User talk:Vitalfranz

Please do not change classification of Coleoptera
Hi. I have reverted your changes to Cerambycidae; the accepted classification is the one that was listed in the article, and it needs to be consistent across both Wikipedia and Wikispecies. Please do not change it unless you can demonstrate that the entire community of world coleopterists has agreed upon the changes. Dyanega 21:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have un-reverted the changes except that at the superfamily level; I can find no evidence that anyone recognizes "Cerambycoidea" as a valid superfamily (it is an archaic concept), and it seems highly unlikely, as it would render Chrysomeloidea paraphyletic. Further clarification regarding the family/subfamily classification; the most recent authoritative catalog and classification of Cerambycidae was linked - the checklist of Monne, 2006. If you wish to treat Vesperinae as a family that includes Anoplodermatinae, and treat Oxypeltinae as a family, and Disteniinae, then PLEASE provide recent authoritative work that indicates that these classificatory changes are accepted within the community. Preferrably, authoritative work that post-dates 2006. If your only reference is the 1997 one you list for the Vesperidae, then this work has not met with general acceptance regarding classificatory changes. The placement of Disteniidae as a family in 1963 was also not generally accepted - again, please provide a newer authoritative work. Same for Oxypeltidae. Ultimately, it is HIGHLY disputable that these taxa are "generally" considered families. They are rarely considered families; I can find virtually no modern references to Cerambycid classification that assigns these taxa ranks above subfamily. If you can provide such references, then we can see how to make the necessary changes to accommodate. Dyanega 22:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I note that even in your own publications as recently as 2005 (VITALI F., 2005a - Vesperus strepens m. litigiosus Mulsant, 1862 new species for Italy (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Vesperinae) - Lambillionea CV (2): 331-334.) you still treated Vesperinae as a subfamily. The point here is that Wikipedia is intended to reflect the opinions of the scientific community, rather than individual editors, even those who publish on Cerambycids, as you and I both do. In the case of taxonomic classification, only ONE hierarchy can be adopted, so it is generally preferrable to use the classification that is most widely in use. Wikipedia is not the place for "cutting-edge" or controversial changes, until and unless they seem to be adopted by a substantial subset of the interested community of authorities. It is fine to state that there is disagreement within the scientific community, and mention that alternative classifications exist, but this must be EXPLICIT, and should be given with citations demonstrating the differing opinions. Again, if this ULTIMATELY leads to changes in the classification used in Wikipedia, that can be perfectly acceptable, but substantial changes of this nature need to be backed up with citations, and discussed among the editors if there is a potential for dispute - as there is in the present case. Yes, I am a publishing authority on Cerambycidae, and I am happy to discuss whatever changes you feel are needed, and whatever evidence you may have to support these changes - but please do not simply make controversial changes without any discussion. Wikipedia is supposed to be collaborative. Dyanega 22:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Cerambycds Systematics
Dear Dyanega ,

I agree with you about the fact that Wikipedia is supposed to be collaborative and not a field of short-cut position. I agree about the fact that Wikipedia should contain as wide as POSSIBLE LARGE agreement, but your claim that the entire community of entomologists (as well as people) should agree about a (systematic) conception is pure utopia. You are surely free to revert all statements that do not agree with such premises and that reflect only personal opinions.

Just basing on these premises I permitted to myself to change the outdated systematics of Wikipedia. The premise to use Monne's check-list, 2006 as basic systematic is your choice; nonetheless, it is a decision that can be submitted to be criticized for several aspects. Firstly, this check-list regards only the American Cerambycoidea and it is not comprehensive of the world-wide fauna. Secondly, the author does not mention important papers about the systematic position of Cerambycoidea, since such papers do not regard the American Fauna. Thirdly, it is only a check-list, but the author takes autonomously some NEW taxonomic position, without providing any justification. This fact might be interesting, but it is scientifically invalid. Fourthly, the author has focused his studies only on the Taxonomy of the South American Cerambycoidea. He did not write any papers about other fauna; about pre-imaginal stadia; about ecology, about faunistic and paleo-faunistic, about fossil species, about systematics. Even if I personally know and estimate this scientist, I have some doubts about the fact that such check-list should be an authoritative work about the systematics of Cerambycoidea. The proof is the fact that Monne's checklist considers Parandrini as the most primitive group, a concept used by Lameere (1912) but outdated for 70 years, when Saalas (1936) proved that Parandrini are only evolved Prioninae. Hence, the decision to use ONLY this check-list, without any doubt helpful for American entomologists, is at least pretentious.

About the fact that such "subfamilies" are rarely considered families I send you the papers from the Web, where the authors considered these groups as families. I can also collect some more papers but I do not have enough time. Your claim to read "authoritative papers written after 2006" is a little bit pretentious, since even 2007 is not ended yet... It is important to underline the fact that one author considers a group as subfamily (rather than as family) is significant ONLY IF such author declares his choice, since he might not know different systematic  statements, especially if new (such as me, in the case of Vesperus). Moreover, in order to be a scientific statement, such choice MUST BE EXPLAINED, not simply declared without any reasons.

VesperiDae Not VesperinAe Only VIVES ( 2004 - Révision du genre Vesperus Dejean, 1821- Annales de la Societe Entomologique de France 40:437-457 http://www.cababstractsplus.org/google/abstract.asp?AcNo=20053150471 ) did  not consider Vesperidae as family; nonetheless he does not provide any reason.
 * BENSE U., 1995 - Longhorn beetles. Illustrated key to the Cerambycidae and Vesperidae of Europe - Margraf Verlag, Weikersheim, 512 pp. http://shop.insect.cz/popup_image.php?pID=100
 * SAN MARTÍN A. F., BREGAÑA M., IRURZUN J. I. R. 1997 - Nuevos datos sobre la fauna navarra de longicornios (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae & Vesperidae) - Zapateri: revista aragonesa de entomología 7: 191-208 http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=307834
 * JENIŠ I., 2001 - Long-Horned Beetles Distenidae, Oxypeltidae, Vesperidae, Anoplodermatidae & Cerambycidae I, Vesperidae and Cerambycidae of Europe I, A. Regulus, Zlin, 333 p http://www.coleoptera.org/p1293.htm
 * VANIN S. A. & IDE S., 2002 - Classificação comentada de Coleoptera - III. Marco sistemático del proyecto Pribes 2002 http://www.sea-entomologia.org/PDF/M3M_PRIBES_2002/193_206_Vanin.pdf
 * BRUSTEL H., BERGER P. & COCQUEMPOT C. 2002 Catalogue des Vesperidae et des Cerambycidae de la faune de France (Coleoptera) - Annales de la Societé entomologique de France (N. S.) 38 (4): 443-461 http://perso.orange.fr/.../lassoc/atlas_longicornes/Catalogue_Cerambycides%20(Brustel_et_al,2002).pdf
 * DIAS M. M. 2004 - Novas ocorrências e descrição da fêmea de Mysteria darwini (Lameere) (Coleoptera, Vesperidae, Anoplodermatinae) Revista Brasileira de Entomologia 48 (1): 141-143 http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbent/v48n1/19926.pdf
 * LIN, M. Y., CHEN, S. K., & CHANG, H. Y. 2004. - Morphological and ecological studies of Philus antennatus. Plant Prot. Bull. 46: 177-180 http://www.pps.org.tw/pdf/ppb46-2-9.pdf
 * MACHADO L. A., HABIB M., LEITE L. G. & MENDES J. M. 2006 - Estudos ecológicos e comportamentais de Migdolus fryanus (Westwood, 1863) (Coleoptera: Vesperidae), em cultura de cana-de-açúcar, em quatro municípios do estado de São Paulo Arquivos Do Instituto Biologico (São Paulo), 73 (2): 227-233 http://www.biologico.sp.gov.br/arquivos/V73_2/machado.PDF
 * MACHADO L. A. & HABIB M.,. 2006 - Migdolus fryanus (Westwood, 1863) (Coleoptera: Vesperidae): praga da cultura de cana-de-açúcar -Arquivos Do Instituto Biologico (São Paulo), 73 (3): 375-381 http://www.biologico.sp.gov.br/arquivos/v73_3/machado.pdf

DisteniiDae NOT DisteniiNae The opposite positions can be found in *SANTOS_SILVA & HOVORE 2007 - Divisão do gênero Distenia Lepeletier & Audinet-Serville, notas sobre a venação alar em Disteniini, Homonímias, Sinonímia e Redescrições (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Disteniinae). Pap. Avulsos Zool. 47 (1): 1-29.http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_pdf&pid=S0031-10492007000100001&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=pt Nonetheless, you can notice that, the entomologists that claim a family rank provided reasons, while those who did not accept this rank provided any reasons. Note that Disteniidae is subfamily only according to Santos-Silva personal opinion....
 * GRESSITT J.L. & RONDON J.A., 1970 - Cerambycids of Laos (Disteniidae, Prioninae, Philinae, Aseminae, Lepturinae, Cerambycinae) - Pae. Insects Monogr. 24: 1-314.
 * CHEMSAK, J. A. & LINSLEY.E.G., 1982 - Checklist of the Cerambycidae and Disteniidae of North America,Central America, and the West Indies (Coleoptera). Plexus Publ. Inc., 138 p.
 * NAPP D. S. 1994 - Phylogenetic relationships among the subfamilies of Cerambycidae (Coleoptera, Chrysomeloidea) - Revista Brasileira de Entomologia 28 (2): 265-419.
 * MONNÉ, M.A. & E.F. GIESBERT. 1995 - Checklist of the Cerambycidae and Disteniidae (Coleoptera) of the Western Hemisphere -Wolfsgarden Books, Burbank, Calif. xiv + 420 pp.
 * SCHIEFER, T.L. 1998 - A preliminary list of the Cerambycidae and Disteniidae (Coleoptera) of Mississippi. -Transactions of the American Entomological Society 124 (2): 113-131.
 * JENIŠ I., 2001 - Long-Horned Beetles Distenidae, Oxypeltidae, Vesperidae, Anoplodermatidae & Cerambycidae I, Vesperidae and Cerambycidae of Europe I, A. Regulus, Zlin, 333 pp. http://www.coleoptera.org/p1293.htm
 * MARTINS U. R. & GALILEO M. H. M., 2001 Novos táxons de Disteniidae (Coleoptera) neotropicais - Iheringia, Sér. Zool. (90): 15-20 http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0073-47212001000100002&script=sci_arttext
 * BACHMANN A. O. & DI IORIO O. R. 2002 - Types and related specimens of Cerambycidae and Disteniidae (Coleoptera) in the Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales "Bernardino Rivadavia", Buenos Aires, Argentina Rev. Mus. Argentino Cienc. Nat., n.s. 4 (1):55-93 http://www.macn.gov.ar/cont_Publicaciones/Rns-Vol04-1_055-093.pdf
 * MAKIHARA H. NOERDJITO W. A. & SUGIARTO, 2002 - Longicorn Beetles from Gunung Halimun National Park, West Java, Indonesia from 1997 (Coleoptera, Disteniidae and Cerambycidae) - Bulletin of FFPRI 1 (3) (No. 384): 189-223 http://ss.ffpri.affrc.go.jp/labs/kanko/384-4.html
 * VANIN S. A. & IDE S., 2002 - Classificação comentada de Coleoptera - III. Marco sistemático del proyecto Pribes 2002 http://www.sea-entomologia.org/PDF/M3M_PRIBES_2002/193_206_Vanin.pdf
 * ADLBAUER K, 2004 - Neue Disteniidae und Cerambycidae aus Afrika und Seychellen (Coleoptera) - "Les Cahiers Magellanes" 37 http://217.19.61.228/magellanes/magellanes_cahiers.html
 * ADLBAUER K. 2006- Weitere neue Bockkäfer aus der Äthiopischen Region (Coleoptera, Disteniidae und Cerambycidae- "Les Cahiers Magellanes" 55 http://http://217.19.61.228/magellanes/magellanes_cahiers.html
 * VITALI F., 2006 - Contribution à la connaissance des Nethinius malgaches (Coleoptera Disteniidae) - L'Entomologiste 62 (5-6):175-178 http://http://www.cerambycoidea.com/papersEl.asp?Id=&Lett=V&NPag=2
 * FUJIWARA J. & HAYASHI M., 2007 - Incect Fauna of Shakunouchi Park in Unnan City, Shimane Prefecture, Part 1 Disteniidae, Cerambycidae and Chrysomalidae (Coleoptera: Chrysomeloidea) - Bulletin of the Hoshizaki Green Foundation 10: 211-223 http://www.green-f.or.jp/heya/hayashi/no10pdf/shakunoutihamusi.PDF

OxypeltiDae not OxypeltiNae
 * NAPP D. S. 1994 - Phylogenetic relationships among the subfamilies of Cerambycidae (Coleoptera, Chrysomeloidea). Revista Brasileira de Entomologia 28 (2): 265-419.
 * VANIN S. A. & IDE S., 2002 - Classificação comentada de Coleoptera - III. Marco sistemático del proyecto Pribes 2002 http://www.sea-entomologia.org/PDF/M3M_PRIBES_2002/193_206_Vanin.pdf

Definitively, I' be happy to open a discussion inside Wikipedia in order to find a satisfactory systematics for cerambycids that could include a as large as possible common point of view. Thank you for the collaboration, Vitalfranz


 * As a first review of the literature you cite above, the only taxa for which there appears to be published phylogenetic evidence are Disteniidae and Oxypeltidae. I see no works that establish the monophyly or independence of Vesperidae from the remainder of the Cerambycidae, nor supporting the recognition of Cerambycoidea as distinct from Chrysomeloidea. The Vanin & Ide reference, for example, lists "Vesperidae" but gives no explanation for its elevation. Evidently, it and several other cited references simply follow Svacha, Wang & Chen 1997 for the recognition of Vesperidae; I cannot find any online versions of the Svacha et al. document, so I cannot tell whether it is a phylogenetic analysis, or if it is a classification based solely upon larval morphology.


 * If there are no publications supporting the delineation of these taxa, and if there is a dispute as to the utility of recent checklists, then the default approach for Wikipedia is to use the most recent standard authoritative classification available. At this point, that standard is probably ITIS/GBIF, which recognizes all of the taxa in question as subfamilies of Cerambycidae (see for placement of vesperines). Given the existence of published phylogenies supporting Disteniidae and Oxypeltidae, I would say that treating these as families in Wikipedia should be acceptable, though I would suggest leaving it as Vesperinae pending future clarification of the phylogeny of the various cerambycid lineages. The basic premise is simple; for the purposes of Wikipedia, changes should wait until it is evident that reversion of the change is unlikely. If it seemed possible or likely, for example, that a future molecular study would sink Disteniidae and Oxypeltidae back into Cerambycidae, making such changes would be undesirable. I have not heard of any impending molecular phylogenies of the Cerambycidae (s.l.) - it would certainly be helpful to have some idea of how much congruence there is between the molecular data and the present alternative classifications.


 * It is an interesting thing that authors and authorities from North America seem to almost universally treat Cerambycidae as a single large family, rather than recognizing any of the constituent taxa (even Linsley & Chemsak's elevation of Disteniidae was largely reverted in much subsequent literature); I can only suppose that it is due to a much greater emphasis on the explicit use of phylogenetics as a basis for classification (i.e., that taxa should be demonstrably monophyletic), yielding a far more conservative overall classification. Dyanega 21:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Jaguarundi
You're doing it wrong, too. See MSW3: http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/browse.asp?id=14000211 - UtherSRG (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. I tried to change only the scientific name, but the link from genus page was not functioning. However, the scientific name was a mistake, while the link to common name is only a preference... --Vitalfranz (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand me. You too had used an incorrect scientific name. yagouaroundi is what MSW3 says is correct. You had left off the second "u". - UtherSRG (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Your view sought
As a member of WP Arthropods, you might have a view on this discussion. Thanks in advance. Heds (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Beetle id
...this one. Hoping for an id. prashanthns (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Romania
--Codrin.B (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Ways to improve Xylotrupes socrates
Hi, I'm Nick Moyes. Vitalfranz, thanks for creating Xylotrupes socrates!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. There are a few problems with this page which, as a professional entomologist, I'm sure you would agree with. Firstly the subspecies section contains no text, and the two references relate to the wrong taxon (X.gideon). The only scientific paper referring to nomenclature of the genus doesn't appear (at a quick glance) to list X.socrates. And all the section on beetle fighting is irrelevant to just this taxon, and should be moved elsewhere...either in the genus page, or the WP:REDIRECT page for Beetle fighting should be brought back into use, and no longer allowed to point to Cricket fighting. Not only that, but the beetle fighting refs are very old, and don't all function, and text appears to have been copy-pasted from some of those sources. Let me know if you need help resolving any of these issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Nick Moyes (talk) 09:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Edward Newman (entomologist)
What do you mean?Xx236 (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to omit the name of the page Acalolepta vastator.Xx236 (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tarpela micans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fabricius ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Tarpela_micans check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Tarpela_micans?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Philematium festivum moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Philematium festivum, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)