Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lepidoptera/Archive9

The adjective "sinous"
The typo team's "moss" project has come across the word sinous with initially 39 hits in English Wikipedia (see here). The majority of them are in moth articles, which is why I'm asking for help here. For example, Axinoptera subcostalis has a "prominent curved slightly sinous black postmedial line." Team members assume this is a typo for sinuous, but I wonder if it's a topic-specific jargon word. Is this a valid (possibly archaic) adjective used in lepidopteral natural history? David Brooks (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sinous is not a word I can identify with moths, but sinology is the study of Chinese, so is unlikely to be the correct word. Look up sinous and you get hits for Sino-US relations. Sinuous means wavy, which makes more sense for the description of a line. Searching the reference given for Axinoptera subcostalis there is no description, just a list of species, so the word didn't come from there. Agreed we shouldn't "fix" this probable typo without some research, but the likelihood is that it is a typo when used in the description of a line.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  21:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I looked at two uses of sinous in moth articles. At Scopula adeptaria, where the description seems to be adapted from the first full paragraph at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/180173#page/462/mode/1up, it should definitely be "sinuous". Its similar at Berta chrysolineata based on the last paragraph and beginning of the next page at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/180173#page/546/mode/1up, again definitely "sinuous". I suspect the person who originally wrote those articles made a series of mistakes all the same way and they are just typos for sinuous. Good to check though. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   22:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Most likely the correct guess. I'll get the team to fix the rest. Thanks, moth fans. David Brooks (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (was writing this at the same time as the two above) Let me start out with—I am not an expert, just interested in Lepidoptera. A quick search on Google Books with the word sinous and moth and it comes up. That's probably how it came to be on Wikipedia. It also appears on Google Scholar and it does seem to indicate wavy. It comes up enough, even in new research that I would be skeptical about changing it. It may very well have started as a typo and is now just an acceptable alternate spelling. In the case of Axinoptera subcostalis, it seems like a typo—the text that was cited used the wordexcurved. Note that the book is from 1895 and spells sinuous correctly throughout it. I suspect that this would require research in every article to try to figure out if the word was used because it was in the cited text or if it was simply misspelled. I am not sure if your team does that sort of work or could tag articles so that folks updating those articles could research it. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 22:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * IMHO,, this would cause too much extra (and unnecessary) work. Sinuous is a word in modern English that readers will understand, and if sinous is an archaic term that means more or less the same thing, then it would make sense to replace it. It would save people having to look up the word sinous.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  12:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Totally get that it would take time. Based on their project page, it seems that the Typo Team are already visiting each article to make changes. My comments above were made not realizing this. I was specifically concerned about quotes (MOS:SIC). Amazing works those folks are doing. Put a smile on my face this morning.PopularOutcasttalk2me! 12:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * - smiles: very important; more so than "sic-ness". Cheers!  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  12:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm grateful for the suggestion not to cause extra work. My concern is that the generalists in the team would mis-correct a valid jargon word out of ignorance (or hubris) and I'm trying to put the brakes on that within the project. Still, as you seem to agree, a correction is not only OK, it's probably correct :-) David Brooks (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Empty 'Butterflies described in' cats
A number of missing butterfly described in cats were created recently (ping to ). Unfortunately, a small subset of them, these 12, are currently empty. Hopefully, they can all be populated. If not, and there is no reason to think they will ever be populated, then they should be deleted. Also, Category:Butterflies described in 2012 was conspicuously omitted, perhaps based on that premise? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hybrids
Hi, possibly a dumb question about hybrids, but are they inherently notable in the same way that valid species are inherently notable? Ie, is Graellsia isabellae × Actias selene a necessary article (given the fact that it's only got two sources it doesn't seem to meet GNG), or should there just be a note in each respective species that they can interbreed? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My first instinct was to agree with your second suggestion,, but it might be interesting to know more about how the hybridisation came about, given the geographical separation of the two species; it might be notable for that in itself. Worth a closer look, I think.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  09:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's funny, because my instinct was to think that the novelty would make it less article-worthy - ie, if it's just a one-off curiosity, then it would be less inherently notable as a species. Based on a Google-translate-aided skim of that French article, it looks like it was bred in a lab to study the phylogeny of G. isabellae, so it's not naturally-occurring. I can't find any other references, but I think it's partly down to Google treating "Graellsia isabellae × Actias selene" as "Graellsia isabellae Actias selene" and returning results that have nothing to do with a hybrid. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 10:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The article from Insectes (revue), that the Wikipedia article cites, makes it clear that the hybridisation was the result of an effort to produce hybrids in captivity. The intergeneric aspect is interesting, with possible taxonomic implications. William Avery (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing the simple part-answer to this is to add a note on the articles of each of the species with the French ref, then if the hybrid article itself is deemed non-notable and is deleted (not a decision I'm inclined to make), the research will be preserved.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  15:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I'm going to document it in each species, then redirect to G. isabellae, since that was the focus of the research. Thank you for your input :) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I did document it in each species (I should have said earlier, sorry) but not the redirect.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  23:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh crap, that's what I get for not looking at the articles before I replied :| Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you hadn't done the work, I just hadn't realized. I've done the redirect now so it's all taken care of. Thanks again :) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries; good team work! Cheers, Tony  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  00:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I ran into Bombyx hybrid and Bombyx second hybrid recently and had similar thoughts. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   23:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting; there may be more out there: some in Category:Hybrid animals.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  00:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Renaming of pages when Latin names changed
Can anyone please advise me what the go is with changing page names if the species is renamed? I am thinking about Spilosoma glatignyi which has been renamed to Ardices glatignyi in this instance. Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * - You'll find what you need here: WP:MOVE. If there is reliable evidence for the name change, you can do it yourself; otherwise you can propose the move. Hope this helps.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  13:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your help Tony. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Incertae sedis (Lymantriinae), Incertae sedis (Arctiinae), Incertae sedis (Arctiini), and Incertae sedis (Lithosiini)
I found these odd articles: Incertae sedis (Lymantriinae), Incertae sedis (Arctiinae), Incertae sedis (Arctiini), and Incertae sedis (Lithosiini). I think they would be better titled as Lymantriinae incertae sedis, Arctiinae incertae sedis, Arctiini incertae sedis, and Lithosiini incertae sedis respectively. That is the more common way to refer to them, and it doesn't look like a disambiguator for a type of incertae sedis. Andother alternative would be to merge each to Lymantriinae, Arctiinae, Arctiini, and Lithosiini respectively, but my vote is for renames. --Nessie (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me, with the note that they should be formatted as Lymantriinae incertae sedis etc. Thanks, SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   03:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Can we make the article title part italics? AshLin (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * DISPLAYTITLE lets you do that. Guettarda (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * What's the point of these articles? They can't say anything about the group of genera, other than that their placement in a minor rank is uncertain. Merge with the higher level taxa. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Lepidoptera is suggested for deletion
Portal:Lepidoptera is currently at Miscellany for deletion, see: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lepidoptera. The portal's history is complex and unclear to me, but it looks to have been moved from the title "Butterflies and moths" and then automated. Project members might be able to shed some light on what the original portal was like. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Another opinion: in 2015, a tentative portal was launched, then quite immediately abandoned. Three years later, an automated version was launched, "that encountered some critics". In any case, [|Portal:Lepidoptera wmflabs] only shows a poor number of views. Pldx1 (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Moreover, it has been suggested at Template talk:WikiProject Lepidoptera to describe this portal as recognized by your WikiProject. I am not so sure this is the case. Pldx1 (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Subscribe to new Tree of Life Newsletter!
Despite the many Wikipedians who edit content related to organisms/species, there hasn't been a Tree of Life Newsletter...until now! If you would like regular deliveries of said newsletter, please add your name to the subscribers list. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Pre-Linnaean first description
This is a pedantic and potentially arcane point, and I don't want to take editorial action without discussion. I was looking at the entry for the poplar hawk moth, Laothoe populi, and noticed that it is said to be "first described by Linnaeus (1758)". This statement always rings alarm bells with me, because in many groups, including Lepidoptera, Linnaeus was typically not the actual first describer of the species, but only (by definition) the first to give it a taxonomically valid name while doing so. Although Linnaeus described the poplar hawk moth as Sphinx populi L. (Syst. Nat. 1758), he explicitly makes reference to his own previous description in Fauna Suecica (1746), though that is, of couse, a pre-binomial text, and the moth is there both described and named (page 249: copy on Google Books) as ''810. Phalaena prismicornis spirilinguis, alis planiusculis erosis griseis, antennis albis''. Linnaeus also, both here and in ''Syst. Nat.'', gives the name of De Geer, though this might only indicate a previous illustration by De Geer, not an actual description. (Syst. Nat. also cites three other earlier authors: Wilkes, Roesel, and Albin.)

It's not exactly an issue of crucial scientific importance, but I think there is a tendency to overlook and minimize the work of taxonomists prior to Linnaeus, on whose work he based much of his nomenclature, simply because their work is not taxonomically "valid" in modern nomenclature, and so is of interest only to historians of science, not to working taxonomists. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * That's a really interesting point and it's one I've wondered about. Clearly Aristotle described species and undoubtedly many people around the world gave significant thought to them and had names for them before Carle Linnaeus or some other modern scientist came around. I've justified our system in my head by linking in text to Species description, which has the sentence "However, the earliest recognized species authority is Linnaeus, who standardized the modern taxonomy system beginning with his Systema Naturae in 1735." That seems to say that we recognize that what we are referencing is artificial and only meaningful in the little world of scientific naming, but we aren't claiming that this is really the first description. Still, I'm not fully comfortable with it.


 * I'd be interested to hear others' thoughts. This might be worth moving to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life as it goes well beyond Lepidoptera. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 21:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * That was a fascinating read, and it should definitely be included in the species article if it is not already. I would think you could also put the pre-Linnean names in the speciesbox as synonyms, but the year of description should be Linnaeus'.  --Nessie (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussing pre-Linnaean names in the text is fine, but they are emphatically not synonyms and should not be in taxoboxes. "Synonym" has a technical meaning in a taxobox; a taxonomic synonym must itself be a name with a status under one of the codes of nomenclature. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree: pre-Linnaean names are not relevant to the modern taxonomy. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Big Butterfly Count (UK)
This survey may interest project members in the UK. The survey runs until 11 August.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  23:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

How to write names of entomologists
I noticed that the article Aemene maculifascia seems to say "Moore" and link it to Frederic Moore. But then I realized the manual of style doesn't seem to say anything about whether people should be called by their full name, their last name, their first name or something else. So if texts about entomology always use the last name if the person is well known enough within the field (which I don't know much about), then I'd leave it the way it is. And seeing as it's a stub with nothing but the WikiProject on the talk page, I figured I should ask here, as people knowing about the topic are probably more likely to look here than on the talk page of a random article within field. So yeah, if I'm not sure if an edit should be made, I'm probably letter off asking than doing it first and then asking. I'll link here from the talk page of the article in case that makes it easier to notice for the people that edited the article. – Pretended leer { talk } 17:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , there is a MOS for organisms. While it is technically a "draft" and not "official", it seems like it is widely adhered to. See Manual of Style/Organisms. Botany has specific standards for authority formatting, but it's generally suggested on the MOS When one is provided, an author's name should be linked if there is an article to link to, and should not be abbreviated in absence of a link. Enwebb (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, ! – Pretended leer { talk } 18:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources about entomology generally only use one name; for example, "the species was described by Moore in 1986", but Wikipedia is not bound by the style of those specialist sources. Since there are so many people named Moore, or for that matter most names, Wikipedia's general practice is to give people's full name on first reference. See MOS:SURNAME. I regularly change sentences from:
 * "described by Moore in 1906" to
 * "described by Frederic Moore in 1906".


 * However we do generally follow the convention of using a single name in an infobox or abbreviated reference to a species e.g. "this species is similar to Aethria splendens (Jörgensen, 1935) ."


 * A harder question for me has been when to use an initial or initials when there are several people with the same name. For instance I've used T. B. Fletcher, D. S. Fletcher, W. Fletcher and J. Fletcher. I'd love to see some standardization on that, but that hasn't happened yet. Thank you for asking and keep up the good work. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 23:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, if, for any common surname, initials are provided in any taxonomic database or taxonomic publication (i.e. a reliable source), the initials should be included in any taxonomic authority citations in Wikipedia. Zoology doesn't have standard authority abbreviations like botany does. Common surnames can apply to multiple zoological taxonomists working in a particular field. There is no reason to omit initials (making it harder to determine which zoologist a surname applies to) if the initials can be sourced. For botanists, Wikipedia follows IPNI which omits spaces in authorities (i.e. IPNI uses the format A.B.Smith, not A.B. Smith or A. B. Smith). This is not a standard practice in all botanical sources, and shouldn't necessarily guide practice in citing zoological authority initials. Include initials when available, formatting isn't settled.Plantdrew (talk)

WikiProject Lepidoptera is too large for some maintenance tasks to run
Not that anyone needs to do anything, but ya'll should probably be aware that some tools, such as HotArticlesBot will not run on WikiProject Lepidoptera because it is too big, in this case greater than 50,000 pages. I'm sure there are other potential issues out there, so keep an eye out. --Nessie (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Reference formats
I'd appreciate feedback on the format of the references below. I've been using these formats for a while and if anyone has suggestions, I'll incorporate them. I use "templates" (not Wikipedia templates) in my userspace to create these; those are at User:SchreiberBike/Workspace.

I just figured out how to read the date on Savela/Lepidoptera and Some Other Life Forms site and I'm sure there are other things I don't know about.

There's also LepIndex which looks like:

Thank you, SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 23:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * , these look good to me. I also have cite web templates with non-variable values filled in saved in my workspace for sites I repeatedly use as references. I look for any expressed preference for citation format on the website in question and use that to fill out the cite web I save. For references that have a doi, I generate a reference template with this tool. Plantdrew (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

First annual Tree of Life Decemberween contest
After all the fun with the Spooky Species Contest last month, there's a new contest for the (Northern hemisphere's) Winter holidays at WikiProject Tree of Life/Contest. It's not just Christmas, but anything festive from December-ish. Feel free to add some ideas to the Festive taxa list and enter early and often. --Nessie (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

List of [Family] genera
Anyone up for helping me check our various genera lists? I've been poking slightly at some of them, and from what I've seen...ouch. Badly outdated. Who knows how many missing genera, while simultaneously filled to the brim with synonyms (and some of those haven't been considered valid for longer than Wikipedia has existed), and not a source in sight on more than a few of them. AddWitty NameHere  05:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I can help and will join you, but will be late to the party as it is still going to take me several weeks to complete the ongoing review of the amphibians (similar task at WP:AAR). Loopy30 (talk) 12:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Great! And sure, that's quite fine. I'm working on a couple other things as well, anyway, and besides that, anything Lepidoptera is bound to take months at least anyway due to the sheer numbers involved AddWitty NameHere  16:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Paralaxita species and subspecies
I've found sources disagreeing on what exactly are the species and subspecies in Paralaxita. I have added a comment on the talk page, but did not want to change anything, because I'm unsure what the most reliable source is on this. Would love for someone to have a second look at this if possible! Achaea (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Photography question
I do not feel the following are enough to be used for range distribution:
 * North American Moth Photographers Group
 * Butterflies and Moths.org

The first source is cited in articles as a measure of range, but no information is given other than dots on the photo page to support if the species in question is introduced or native to the state. We cant establish the fact just because someone took a photo of the x Lepidoptera in y state other than it might be an indication of fact. The second source appears to be a non profit group (again linked in articles) that has dozens of ads present on the site, I am not sure if it is a WP:RS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think both are comprehensive, current and serious enough to be useful (and harmless) as external links; as for reliability as sources, that's difficult to judge. Certainly they are not definitive as far as range goes, but maybe are helpful as a more general regional source. No ads came up when I looked through them, but I use a basic ad-blocker.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  10:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. Reliable for the most part, but prone to the same issues all other Lepidoptera generalist (that is, not focused on a small subset of all Lepidoptera, like a specific family or subfamily) databases, checklists and other forms of information aggregation are prone to due to the sheer size of order Lepidoptera: incomplete datasets & outdated taxonomic placement. They certainly can't be used to definitely state "this species occurs only here" due to said incompleteness, nor can they be used to state whether or not an area is part of its native range or not. To reference a statement like "Occurs in North America, where it has been recorded from Colorado", it suffices, though. (But where scientific literature stating the same can be identified (not always easy, considering the sheer number of resources still only available as $100+ book), said literature is preferable) AddWitty  NameHere  11:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You can try GBIF for a profession set of distribution data, but it takes looking at each individual occurrence for verification, is hard to work with, is easy to misuse, and is not near complete regarding insects. But it's trustworthy, if used correctly. Regarding invasive or native range, no distributional occurrence record alone can tell you that, it's native status is a theory published by someone. I find the Moth Photographers Group quite useful, but I've mostly been working on obscure, drab moths only experts could identify, which limits the data set. If in doubt about the reliability/status of the record, just qualify the statement, i.e. "according to a record submitted to the Moth Photographers Group the species has been recorded in" yadayada. Make sure each distributional statement is referenced so others can make up their own minds about reliability of source. Leo Breman (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:List of Lepidoptera of Massachusetts
Are there any other columns that would be worth adding? I have been tinkering around with a "size" section for wingspan. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks nice so far, . That said, a couple of tweaks I'd suggest:
 * The photography criterion. Right now it reads somewhat ambiguously: while you probably mean "expert in the field [of Lepidoptera]", it could as easily mean "taken by an expert; additionally, it must be field photography". (=live (or naturally-dead) specimens in the wild only).
 * I'd also recommend replacing "none" in the Common name(s) part with N/A except where you have references explicitly stating the species does not have a vernacular name. Wikipedia and Lepidoptera databases are not particularly great at staying up-to-date or being complete, and simply not having a vernacular name listed (either here or there) could certainly mean that none exists, but could as easily mean "no one's gotten around to adding it yet".
 * As for additional columns, my gut feeling says "keep it simple" (the more info to keep updated, the more likely it is to get out-of-date&mdash;though tbh, with Lepidoptera articles, and especially lists, whether stand-alone or in-article, that's pretty much a guarantee anyway), but let's see what others say. AddWitty  NameHere  14:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi! Some more suggestions:
 * A column for the date of description isn't useful in a fauna checklist; a more standard way to include that info would be to add the correctly formatted authorship info in the scientific name column, e.g. "Agrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel, 1766)".
 * The genus column doesn't seem much useful either (I guess it's here for the genus link, but you don't typically need it on a local fauna checklist and it's easy to find from the species page anyway).
 * There is no reason to put the references with the scientific name, they deserve their own column. Same goes for the conservation status.
 * Family names shouldn't be italicized.
 * Unless you plan to expand and complete the list before publishing the article, please make clear that this is a partial list (there are many more than 200 Lepidoptera in Massachussets, ~1500 are quoted on the BAMONA website alone.)
 * Hope this helps! --LamBoet (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. I think that there are all the columns you need, if you want to add more columns you could add one column about IUCN conservation status. On the contrary the column 'genus' is useless because the binomial name of the species already contains the genus. Albert the 1st (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

"Stygiella" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Stygiella. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 30 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Author or editor?
I'm trying to get some feedback on the best way to reference Lepidoptera and Some Other Life Forms, sometimes referred to as Funet or Savela. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life If you've got any input or opinions they would help. Thank you. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 05:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Best scientific name for Poanes melane?
I've started a discussion at Talk:Poanes melane about whether this article should be moved to Lon melane. I'm a bit over my head in knowing how to handle this given that I know plant taxonomy and plant lists a lot better than lepidopteran ones. Kingdon (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Taxonomy for Lepidoptera on Wikipedia is a lot more loose than it is for birds (the other area I know something about), and from what you say above, it's more loose than plants too. From what I understand about the real world outside of Wikipedia, Lepidoptera taxonomy is pretty loose there too and there is nothing approaching a final word on what is what. As a non-biologist I wouldn't make a change between Poanes melane and Lon melane based on my own understanding, but if I can see someone who seems to be an authority make a case that one is correct, I'll follow their lead. In the mean time, so long as the synonym with a redirect is present, I don't worry too much about them. I hope that helps. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 03:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, there is already a redirect; if I had noticed the existence of the redirect the first time I might not have written at such length. Thanks for the thoughts and sounds like we can leave things the way they are. Kingdon (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above advice. INaturalist seem to be following Butterflies of America. I'm not a lepidopterist, and not familiar with why the genus Lon has been created. Whatever the new taxonomic scheme is there, it's probably best to leave things as they are, unless somebody is willing to move all the species pages that would be involved in implementing the complete change. William Avery (talk) 09:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

There's no such subject
There's no such subject in WikiProject Tree of Life. So: no opinions and inputs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.122.186.122 (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Moth identification


Hello, A new user has added a photograph  (Wikimedia Commons: ) of what he calls a "Venezuelan poodle moth," though the picture was, according to his upload, taken in the Punjab of Pakistan. Of course, that would make it not a Venezuelan poodle moth (whatever that is). I assume it is some member of the genus Artace. But, what do I know, I'm a historian. I thought I'd ask you smart lepidopterist guys. See: Talk:Venezuelan_poodle_moth. TuckerResearch (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Sandbox organiser
Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful, especially if you create new articles. Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

Hope its helpful

John Cummings (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

New article on a species of butterfly for verification
Hello, I am Space Chinedu. Please, I want you to check the new article that I created about a species of butterfly in my sandbox and see if it is up to Wikipedia standards. If there are any problems or anything you would like to add let me know. If the article is okay let me know so that I can paste it as a new article on Wikipedia. The link is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Space_chinedu/sandbox. I really appreciate if you verified the new article I made. Space chinedu (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * [User talk:Space chinedu] Invasive Spices (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Future Assistance with Stub
Hello all, I'm a student at the University of Sydney and in the following few months, I will continue to improve the following article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angoumois_grain_moth. It is my goal to get this stub to the C or B level and any assistance with editing my future work and pointing out what needs fixing would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. Wolf Ulysses (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest adding the native range. It doesn't have it right now, and looking quickly across the internet doesn't tell me either. This may be hard info to find. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

You may try to get some more informations on host plants, and which are not to be listed. There's quite some misidentifications on those small moths.
 * This is an "old" style article.

Your edits: you deleted the host plant or substrate section. This is quite important, I reverted them.

Also did some cleanup but actually this article would need to be renamed (to Sitotroga cerealella ) because its a "noob name". Scientific names should come first. I do not really understand why this needs to be discussed. Noobs edits can be fixed without prior discussion. You may also do some clean up.

There are still some articles here, that are written in a horrible way. though as long as there are still thousands that had not been written.... were's the priority ? On that Sitotroga' ??? Cheers I&#39;m so tired (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Pluralization - mildly related to this project
Hi Lepidopterofans. I'm suggesting one of "Lepidopterae" or "Lepidopterans" at [[Talk:List of Lepidoptera that feed on Brassica ]]. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

What for ? We got used to "Lepidoptera" - that's correct in singular and plural (it is Latin) ! Cheers I&#39;m so tired (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Name changes
Hello, WikiProject,

There are some moves requested that are labeled uncontroversial but I'm not sure they have the support of editors who work in this area. They are for Grammia cervinoides, Grammia hewletti, Platarctia ornata, Platarctia parthenos, Apantesis williamsii, Platarctia souliei and Pararctia yarrowii and they are changes from Binomial names to names included as synonyms. I hope there are some WikiProject members that occasionally check this page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Request for assistance: taxonomy of Papilio
There is a discussion on the talk page of Papilio article that would benefit from the input of someone with expertise in this area. Ypna (talk) 10:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Please see Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021 December_24
Hi all,

Please see Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 24

This would appear to me a subfamilia of provenance.

As always, happy to be proven wrong.

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Gypsy moth common name
You are invited to join the discussion at Lymantria dispar dispar. Mintopop (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Least viewed Wikipedia articles are moths
Check it
 * https://colinmorris.github.io/blog/unpopular-wiki-articles

Two articles on moths were viewed only 3 times in 2021. I am writing an article about this for The Signpost. Can I get a comment or reaction to this from anyone here?  Bluerasberry  (talk)  15:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * A while back when I was working a lot on moth articles, I tried to find out if anyone was actually reading them. I couldn't get a solid number for how often the button was pushed, but the number of hits which most moth articles got was consistent with only being seeing when someone came to it by that button. Still, I support the assumption that every species should have an article.  SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨  15:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks I quoted you. Feel free to edit if you wish before publication this weekend.Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media  Bluerasberry   (talk)  16:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it also not surprising that these articles are members of the largest orders in the largest class of organisms. I assumed that the low read articles would also be orphaned articles, but this isn't necessarily so. Pseudoneuroterus mazandarani (mentioned in the article) is orphaned. There is no article for the genus it belongs. The family and subfamily articles only mention tribes, which have no tribe articles or only stubs. On the other hand, Erygia sigillata (one of the moth articles) is linked from the genus article, which is linked to several articles on higher taxa. It would be possible to navigate to the species article following the taxonomic links. However, the superfamily of owlet moths (Noctuoidea) has 70,000 species, so a curious reader is unlikely to reach this particular article. Similarly, Trichromia phaeocrota is one of about 60 species in the genus, which is one of over 150 genera in its subtribe, which is one of nine subtribes and so on. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 16:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There are 180,000 species of Lepidoptera and Wikipedia has almost 100,000 articles on Lepidoptera taxa (species, but also subspecies, genera, families, etc.). There are 350,000 species of plants and articles for 76,000 plant taxa (I estimate ~64,000 articles on plant species). Wikipedia has articles for essentially all (non-fossil) birds and mammals (barring some taxonomic churn), and 24,000 articles on fish taxa (out of 32,000 fish species). It seems Lepidoptera species have the best coverage of any major group of non-vertebrate organisms. That means that there are articles for many very obscure Lepidoptera species (and there are probably more people interested in obscure vertebrate species than obscure Lepidoptera species).
 * I think the little viewed articles on Sri Lankan and Iranian villages have a similar explanation. A few editors have put a lot of effort into creating articles on villages in those countries, and there are now articles for many obscure villages. If equivalent effort was put into creating articles for villages in say, Burkina Faso, there would probably a bunch of Burkinabé villages among the least viewed articles (and if the equivalent effort put into creating Lepidoptera articles was done for beetles, I wouldn't be surprised if the two least viewed articles were beetles (beetle species probably have about the worst coverage of any major group of organisms)). Plantdrew (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Two Lepidoptera categories at CfD
Category:Monotypic Glossata genera has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. (Bundled nomination, also includes Category:Monotypic Heteroneura genera) AddWitty  NameHere  07:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Article improvement
In case anyone has some spare time and no clue what to improve as far as Lepidoptera articles goes (I know, I know, a pipe dream with this WikiProject, never a shortage of stuff that obviously needs doing&mdash;but hey, an editor can dream)

I've got a decent list of open-access (or otherwise freely, legally online available) journal articles and similar sources that could be used for article improvement ranging from "could probably be used to at least add a non-database ref to the article somewhere" to "hey this actually includes a lot of useful info we don't have", with sources ranging from "specific to one species" to "family checklist for an entire country". Still got a whole bunch more refs to add to that list, too, once I can get around to that.

Planning to ref & expand what I can find the time to do, but help is certainly more than welcome, if anyone is so inclined. AddWitty NameHere  06:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Dudusinae or Dudusiinae
Anyone happen to know which of the two spellings is correct? They're both being used, sometimes even in the same source (like Schintlmeister 2013, who mostly uses Dudusinae but still has a Dudusiinae in a graph). As a result, they're also both getting used on en.wiki, which is potentially confusing. AddWitty NameHere  06:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the answer is that Dudusinae is the correct spelling. The type genus is Dudusa and this source identifies where the misspelling came from.
 * Dudusinae Matsumura, 1925, Zool. Mag. Tokyo 37:406, misspelled Dudusiinae by Kitching & Rawlins, 1999, type genus: Dudusa Walker, 1865 (Notodontidae)
 * However, as you say, both are used. Lepindex uses Dudusiinae and Lepindex is widely used a source on Wikipedia. I think Dudusinae should be used in taxoboxes with appropriate source, but articles will need to mention the alternative spelling if their sources use it. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 11:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * All right, that makes sense, and provides me a way of handling things going forward. Thanks! AddWitty  NameHere  15:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've changed the taxonomy templates and used the above reference with a quote of the info on the spelling. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 16:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh, thanks! I'd been planning to tackle that after dinner, but one less thing on my long, looong list of Lepidoptera work is quite welcome. Moth work is never done... sigh AddWitty  NameHere  18:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)