Talk:Agrotis
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Expert
[edit]Needs review regarding taxonomy (parentheses etc). I suspect 10% or more may be wrong, and it's always to better to move authors to taxobox only as soon as the article exists. Except in cases of ambiguous authorship, homonymy etc. of course. If there's only one entity which a scientific name could conceivably be, we don't need to know the the author, we only need to know where we can find it (at the taxon in question's page, or in the higher taxon if the lower is still redlink). And there are too few good sources, CoL has it horribly horribly horribly horribly wrong all the time for example, and in this case it's probably the main source of error. ITIS too is also very bad, Zipcodezoo is generally frowned upon and rightly so. WoRMS is usually good, Savela and Haaramo are often excellent but sometimes very bad (with them it's checking out their sources, they are cited for a reason), BioLib.cz is OK in a pinch. Fauna Europaea is right far more often than not but has diacritics messed up; altogether there is little to no reliable taxonomic index other than to revert to the original literature. There are such indices for birds, mammals, fishes, herptiles, but not for insects. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I am no taxonomist so I cannot talk along. For all I can tell, every word you say could be spot on; it sounds like the usual sort of thing. My own interest in the article is rather in the biological and applied aspects, which was why I visited (and marginally expanded) it. I used it for linking. I am all in favour of them as has the skills, tidying up what is to be tidied, (even I would like to see more hard-copy refs) but please don't anyone get brutal and delete it all, even if someone finds reason to change the genus name or split the genus, leaving only 1 species! ;-) Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The Euxoa tritici complex consists of five sibling species in Europe: E. tritici(Linnaeus, 1761), Euxoa nigrofusca (Esper, 1788), Euxoa eruta (Hubner, 1817), Euxoa diaphora Boursin,1928 and Euxoa segnilis (Duponchel, 1836). Furthermore, although Fibiger (1997) (Michael Fibiger et. al. Noctuidae Europaeae Soro, Denmark : Entomological Press series) treated Euxoa montivaga differently it too belongs to the E. tritici complex. Differences among the species are subtle, the most important diagnostic characteristics being genitalic. In studies of three of these species, E. tritici, E. nigrofusca and E. eruta, no support was found for the presence of several morphologically distinguishable species with quantitative morphometric analyses. [1] I suspect the same may be true of many problematic Noctuidae. Notafly (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
References
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Agrotis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100311150639/http://zipcodezoo.com:80/Animals/A/Agrotis%5Fmelanoneura/ to http://zipcodezoo.com/Animals/A/Agrotis_melanoneura/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090828050200/http://www.earthwitness.com:80/Animals.htm to http://www.earthwitness.com/Animals.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)