Talk:Owlfly

Phylogenetic instability

@Chiswick Chap and Lhikan634: As a note, Jones 2019 agrees in part with the phylogeny derived by Machado et al 2018, but opted to elevate groups to family level, rather than making a much expanded Myrmeleontidae. They redefined superfamily Myrmeleontoidea to include the (hypothetically monophyletic families ) Myrmeleontidae + (Palparidae + (Stilbopterygidae + Ascalaphidae). phylogenetic and taxonomic papers on Myrmeleontidae and Ascalaphidae in 2020 and 2021 are split on which approach is used with Subfamilial placement and Familial placement both in use. As such I feel we should step back from moving groups to tribal level and add additional text to the effected articles where phylogenetic treatments differ between the two camps.--Kevmin § 17:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Um, I've simply documented both Jones and Machado, so there's nothing to "move back" from. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap Actually, Lhikan634 has already gone through all the Ascalaphid subfamilies and moved them to tribal level, and is in the process of changing the automatic taxoboxes on all the genera etc. as well, so there is a fair bit of discussion to do still. I pinged you in since you have been a large contributor to the family level articles. (Also you have the older Jones, and not the more recent Jones 2019).--Kevmin § 17:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I won't touch the taxoboxes myself, but am inclined to agree that they shouldn't go tribal until there is scientific consensus. I've added Jones 2019 and arranged the Machado and Jones trees to point up the differences as clearly as possible. We are lacking images only of Albardiinae and Melambrotinae - if you have anything usable (preferably with white background) then please add them here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, this ended up being a larger question than anticipated, and info's come in bit by bit since (I'm in direct though sporadic contact with several Neuroptera researchers, though not the authors of the papers in question). Changes by Jones to create numerous families have been rejected by a few papers (including Hévin (2023) and Schuster & Machado (2002), both of which expressed some of my own concerns). I had previously been aware of Oswald's own dissent through online communications. The Jones paper also has a few issues I wasn't quite sure how to address but which have been noted in at least one subsequent paper.

(1) Jones isn't a prominent Neuropetera researcher and doesn't have the same level of credibility of authors of competing taxonomy. To my knowledge, this was maybe his fifth paper in the order, and it was as sole author. This is very atypical for such large-scale taxonomic works, which usually require a lot more manpower (and womanpower) as seen in the other taxonomic revisions. This appears to be a direct cause of the second issue.

(2) Jones omits quite a few tribes (at least 4 from the classical Myrmeleontidae minus the owlflies) as well as quite a few important genera (noted by Schuster & Machado) in his analysis and really doesn't publish the sort of numerical data that would be expected with phylogenetic studies. Hévin ended up expressing my concern that the changes are stated but not actually substantiated by evidence.

(3) Back in 2021, there were only 4 citations of Jones's paper noted by Wiley CrossRef. All of those were actually in 2021. In contrast, the Machado et al. paper had been cited 18 times during the same timeframe. As of today, Wiley CrossRef shows 16 total citations for Jones (inc. 2 self-citations) versus 54 for Machado et al. (inc. 8 self-citations). One paper is actively being discussed whereas the other is a lot more isolated. From what I've been seeing in the literature, consensus appears to be with Machado et al., but that's hardly an all-inclusive analysis of Neuropetera papers.

There really isn't a good way of handling this without some means of picking a paper to apply throughout the site while also discussing alternative classification schemes on relevant pages. It's easier said than done, though. I've seen some other editors actively deleting references to Machado et al. while suggesting that Jones is consensus, which certainly isn't the actual state of the literature. It wouldn't be standard use, but using the likes of "ascalaphine owlfly" (to refer to what's either Myrmeleontidae: Ascalaphinae: Ascalaphini or Ascalaphidae: Ascalaphinae) might be a possibility as it would bypass having to choose which taxonomic name to use. But since the Infobox taxa would still have to be designated somehow, I don't think it would be that useful of a possibility unless they were added as unranked equivalents by common name. That really wouldn't be that accurate to any taxonomic scheme since they do have ranks… just different ones depending on author.

By the way, I can find 2 CC BY-SA images for Melambrotus and 10 CC BY images for Albardia. Lhikan634 (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

While the area is still at "pick a primary research paper that you fancy" stage, it really isn't appropriate to make drastic changes. What we need is a systematic review paper that looks back over all the evidence and reaches a sensible conclusion. Until then, it's basically guesswork which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. We should do as little as possible and await stability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ascalaphidae/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 18:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC) Many thanks as always, I'll respond promptly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• "Owlfly" is, in Google, much more common than "Ascalaphidae". Shouldn't his be the article title per WP:Common name? The article is mostly using "owlfly" in any case.
  • Agreed. Let's ask for it to be moved immediately after this GAN. We can't do it now as it tangles up the bot.

• Taxonbox: Late Jurassic–Recent should be linked.
  • Tried that, it breaks the gadget. The geological periods are however linked in the coloured timebar, e.g. "J" links to Jurassic.

• clubbed antennae; the latter have short – "the latter" seems to refer to "antennae" here, so repeat "dragonflies" instead?
  • Done.

• and different wing venation – can be specify? "reticulate wing venation"?
  • Done.

• 1.5 inches – It's a science article, we really want SI units here I think.
  • Converted.

• Adult Ululodinae such as Ululodes – state that this is a subfamily of owlflies?
  • Done.

• Owlflies are worldwide in distribution, occurring in temperate and tropical habitats. – Source?
  • Added.

• generally called owlflies. – Why "generally", so it isn't an exact synonym?
  • "Commonly".

• I miss the taxonomy section that other articles have. Taxonomic history? First description + citation? This could also be combined with etymology (of the common name, and what is the etymology of "Ascalaphidae"?). Or maybe a "taxonomy" could be combined with "Evolution"?
  • Added a note on these things, and the etymology, under 'Evolution'.

• abdomen, monophyletic, nuclear phylogenomic analysis, paraphyletic, mitochondrial rRNA and mitogenomic data – link?
  • Added.

• The abdomen in many crepuscular species is raised at rest, mimicking a broken twig – That contradicts "During the day, adults rest on stems and twigs with the body, legs, and antennae pressed to the stem"?
  • Fixed.

• Haploglenius luteus [nl] – To me, personally, it seems pointless to link to a Dutch WP article that is a stub of two sentences. Removing this would avoid a bit of clutter.
  • Unlinked.

• heliographic signalling – what is that?
  • Glossed.

• Mesascalaphus may be an entirely more basal member of the family – I don't understand the choice of words, why not simply "may be a basal member of the family"?
  • Done.

• fossil owlfly genera incertae sedis include Ascaloptynx, Borgia, Mesascalaphus, Neadelphus, Prosuhpalacsa, and Ricartus. – I wonder why you list fossil genera but not recent genera? That does not seem to be consistent (I personally don't think that this list helps a lot).
  • Removed.

• the Late Jurassic Mesascalaphus may be an entirely more basal member of the family, but it is now believed to be a member of Mesochrysopidae. – OK, but what, then, is the evidence for "dating back to the mid-Mesozoic at least"?
  • Well spotted. The evidence is for a Tertiary origin of the family. I've rewritten the section and added new refs.

• Cratopteryx from the Early Cretaceous is probably a member of the Myrmeleontoidea; sometimes assigned to the Ascalaphidae, it is better considered incertae sedis.[14] – This information seems a bit random, or are all Mesozoic genera mentioned? Some more general information about the Mesozoic fossil record would be great instead.
  • Removed.

• which recovered Ascalaphidae as a paraphyletic lineage within Myrmeleontidae; authors in that paper sunk Ascalaphidae into the Myrmeleontidae as subfamily Ascalaphinae – But that doesn't make it paraphyletic? I assume that some additional taxa were moved into Ascalaphidae/Ascalaphinae as well?
  • Yes, the Stilbopterygini and the Palparini, as you can see on the Machado tree at the top of 'Internal'. I've tweaked the wording.

• advanced groups – "derived"?
  • I'd think that'd be more obscure, not less; "derived" has multiple meanings, at variance with what lay people might imagine.

• Winterton et al – suggest "and colleagues" to avoid the technical term (which also lacks a dot)
  • Done.

• not representing clades – maybe add explanation like "(natural groups)" to help with understanding? And link "clades"?
  • Done.

• Phylogenetic analysis by Machado et al 2018 finds both "Myrmeleontidae" (underscored groups, "Myrm.") and "Ascalaphidae" paraphyletic with respect to each other, requiring a renaming of these taxa, – Isn't that the same study mentioned under "Phylogeny"? Maybe it can be removed there, then, to avoid content duplication and making it easier to follow.
  • Removed.

• Can you add the total number of species of the group? That would be nice to have in the lead as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Nice, all good, congrats! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)