Talk:Euglossa hyacinthina

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Junsang.cho. Peer reviewers: KimCourtney, Xerylium.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Editing Details

I'll be editing this article for a class and the changes and comments are as follows: General Abbreviated Euglossa throughout article to Eg. Added or edited internal links. Added many references, but some are still missing.

Introduction The subfamily Apinae are not all orchid bees so this is misleading. Changed to "the orchid bee tribe Euglossini". Edited spelling. Quote is not properly cited, incorrect reference is given and I could not find the correct reference. There is no evidence for the intriguing comment in the last sentence so edited it and added a reference for origins of sociality statement.

I deleted the first description section as there is a second description and identification section, and some of the information in this section was incorrect. I moved the first two sentences to the taxonomy section.

Taxonomy Neotropical -> neotropical Deleted sentences describing phylogeny as this can easily be learned from the taxobox. Quote is again not properly cited, incorrect reference is given and I could not find the correct reference. I could not find a source for new research supporting that Euglossini is a sister tribe to Apini. The statement generalizing the 5 hypotheses for Euglossini is not true. Deleted repetitive sentences. Edited spelling.

Distribution and Habitat Fact-checked and added references.

Mimicry/Parasitism The Mimicry section is poorly paraphrased, with some sentences lifted straight from the source. This section is more about Euglossa and not aboutEg. hyacinthina I Deleted the Parasitism section as this is not about Eg. hyacinthina but about other bees in the Euglossini tribe. (Read Biological Observations on a Neotropical Parasocial Bee Eulaema nigrita with a Review on the Biology of Euglossinae Hymenoptera Apidae) The section also implies that because Eg. hyacinthinas has parasitic relatives, it might also be parasitic. There is no reference backing up this claim.

Interactions with Other Species Edited the diet section for accuracy and added a reference. The parasites mentioned are not for Eg. hyacinthina, but other Euglossini species so they were removed. Added a reference for the Defense section that females have stings. Worded the section better and removed sentence about stings providing an evolutionary reason for a skewed sex ratio as I could not find evidence for this.

Pollen Sources This information pertains to all Euglossines, not just Eg. hyacinthina

Defense Added reference, but again this information really pertains to all Euglossines, not just Eg. hyacinthina

Human Importance Added a reference, but again this information really pertains to all Euglossines, not just Eg. hyacinthina unsigned comment added by Xerylium (talk • contribs) 23:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Mrs. Xerylium

I appreciate your suggestions and comments, but I think some of the edits that you made were incorrect. The supposed "intriguing" comment in the last sentence, I believe, is very subjective and I thought it was "intriguing".

Although the taxonomy is on the right hand side of the box, I wanted to expand on this with description and for an average reader, I believe that an explanation may be needed.

For the Mimicry/Parasitism section, I can show you the link and information that backs up my claims. Additionally, I would like to point out that your article on the Eufriesea surinamensis references the Euglossa broadly and I will point that out in my editing of your article.

Additionally, for the interactions with other species section, the information regarding the skewed sex ratio is also in my references so I can back that up as well.

Thank you for your thorough investigation of my article. I really appreciate your efforts. I hope to gain a better understanding of your specie as well. Junsang.cho (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Junsang.cho

Re-editing

Looking at your response, I do realize that some of my earlier edits were rather heavy-handed so I re-added things I had deleted like taxonomy, parts of the mimicry section and other sentences that I thought required citations but could not find. I instead added citation needed notes for you to fill in as I could not.

I also re-edited the later sections to make it clearer that the information pertains to all euglossines and not just your bee, which is fine.

I do stand by my comment that subjective thoughts like "intriguing" don't belong on wikipedia as it aims for a neutral tone.

And to finish my review, here are a few more comments and edits. I deleted a sentence in Colony Initiation as it was repetitive and it is not presumed that females will create a nest, they actually do.

The video and paragraph next to it about nest behavior seems ill-placed as you do not describe nest behavior in that section. Perhaps move to the Description and Habitat section.

For the Reproduction suppression section, bees eating the eggs of other bees doesn't seem like parasitism, but more of a predator-prey relationship.

The genetic relatedness for Kin Selection is incorrect and was corrected.

The section on Nesting is confusing because earlier it is mentioned that these bees are 82% female. Where does the 1:1 sex ratio come from? comment added by Xerylium (talk • contribs) 13:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Edits for Class

Hi! This page is very thorough with a lot of information on different aspects of the species and is well-organized. I didn't make any big revisions but one issue I had with the page was its use of citations. There were some information on the page that needed citation but didn't have any, so I wrote down where it could use citations. Also, for some more points to help make the page even better, I suggest adding a distribution map in the taxobox and paraphrasing information rather than directly quoting. Also, I had a suggestion of possibly reorganizing the section about fragrances. The use and importance of fragrances is mentioned in the section for communication under behavior, but then it later got more thoroughly explained in its separate section. I think you can work to combine them to make it seem less repetitive and easier to understand when the topic first gets introduced on the page. Overall, this was very well written and clear!KimCourtney (talk) 10:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit

Hey, I'm a student from Washington University of St. Louis and I just wanted to contribute to your article! I really enjoyed reading your article. One particular thing I liked about the article were the images that helped portray the things talked about in the article. However, there are also things I found that could improve your article. First of all, there is citation needed for information on the kin selection. There is also citation needed for the last paragraph on the last section of “nesting” and for “Defense”. I also did not really understand what the author meant by the last sentence of the overall description. The sentence seems to be awkwardly constructed for a wikiepdia article. I tried to help with the wording. Finally, the excerpt used to begin the “fragrances” section seems unnecessary. It could be paraphrased to fit the article instead of inputting the exact words of the original author. Otherwise, it the article was great to read! Matthewkim93 (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Final Edits

This article is well researched and has a lot of detailed information on behaviors, but I made a few changes to further improve it. I deleted the phrase “that goes against most other bee species” in the introduction, because it did not make much sense in the context of the sentence. A sentenced regarding mimicry was also added to the end of the introduction. I rephrased “power over the male” to “are more dominant than males”, which is more scientifically accurate. I added links for resin, monandry, lipids, aromatic rings, tibiae, and Mullerian mimicry. I generally corrected phrasing when appropriate, but the language could be further refined to be more scientific, as colloquial phrases in the article are often out of place. The phrase “using all three pairs of its legs” in the section on fragrances seems like a mistake and should be modified. I would suggest moving information on sex ratios in the “Description and identification” section under its own heading for clarification. The sections on reproductive suppression and communication should also be expanded as they only stand at a few sentences right now. I would also consider removing the long quote in “Fragrances” and putting it in your own words. Lastly, there are number of places where citations should be added as there are many unreferenced paragraphs.

Mkfreiler (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Final Edits

Hello, I am an undergraduate student at Washington University in St. Louis editing this page for a class assignment. For this article, I was able to help improve the article by making the wording sound more neutral from an unbiased viewpoint. Specifically, I was able to omit subjective modifiers or verbs from sentences to make the wording sound more neutral. For example, in the “Description and Identification” section, I changed “The image above clearly displays the glossy metallic blue…” to “The image above displays the glossy metallic blue…” by omitting the subjective word “clearly”. Other minor fixes I made were to change the section heading “Life Cycle” to “Colony Cycle” since the information provided in the article talks about colony initiation and growth, rather than the stages of metamorphosis for the bee itself. I also added a photo of Bixaceae, which was the first source of pollen listed in the article, to make the page more aesthetically pleasing. Keep up the good work, I feel like this is on the verge of being a Good Article. In the very least, this article should be promoted from C-class to B-class.Marcus.kwon (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)