Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects

Potential identification issue with photos from commanster.eu (cross-post from Commons)
See discussion at Commons. (While this isn't necessarily just a problem for insect photos, the misidentified photos I've found so far are all of insects.) Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Silphidae (large carrion beetles) is now a subfamily of Staphylinidae (rove beetles)
See for instance and  (the latter is a ZooKeys article published today). This means that the following articles (among other things) will have to be renamed and updated: Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Silphidae → Silphinae
 * Nicrophorinae → Nicrophorini (Edit: Oh, my mistake, it's already named Nicrophorini but as the only tribe of the subfamily Nicrophorinae? Weird, but oh well. Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC) )
 * Silphinae → Silphini
 * Necrodini → Necrodina
 * Silphini → Silphina
 * Catalogue of Life recognises Nicrophorini < Silphinae < Staphylinidae, giving Staphbase as the source. The online version of Staphbase doesn't seem to be maintained but the editors are the authors of the new Zookeys article. CoL introduced a Staphbase classification in early 2022 with Nicrophorinae in Silphidae (see this deleted record; presumably based on the old Staphbase) and replaced it later that year. This seems a case where the source database uses CoL without its own online presence.
 * I've updated the Nicrophorini article to be on the tribe, explain the changed taxonomy, converted the taxobox to the automated system, updated the genera, and added a new Wikidata item for the tribe to the taxonbar.
 * The revised classification doesn't subdivisde Silphini into subtribes. In my opinion we need these changes:
 * Silphidae → Silphinae
 * Nicrophorinae → Nicrophorini ✅
 * Silphinae → Silphini
 * Necrodini and Silphini to redirects.
 * If we convert the old Silphinae tribes to subtribes we'd need a new source. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 10:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jts1882 The Scientific Reports article I linked mentions downgrading the former tribes to subtribes Necrodina and Silphina, though it is curious that they are not used in the main sources for the new classification (Cai et al. (2022), Bouchard et al. (2024), etc.). Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused by that Scientific Reports article (Růžička et al, 2023). In the introduction they say that as a consequence to the changes proposed by Cai et al, namely the downgrading of Nicrophorinae and Silphinae to tribes, the Necrodini and Silphini should be downgraded to subtribes. This is followed by a sentence saying "This classification is followed further in the text." The next paragraph says that "Silphina is paraphyletic with respect to Necrodina" (I assume this is using the downgraded classification). They then point out that Thayer and Newton[24] synonymised Necrodina with Silphini and that this was followed in the classification of Sikes[17,25], Růžička[14] and Newton[22]. Their own results confirm the paraphyly of Silphina with respect to Necrodina and they don't discuss it further. I don't think they retain the subtribes. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 14:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jts1882 ...I see what you mean, I didn't honestly read that far down into it. It was literally just the first source I found even mentioning downranking the former tribes to subtribes, which was maybe rather hasty of me. On second thoughts then, it seems best not to have those subtribes after all, yeah. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Pls create separate wikiprojects for each insect order.
This is a request because not all of us are interested in all insects and many of us are confined to one or more groups. it may help organise things better, too. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * There are separate WikiProject for three of four largest orders (beetles, Lepidoptera and Diptera), and a task force for the fourth (Hymenoptera). There are also WikiProject for two smaller orders (Mantodea and Phasmatodea). Lepidoptera is the only one that ever really had an active talk page. The talk page for WikiProject Insects itself isn't particularly active. While there are a lot of articles about insects, there aren't a lot of active editors working on insect articles. It's better to have discussion in one centralized place rather than scattered across a couple dozen subprojects. Plantdrew (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata identifiers for new Species Files databases
I've made a proposal to add nine new Species Files identifiers to Wikidata so they can be added to taxonbars. The new Species Files cover the polyneopteran orders Zoraptera, Dermaptera, Plecoptera, Grylloblattodea, Mantophasmatodea, Embioptera and "Isoptera", as well as hemipteran groups Aphidomorpha and Coleorrhyncha.

Please contribute to the discussion at d:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Identifiers_for_Species_Files_databases. I think support has to be added to each proposal separately. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 15:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for supporting my proposal for the new Wikidata identifiers for the new Species Files databases. Unfortunately, the way I set up the proposal with one general section and nine individual identifier proposals was not the appropriate way. The general section where you added your support (at d:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Identifiers_for_Species_Files_databases) has been removed from proposal page (at d:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Natural_science. After added support for four of the proposals, identifiers were created (,, wdp|P12751}} and ), but that still leaves proposals for the Plecoptera, Grylloblattodea, Mantophasmatodea, Aphid and Coleorrhyncha Species Files needing support by someone other than me.
 * In addition I've created a proposal for a new Orthoptera Species Files identifier to use the new IDs in the updated database. I don't know if they will prefer a new identifier or to get a bot to update the >30,000 wikidata items using the old SF database. I'll see what happens with this proposal before creating proposals for others that have been updated. —  Jts1882  &#124; talk 17:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Species Files Databases
 * Polyneoptera (all orders covered)
 * Zoraptera Species File
 * Dermaptera Species File
 * Plecoptera Species File
 * Orthoptera Species File
 * Grylloblattodea Species File
 * Mantophasmatodea Species File
 * Embioptera Species File
 * Phasmida Species File
 * Mantodea Species File (pending)
 * Cockroach Species File
 * Isoptera Species File
 * Psocodea Species File
 * Hemiptera (partial coverage)
 * Aphid Species File
 * Coleorrhyncha Species File
 * Coreoidea Species File (pending)
 * Lygaeoidea Species File
 * 3i World Auchenorrhyncha Database
 * Nine new species files identifiers have been created:, , , , , , , , and . I don't know the timetable for when Wikidata will get populated with the data.
 * The remaining issue is with the species files that already had wikidata identifier, which have different id numbers in the updated database. The old ones now redirect to the archived sites, so I've suggested new identifiers for the updated identifier. I've created a new proposal for the Orthoptera Species File and if that is accepted I'll create the other proposals (for Phasmida, Mandodea, cockroach, Psocodea, Lygaeoidea and Coreoidea). —  Jts1882  &#124; talk 15:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Identifier has been created for new version of the Orthoptera Species File.
 * I've now created proposals for the other four species files with existing identifiers that have been updated, which need support:
 * d:Wikidata:Property proposal/Lygaeoidea Species File taxon ID
 * d:Wikidata:Property proposal/Psocodea Species File taxon ID
 * d:Wikidata:Property proposal/Cockroach Species File taxon ID
 * d:Wikidata:Property proposal/Phasmida Species File taxon ID
 * That will complete the IDs for the new Taxonworks Species Files. There are two others under development with previews on GitHub but they are not live yet. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 12:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * All the Species Files that have been updated to TaxonWorks now have new Wikidata identifiers that will appear in taxonbar. It may take some time for a bot to populate Wikidata. Two more Species Files are pending an update and have developmental version on GitHub, but are not live yet.
 * I've also created cite speciesfile, which is a citation template that wraps cite web and will automatically add website and editors parameters. —  Jts1882  &#124; talk 12:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone have details about Pyrops and Scamandra species in Nagai & Porion 1996, 2002, and 2004?
I would like to know: The exact island where Pyrops jefferyi is found on. Exact island on which Scamandra agnes and shiinae are found on. Details about Pyrops ochracea and its distribution Uploader1234567890 (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See the map at https://flow.hemiptera-databases.org/flow/?page=explorer&db=flow&lang=en&card=taxon&rank=species&id=17232 for Scamandra agnes (Lesser Sunda Islands, but not exact islands) and https://flow.hemiptera-databases.org/flow/?page=explorer&db=flow&lang=en&card=taxon&rank=species&id=17236 for Scamandra shiinae (Sumatra). —  Jts1882  &#124; talk 17:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am looking for the exact island. For shiinae I wonder whether it is from mentawai islands. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Nagai & Porion 2004 is not available on the web so you'd need to find a library or purchase the book (e.g. here. Alternatively, the holotype is at the Musée d'Histoire Naturelle de Lyon, but they don't have an online catalogue. The exact location might not be available as the FLOW website says Sumatra with no further information and I assume they have access to Nagai & Porion 2004. You could try emailing Thierry Bourgoin at FLOW (email in the contact page). —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 08:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ((...I assume that they have access to Nagai & Porion 2004...))
 * Funny thing, you may assume that he does have those papers but the truth is not. If you want to inspect on this, then see this paper, and then the notes I have given below in this comment:
 * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280083896_Review_of_the_effusus_group_of_the_Lanternfly_genus_Pyrops_Spinola_1839_with_one_new_species_and_notes_on_trophobiosis_Hemiptera_Fulgoromorpha_Fulgoridae (Page 3)
 * On page 3, It is written as follows:
 * "Nagai & Porion 1996 ... They synonymized dimotus and sapphirinus with cyanirostris ..."
 * I have no recent paper published after their works revising their status. So why aren't they synonyized on FLOW?
 * Another proof that they had synonized sapphirinus is here:
 * https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/35993029
 * There in the notes it's written:
 * "...I follow Nagai & Porion 1996, who synonomized Pyrops sapphirinus with P. cyanirostris..."
 * I hope you understand. If you know some Wikipedia who does have all 3 (1996, 2002 and ) Uploader1234567890 (talk) 10:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Potential significant change to species notability
Over on Wikipedia talk:Notability‎, several editors are working on a draft proposal to replace our current notability guidelines for species (all species are notable) with something much more restrictive (only species that go beyond certain limited pieces of information would be allowed their own articles). If you have opinions on this issue, now would be a good time to weigh in there. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Where can I find a simple physical description of a termite
For Microhodotermes viator; I can't find a physical description anywhere beyond these body length figures. ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 13:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * , there's a description (as Hodotermes viator) starting on the bottom of this page . There's quite a bit more about it on the 9 previous pages (mostly discussing it in relation to similar species, but also including Latreille's original description (in French)). Plantdrew (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)