of course you want to, I don't plan on editing the article again. Best of Luck. Ward20 (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Exuvium
This came up for discussion on Featured_article_candidates/Chrysiridia_rhipheus. What is the last word on it? Shyamal (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Fish
Please revert anything I did that you think harms the article. I'm mostly here to help with the vandalism. You might want to look to someone beside JzG for help. It doesn't look like he's been editing recently David in DC (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The protection has expired on the Upper Colorado River Fish Recovery program. I'll be keeping an eye out. Please join in. Cheers. David in DC (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Fly
If possible, would you please identify the type of fly in this photo? Thanks! GregManninLB (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The photo is too far away, and too low-rez to be certain as to family, though it is a member of the Calyptratae; probably a muscid of some sort.
 * Reference desk thinks it might be Musca autumnalis. Is that likely? GregManninLB (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Likely" is not the same as "possible" - I don't know the area where the photo was taken well enough to say how likely it is, though it's certainly possible. ;-) Dyanega (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's good enough for me. As far as I could tell, it was just a fly and an ugly one at that. Thanks for the help. GregManninLB (talk) 05:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Bug
Wonder if you have seen this ! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7506355.stm, linked out of Reference_desk/Science? Shyamal (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

A bad penny returns
Well, I am back, in spades, and looking up arthropod pages to link back to my Featured Creatures (FC) site. Mostly, I am adding external links. In many cases, I am finding links to Featured Creatures already in place, so I then replace them with this format I developed so the Featured Creatures links will be standard.

*[  ] on the UF / IFAS Featured Creatures Web site

In cases where I find links to FC as references, I leave them in place, but modify them to reflect the Columbia Guide to Online Style's electronic format for Web site pages:

Example:

Hoy MA, Hamon AB, Nguyen R. (2007). Pink hibiscus mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green). Featured Creatures. EENY-29. http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/orn/mealybug/mealybug.htm (15 July 2008)

I hope this is OK with you.

Very occasionally I edit an article. For example, I noticed that "Indianmeal worm" was written as "Indian meal worm." According to ESA, "Indianmeal" is one word. It was listed incorrectly in its 1997 Common Names handbook, but corrected later on its Common Names Web site. But I couldn't figure out how to edit the Main title.

Also, on the page that discussed five major Stored Product Pests, I noticed sentences that stated (for example), "The Saw-toothed Grain Beetle is..." I corrected them to "The sawtoothed grain beetle is..." and did the same with the other pests mentioned. Even though I took two years of Latin in high school I have a big problem pronouncing scientific names, and usually do not even remember them unless I have been working with that organism lately. However, I have this "thing" about common names and their usage.

I do this because I see it is my job to do it. I expect that after I retire Featured Creatures will stagnate. Then you will only see me in Wikipedia working on military history articles. I really want to totally revise the article on the Civil War Battle of Gainesville, but I am leaving this to after I retire (4 years?) because to do so will strongly irritate the hides of numerous rabid "Confederate Lost Causers" in Florida. According to them there was only one Battle of Gainesville and it was a Confederate victory. Actually, there were two such battles and one was a Confederate victory, but the other was a Union victory that smashed the local cavalry unit led by an officer who is a darling of the "lost causers" in Florida.

Life goes on.

Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trfasulo (talk • contribs) 15:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source for Image:Rowland recluse bite.jpg
I noticed that you removed Image:Rowland recluse bite.jpg from almost all of the pages I put it on, citing that it is not a reliable source. I'm not quite sure what the problem is. The individual in question was bitten by a brown recluse spider (I'm sure he has medical proof) and this is the effect that that bite had. It's not like it's from a news source or anything like that, but it's not like it's about anything more than a personal experience that is being used to illustrate what it may look like when you are bitten by a brown recluse spider. Compare it to Image:Sunburn.jpg. How is this any different? Does the individual with a sunburn have a more reliable source for having a sunburn than this individual has for having been bitten by a spider? The sunburn could be a rash or red paint -- you don't know. I'd just like some explaination here. -Platypus Man | Talk 21:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Archedictyon
The new article archedictyon might benefit from your expert entomological editing. - House of Scandal (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Phyllocrania paradoxa
Thanks for your useful edits to the mantis articles. But NB Phyllocrania paradoxa was a pretty long article. I don't think just redirecting it to the stub on the genus serves the project well. Thanks. - House of Scandal (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, it seems you're working on it as we speak. Thanks again for your help with the mantis articles.  My enthusiasm sometimes surpasses my expertise! - House of Scandal (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Xixuthrus
Thanks for the correction on the pic; I had just included the name the folks at Kula had on it. KarlM (talk) 08:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think they thought it actually had come from Taveuni; probably it didn't have a proper label and someone said "this one's really big, it must be the Taveuni beetle". The place had random things from all over Fiji; they also had a Taveuni orange dove and four of the varieties of red parrot.  KarlM (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ratchet
Saw your posting on taxacom, the idea of article evolution as a ratchet is a very interesting analogy and idea ! Cheers. Shyamal (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Tenacity and wisdom
Just read your valiant efforts to hold back the tide of woo on Talk:Rod_(cryptozoology).

Brilliantly done! Thanks so much, on behalf of reality-lovers everywhere.

--Cdavis999 (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Names for money
Hope you spotted this http://www.ecu.edu/cs-cas/biology/name_a_spider.cfm and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spiders. Shyamal (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

excuse me but i did not make a joke edit. in fact, i removed text that was a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.6.13 (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Fringe theory concerns
I read your concerns on WP:RSN and want to let you know that there is a Fringe theory noticeboard and a fringe theory guideline that you might find useful in your dealings with POV-pushers. If you ever need any help excising fringe nonsense from mainstream articles, please let me know. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:PSTS is your friend. One primary source that is published in a peer-reviewed journal should not be the basis for including anything in Wikipedia. That's the end of it. I'm having an awful time right now convincing an alt. medicine promoter of this fact at atropa belladonna. It's a very real point that hasn't quite sunk in at all levels. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hobo Spider Discussion
When you find the time I would appreciate it if we could discuss the Hobo Spider page some more on the hobo discussion page, specifically the incorrect citations. I haven't heard from you since I responded to your response earlier this week and am looking forward to your input. Krellor (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thysania agrippina
Sorry, deleting those changes was unintended. Shyamal (talk) 07:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Bee CCD
OK - I agree - but I am still concerned with the strong "anti-pesticide" narrative with this and many of the links ...

best wishes Roy IPARC, Imperial College London —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy Bateman (talk • contribs) 19:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree that the possibility of insecticides being culpable shouldn't be dismissed, but the "forces of nature" (i.e. diseases), especially with intensive cultivation, were thought to be more likely by insect pathologists at the recent International SIP conference at the University of Warwick. best R

Roy Bateman (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sci-fi
So you think 2001 is the best sci-fi film? I think not.

The greatest sci-fi film ever made is The Brave Little Toaster That Went to Mars. :-)

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0147926/

Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Killer ant
I know the well established usage of killer bee but is there anything similar called "killer ant". This must if it ever exists be an American speciality, but I can see no usage outside of Wikipedia of this and was considering nominating that article for deletion. Is there any reference that does not use "killer" merely as an adjective? Shyamal (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Have suggested the less drastic rename option on the talk page of the article. Shyamal (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Leps of Michigan
Hello, I saw your post on the wikiproject talk page and I thought I would talk to you one-on-one first and then put a post on the wikiproject as well. I simply did a quick run through of the species without doing much background work on my part and that does put me at a complete wrong. I am sorry and will be fixing this. One thing I do wonder though is if you could help me. I know the black witch was an exotic to the area but I did not know about the Eumorpha labruscae. Could you give a simple look through and see if you can see any others. I will be doing the same but I may miss something. Once again sorry for the inconvenience. I hope you and I can work this out and make the template the way I was hoping it would turn out. --IvanTortuga (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

ICZN clauses
Is there an easy way to determine changes in clauses between two editions ? I was looking at authorship clauses with regard to Brown Coucal. Having examined the original description, it seems to me that there is an error in attribution of authorship in most sources, but would like to rule out any differences due to changes. I am looking for the history of Recommendation 51E. (See also User_talk:Smallweed, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/archive_23. Shyamal (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are post 1967 synonymy works and if they were wrong, I thought either they followed the code of their time or did not examine the original description. In general I think the "A in B" form of authorship for bird names is rare (never seen one before) although it seems to be quite common for reptiles. Shyamal (talk) 03:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

RFA nom
You have been around for a while, have an excellent grasp of the policies and can easily make good use some of the basic admin features such as moves, protects and vandal blocks. The WP:RFA process is not a always a very pleasant exercise, but if you feel up to it, I will be glad to nominate or second. Shyamal (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have put up a draft nomination User:Shyamal/sandbox. Shyamal (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

why? its not vandalizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.74.48 (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Alert
You may like to comment on this Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(flora) Shyamal (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Carpenter Bees
I didn't want to just jump in on the Carpenter Bee page, but I noticed there is a sentence that describes the bee (or at least implies) that it is an important pollinator. However, in Georgia at least, it seems like the bee is considered a universal pest.

From the UGA ent dept page:

"The value of carpenter bees in crop pollination is doubtful. They are effective pollinators of passionfruit. In Georgia, they visit blackberry, canola, corn, pepper, and pole bean, but their value on these crops is uncertain. Carpenter bees are notorious for "robbing" flowers by cutting slits in the side of the flower to reach nectar without even touching the pollinating parts."

This of course matters because other bees go to the robbery holes instead of going to the flower where the pollen is located. So not only is the bee not a good pollinator, but it also seems to diminish the effectiveness of natural pollinators.

That being said, I'd like to mention that on the page and reference the UGA article. There are more detailed journal articles on the UGA site here: 

Pollination/Pollinator
Sorry for the delay in my reply, it started as the desire to give any other users a chance to chime in on the discussion page... and then I was just avoiding it. Oh, and don't mind all the plural pronouns, I keep thinking in terms of my project partner and I.

I guess our main objection to NOT merging the two articles centers around redundant information (like Hardyplants said on the Pollinator discussion page). First, when we were thinking of what information we wanted to add, it was difficult to chose which article certain information went under. In a few cases, the only way we could think to no leave big holes in the information would be to post the same stuff in both articles, which seems counterintuitive in an online encylopedia.

Second, when we were considering the indended audience of these pages (students or others looking for basic information, generally not experts) we thought that having 2 pages made the non-redundant information more inconvenient to find. Finally, we didn't think either article was too long for a combination.

Let me talk to my partner about the Main article: Pollinator idea. I think we'd both be happier if at least some of the more general information got moved (or copied) to the Pollination page, but it could still work. Sclemm (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey again, we've decided to leave the articles unmerged, but we did move a lot of the specific bee information to the pollinator page. It's a little messy, so you might want to do a quality check since you're the bee expert. Sclemm (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Death's-head Hawkmoth
I can see what you are talking about with the confusion over the moth's correct species. However, if we are going to try to not mislead the reader on this subject we might as well include both in the example. The A. styx is featured on the movie poster that everyone remembers, as well on some cleverly disguised moths later on in the film. The A. atropos is shown up close to the camera a couple of times. So why not just mention both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.159.161 (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

My August 2008 edit of your new Sphecius page
Hi, Doug,

I just got a Wikipedia user account and found your email to me from last August (below). When I first edited your Wikipedia Sphecius page I was convinced that few ordinary folks would stay with it long enough to find the Eastern Cicada Killer page that I had been working on for quite awhile and that's why I did what I did. Now that I understand what you did and why, I believe that your modification is a better way to present material on cicada killers in the Wikipedia.

Best regards!

Chuck Holliday

You wrote:

Hi. You need to be aware that you are editing the wrong articles. There is an article for the Eastern cicada killer which already has the links to Coelho's and Holliday's pages that you have been trying to insert, properly placed in the external links section at the bottom (links do not go at the top of articles). Please do not edit the Cicada killer wasp article, which is a redirect, or the Sphecius article it redirects to. There is more than one species in this genus, not just the one species that you are familiar with. If you have citations regarding that species which are not already included in Wikipedia, then that would be fine, but - as noted - the information you've been trying to add is already there, and already in the correct place. Thanks, Dyanega (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.147.51.219 (talk)

AfD nomination
You may like to comment on Articles_for_deletion/Andy_Lehrer. Shyamal (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A little help
Hello Dyanega! I've taken a photo of this wasp in Uruguay last January, but I don't know wich order, family, subfamily and genus it belongs to. Could you help me? If it's possible, please answer me in my talk page at my home wiki, right here. Thanks a lot! Georgez (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Georgez (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ropalidia marginata
--Dravecky (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

UF/IFAS changes URLS
Doug,

UF/IFAS is in the process of reorganizing its URLs. For example, http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/etc. is now

http://entomology.ifas.ufl.edu/creatures/etc. I have hundreds of external links to Featured Creatures articles that need to be changed. Is there an editor with a bot that can do this?

The requirement is to replace   creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/     with    entomology.ifas.ufl.edu/creatures/

Other links I will do myself, and they are probably just a few score.

128.227.117.219 (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Uhm I did not vandelize the mantis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.250.172.129 (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a note/question...
Dyanega, any chance of getting a few more people from UCR onto wikipedia? It really is a shame that soo few people in academia are on here.

Anyways I just wanted to stop by and ask...

Subverted (talk • contribs) 07:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

p.s. - UCR is an amazing campus with some of my favorite researchers, I was lucky enough to have a close family friend introduce me to a few of the professors and give me a bit of a tour.

Techinidae
Hello, User:Dysmorodrepanis recommending me to you (calling you one of the #1 insect experts on Wikipedia... I'm jealous :), well basically I need a reliable website that list the species and genera of Tachinidae. Bugboy52.4 (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say, but this doesn't really help with my problem, I still have outdated refs. Well first, a possibility is using maybe a list of refs that show at least some of Tachinidae (What about ITIS and nomen.at, they have a list, not saying its up-to date). And just one more thing though, what are you referring to when you say the Nomenclator?   Bugboy52.4 |  =-=  19:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you are right, but not all families have been done, but for now I guess I'll have to stick with the small ones, thanks for the help anyway, cheers.   Bugboy52.4 |  =-=  19:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:New photo, ID help please
Thanks for the ID! I took the liberty of cross-posting your answer to the Wikiproject Arthropods talk page, hope it's ok. Peace! Tom-b (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The Straight Dope
Hi. Did you write this? The person that did states to maintain the article on Colony collapse disorder. I see that you made edits around the publishing date. I also see that you are a entomologist like the guy that answered the question. --Ysangkok (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's me. I get around. ;-) Dyanega (talk)

Eumenes ?
File:MudDauberWaspBlr2.jpg File:MudDauberWaspBlr1.jpg - strangely it seems to be removing mud from another wasp nest (presumably that of a Sphecid ) and is taking it away to another nest which I am unable to locate. Shyamal (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's in the genus Eumenes, but it is certainly a Eumenine (a potter wasp). The taxonomy of this group in Asia is a mess, unfortunately. Peace, Dyanega (talk)

Taxodispute
Wonder if you could find some time to look at the issue on Talk:Nothomyrmecia_macrops. Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 04:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Good to hear about your new role. Noting that many of the things that you have been writing about for years are now becoming acceptable, it augurs well for all concerned. Good luck. Shyamal (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

yellow jackets/paper wasp
i have a group living in my ceiling and have no clue ... how do i get rid of them or not.. also they make the most amazing noise every so often is sounds like a purring ... what could that be.. thanks so much if you can help   dont know where the tildes button is so sorry christine67.183.224.148 (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, a group of anything - be they yellowjackets, hornets, paper wasps, or honey bees - IN YOUR HOME is not a good thing, and probably requires the assistance of a hired professional exterminator. The least worrisome (and the only one you might be okay to leave alone) would be paper wasps, but if you can hear them making noise, then they are almost certainly NOT paper wasps. Peace, Dyanega (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Cell towers
Thank you for being involved in the edit on CCD, with the article from India. I am happy with the information that is currently on the page, as no mention of the that set of references existed before. Though the study has not been fully published yet, I agree with you with how you have resolved the edit. Though I don't go as far as to label statements "sensationalist" that would be to take an extreme view on the opposite end of the information's presentation. Simply stating what was said, is not agreeing with the claims, but simply makes availible the information that [these ] claims were made as they rose to prominence and thus affected the focus of reports on CCD. I also appreciate the addition of more specific and detailed information on Mobile phone handsets and what they specifically produce magnetically, that was most helpful.

I do believe the edit is good in it's current state, though the sentence phrasing is somewhat confusing at times. I agree that it should be amended as more information becomes available. I'm also curious at to why there hasn't been any thoroughly published studies as of yet, that do show findings in this area. As CCD has become such a phenomenon one would think there would me more studies as to all possible causes.


 * Given that no bee researcher in the world thinks cell towers are a "possible cause" of CCD, there would be no incentive to perform such studies. Scientific inquiry does in fact tend to proceed from the most likely explanations to the least likely, successively ruling things out - it's called "Occam's Razor" and is rather fundamental to the whole scientific endeavor. It's not a matter of what is "possible", but rather what is "credible", and since CCD has apparently existed for decades - long before cell phones were invented - it's hard to treat the cell phone hypothesis as credible. Dyanega (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

IDs
Hi, I've uploaded some photos onto commons of some unknown insects and asked for IDs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arthropods, somebody there suggested you might be able to help ID them. Thanks Smartse (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Solifugae
I think the "Anatomy" section is slightly confusing as it is. I am offering this minor edit, primarily rearrangement with a small amount of added text. The reason I am submitting this is that several persons have come to me asking about "this thing like a spider but with 10 legs." The article has all the necessary information as is, but doesn't address the "ten legs" as directly as I have in this suggested edit. Since this page is protected, I can't edit directly:

Solifugids are moderate to large arachnids, with the larger species reaching 7 centimetres (2.8 in) in length. The body is divided into a forward part, or prosoma, and a segmented abdomen. The prosoma is divided into a relatively large anterior carapace, including the animal's eyes, and a smaller posterior section.

While Solifuges appear to have ten legs, they actually have eight legs. The the first pair of appendages are long pedipalps, which function as sense organs similar to insects' antennae and give the appearance of an extra pair of legs. The pedipalps terminate in eversible adhesive organs which are used for climbing and to capture flying prey. These are very strong and are used for various functions such as drinking, fighting, feeding and mating. Posterior to the pedipalps are the eight legs typical of all arachnids. The first pair of these legs are thin and short and used as tactile organs, so that only the other posterior six legs are used for running.[3] The fourth pair of legs are the longest and strongest and carry white structures called racket organs - the purpose of which is not known. [1]

The most distinctive feature of Solifugae is their large chelicerae, which are longer than the prosoma. Each of the two chelicerae are composed of two articles forming a powerful pincer; each article bears a variable number of teeth. They stridulate with their chelicerae, resulting in a rattling noise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mombat (talk • contribs) 02:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

James Thomson
You may not have noticed this deletion. I think you were one of those who added him, in May 2006. Strictly the deletion is in accordance with the rules, but it seems to be a bad idea. The legal way to reverse it is either to introduce a redlink reference to Thomson in some other article, which would then legitimise a redlink here, or, better, to create a stub article for him. I know very little about Thomson myself, and I suspect you are better placed then me to do this. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Your view sought
As a member of WP Arthropods, you might have a view on this discussion. Thanks in advance. Heds (talk) 03:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Dyanega! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Charles Duncan Michener -

Sokotra
Hi Doug,

A year ago, you created the article Sokotra for a genus in the Calliphoridae. I have just noticed that someone has expressed a doubt on its talk page that the genus exists, and I too can find no evidence. If anyone else but you had made it, I'd have prodded it already, but on this occasion, I thought I'd best check first, particularly since searching for details is hampered by an inconveniently named Yemeni island! Do you have a reference you could add? --Stemonitis (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rod (cryptozoology and ufology)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Rod (cryptozoology and ufology). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Rod (cryptozoology and ufology). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)