[go: nahoru, domu]

Jump to content

User talk:Edibobb

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the beginning.

categorys and templates

[edit]

hi please add described categorys for your articles by years and add templates for articles thanks

[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Melanoplus bowditchi
added a link pointing to Spur-throated grasshopper
Melanoplus confusus
added a link pointing to Spur-throated grasshopper
Melanoplus glaucipes
added a link pointing to Spur-throated grasshopper

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deliathis

[edit]

Hi. You may wonder why I reverted your edits to Deliathis - it's because all of the online resources are incorrect; you will note that there are very significant discrepancies between them. Between BioLib and Bezark, at least one of them has the correct spelling in each pair of spellings. The true list of species names is therefore a composite of these two online sources. This genus has been a mess for decades, and people simply can't get their ducks in a row. Dyanega (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the names "quadritaeniator" and "imperator" are both nouns. As I'm sure you know, nouns don't get changed as part of gender agreement. The people who erroneously changed these names to "quadritaeniata" and "imperatrix" aren't allowed to do that under the ICZN, those are errors, not allowable spellings. Bezark has them correct, other sources do not. Why the Bezark list has the genders of some of the other names as masculine, I can't say, but at least those are correctly given as feminine in BioLib. I've just sent a message to Larry Bezark, hopefully he can correct them. Dyanega (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only one that might be controversial is "buquetii" versus "buqueti" - the former is the original spelling, but under the ICZN the original spelling of patronyms with "-i" versus "-ii" is not automatically protected; if the alternative spellinng is used by more authors, then the original spelling is rejected. The history of usage of this name, as shown here indicates that "buqueti" is historically the most common spelling, and therefore to be preserved under ICZN Article 33.4. Dyanega (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the corrections and your help! Bob Webster (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moth taxonomy

[edit]

So, I went and very much revised Nudariina but it occurs to me now that I should have ping'd you first to know which taxonomy you are following. I aligned with iNat, but now I realize that not all of what you are doing aligns.... UtherSRG (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What to use for Nudariina is a hard question!
I've been using Catalogue of Life (mostly) for Miltochrista and related genera. I checked some recent changes and they match up pretty closely (I put a bunch of original references on the Miltochrista page).
For Lepidoptera, Catalogue of life gets their data from Global Lepidoptera Index, and GBIF gets their Lepidoptera data primarily from Catalogue of Life. Unfortunately, Global Lepidoptera Index doesn't have subtribes.
In the case of Nudariina, BioLib.cz might be the best source. They're usually pretty good with taxonomy in the Old World. It looks like they're reasonably up to date on Nudariina. I try to double check their stuff because once in a while it's a little weird. It seems like they have been improving, though.
iNaturalist is not a great source for taxonomy, because it's intentionally incomplete. They discourage people from adding species or genera that don't have observations, so they don't have to maintain the empty "nodes" for name changes, etc. Also, like Wikipedia, there's a certain amount of iNaturalist data that is out of date. I think iNaturalist is not considered a good reference for Wikipedia because of user contributions.
I think if you pick the taxonomy you think best and make sure it's in the references, it should be good. For a species or genus list, I try to show the reference(s) at the top of the list but anywhere will work.
If you have any questions, let me know. I don't know as much as a lot of people, but I'll be glad to offer an opinion.
Bob Webster (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]