Jump to content

Talk:Chrysiridia rhipheus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleChrysiridia rhipheus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 7, 2012.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 12, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
March 22, 2008Good article nomineeListed
July 4, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Picture

[edit]

I added a Gallery picture I believe it shows the colour of the wings better than the other "thumb" picture. I think both are worthy to be up so I thought this would be the most effect way. -- IvanTortuga 22:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, begin GA review notes...

[edit]

Right. I will place notes to look at or fix as I go. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is considered to be the most impressive and beautiful Lepidoptera - now that's a pretty big claim! Would it not be better to phrase as " It is considered to be one of the most impressive and beautiful of all Lepidoptera" ? Note I am not an entomologist so this may be correct (the claim that is)?
    • Well, beauty being what it is (i.e. subjective, "in the eye of the beholder", etc.), some say it is the most impressive and beautiful Lepidoptera. A few other Lepidoptera claim that "title": Morpho, Saturniidae (including Actias luna and, Hyalophora cecropia)… and that’s just a “Google test”. I’m pretty sure I could find hard references for each one, I could also add a few more references claiming it for Chrysiridia rhipheus but that would simply a proof by verbosity. All I’m really saying is that although it is often considered the most beautiful, sometimes it isn’t. Phrasing it as you have makes the claim always true. I agree with your comment and will change it myself. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 01:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In biology articles I have created (well, the long ones), such as Common Raven and Emperor Penguin, I have a taxonomy and naming section under the lead (who described it/wehn, what its related to and other common and scientific names). This is good as lead material needs to go somewhere in main body, and it pushes the description section further down, usually to a place where you can put images in it without worrying about the taxobox jutting down the right hand side :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wrote a taxonomy section. I still haven't found a source explicitly giving the etymology. But I suspect : rhipheus is from the Latin Montes Rhiphaeus = Ural Mts. [1] (another indication pointing to that is the French vernacular name "Uranie Riphée" for the same mounts), and Chrysiridia would be a contraction of the name Chrysippe and some other word. Do you think the first source good enough to cite as the etymology? But I think it still isn't long enough to push the description down (not on my browser & screen at least). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 03:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have stuffed up the formatting somehow and the WP pages are loading really slowly here for some reason. If you look at Banksia ericifolia, you'll see some layout options for images down one side of an article which would look better than a gallery. See what you think. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree galleries have too much grey, and too little of the actual pictures. But I don't really know of a better alternative. The sections aren't big enough to use the "style float" on the right. What do you think of placing the pictures on the left? It moves the Wing microstructure in my browser... which I don't like much. Markup on the left would be like this (in case you want to try for yourself): {| style="float:left;" |- |[[Image:Chrysiridia madagascarensis.JPG|thumb|160px|left|''Chrysiridia rhipheus'' underside]] |- |[[Image:Chrysiridia rhipheus 2.jpg|thumb|160px|left|''Chrysiridia rhipheus'' topside]] |} Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 04:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is the best solution [2]. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 12:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect to layout, a nice hierarchy of headings looks good. In this one, if you rename Range to Distribution and habitat (as the heading as is doesn't cover habitat which is covered in the section anyway), and make Host plants a subsection thereof, while Habits rename Behaviour and then Life cycle can become a subsection of that. Nectar sources can be diet or keep its name and be placed under behaviour - then relationship with humans can go at the bottom. Also, are there any local malagasy legends or folklore about the critter? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The small caterpillar starts by eating the tissue between the veins of the leaves (mesophyll). - took me a while to figure out what this was about - I couldn't figure out - starting what...you might want to clarify or expand a bit here.
    • Clarification(?): "After they hatch, the small caterpillars only eat the tissue (mesophyll) between the veins of the leaves. They do this to avoid the sticky and toxic latex produced by the plant's laticifers and transported in the veins. Later instars still eat leaves but also flowers, fruit, tendrils and young stems, defoliating the entire plant. They can deal with the chemical defences in the latex and it does not cause problems of mouthpart coagulation." Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 12:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA passed

[edit]

I will pass it as GA as I feel it passes the criteria now. I fixed up a few typos. If you want to go for FAC, there would be more info to gather. This is where having more info on life cycle, nectar sources, and folklore, as well as collector status and how/who ranks which lepidopteran is the 'best' etc, plus the prose could be gone over by another copyeditor. If you want to do this, and are able to get sources one day, give me a heads up. GA is a good 'staging point' to sit on until then. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other name

[edit]

Drury's Illustrations of Natural History, see p.40, James Duncan's Foreign Butterflies, see p.205Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 19:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopédie méthodique, ou par ordre de matières, 1819, has a nice description, page 709, Dictionnaire classique des sciences naturelles, drawn by DrapiezPro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 03:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
De uitlandsche kapellen voorkomende in de drie waereld-deelen : Asia, Africa en America = Papillons exotiques des trois parties du monde : l'Asie, l'Afrique et l'Amerique: [3] [4], At McGill. Go to McLennan Library Building, 3459 McTavish Street [Map], Montreal, Quebec H3A 1Y1. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 03:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cladogram

[edit]
Uraniinae phylogeny
after Lees et al 1991[1]
(1)
(2)

Urania leilus

Urania brasiliensis

Urania fulgens

Urania poeyi

Urania boisduvalii

Urania sloanus †

Chrysiridia rhipheus

Chrysiridia croesus

Alcides

Lyssa

Urapteroides

Cyphura

Acropteris

(1) Use Endospermum as a food plant.

(2) Use Omphalea as a food plant
   and adults are diurnal.
Urapterita is not included for lack of data.

I had a look at your sandbox. What about this cladogram? As far as I can tell Lees et al doesn't say if Chrysiridia is a clade, nor any of the other genera, which means cladogram might not be so good to include after all. It might be on the larger side though, better perhaps to have it like your first cladogram and not include genera after Alcides. Where should note (2) be?
(In brief:I can't make up my mind) Narayanese (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "genera after Alcides". Do you mean only the diurnal genera (i.e. Alcides, Urania and Chrysiridia)? With or without species? Note (2) should include Alcides, Urania and Chrysiridia. The "bigger" cladogram in my sandbox is wrong. Here is the corrected, with new cladogram. The genera are clear enough in the cladogram, but the relation of the specific species isn't given, so I after thinking a little I wouldn't place species. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 02:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I meant only the diurnal genera.But without knowing if the genera are monophyletic (I suppose Chrysiridia is given the distribution, but I would like a source saying so), perhaps the best thing would be to put the cladogram of genera into Uraniinae (I'll do that now) and leave this article without a cladogram, since I don't think it would be useful without seeing the species here. Narayanese (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 21:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Lees, David C. and Smith, Neal G. (1991) "Foodplants of the Uraniinae (Uraniinae) and their Systematic, Evolutionary and Ecological Significance. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society, vol. 45. available at http://research.yale.edu/peabody/jls/pdfs/1990s/1991/1991-45(4)296-Lees.pdf

Capitalization

[edit]

Should we render the common name as "Madagascan Sunset Moth" or "Madagascan sunset moth"? The article currently uses both. Melchoir (talk) 08:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncapitalizing. I know that issue can be controversial, but if we can't even agree within the same article, we should either comply with MOS:LIFE or change that guideline. Art LaPella (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Females lay about 80 eggs under the leaves of Omphalea spp. " (lede)

[edit]

What does 'spp' abreviate. Can we spell it out or wlink it, please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your first question is at Species#Abbreviated names. Art LaPella (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation

[edit]

How did a species article make it to featured without even a conservation status, let alone a paragraph about it? Anybody has any information?complainer (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page use to have a "Not evaluated (IUCN 3.1)" status in the infobox, but that was removed. I am for it's inclusion, but what that says is really that nobody has bothered to check the moth's conservation status. The section on distribution and habitat has the rest of the information available on the matter. This is an insect, not everything about it is known, even without a paragraph about conservation the article summarizes what is known. Regards, Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 00:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Chrysiridia rhipheus/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I have given this article a B. It is still quite short, but what's there is good, and well-referenced, which is very important. I think the sections (or several of them) could probably be merged, which would help to tighten the prose a bit. --Stemonitis

Last edited at 11:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 11:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chrysiridia rhipheus. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 02:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chrysiridia rhipheus. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 15:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chrysiridia rhipheus. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 11:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing

[edit]

It is very colourful, though the iridescent parts of the wings do not have pigment; rather the colours originate from optical interference. seems to say the same thing twice. Iridescence is the property of producing colour by optical interference. I edited this to The colours originate from optical interference in the iridescent parts of the wings. I was reverted by Pro bug catcher with the summary "while shorter, proposed change obscured that only the iridescent parts do not contain pigment". Now, it seems far from obvious that the red version implies this, and, this isn't stated (or sourced) anywhere in the article. Thoughts? John (talk) 09:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any response here, I have changed it back to the green version. John (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Error in note 1

[edit]

The link in note 1 leads to the correct page: Louis Francois Jéhan, Dictionnaire zoologique ... Bd. 14; the text of no 1 about the persecution of the church and the edition of Migne is certainly an error. Unfortunately, I don't know how to change the text of a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.193.224.234 (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chrysiridia_rhipheus&oldid=1206684793"