Talk:Insect morphology

Insects Top‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lepidoptera High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of butterflies and moths on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LepidopteraWikipedia:WikiProject LepidopteraTemplate:WikiProject LepidopteraLepidoptera articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Animal anatomy High‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Redundancy

This article seems almost entirely redundant with the Insect#Body_structure. Given that, is there any reason why it shouldn't be cleared and redirected there? Emw (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is a major topic which needs developing. Insect#Body structure should act as a summary with a main: pointing to this article. The correct course of action is to develop this article using Google Books & Scholar. I am already busy with Lepidoptera morphology and Lepidoptera migration. I could turn my attention here once they are done. But do not kill this article. It is high importance for two WikiProjects. Their concurrence required before killing it! AshLin (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, in that case it seems very reasonable to keep this article. Sorry for raising any alarms, and thanks for the clarification. Emw (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I thought so too. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 21:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this particular subject is immense in scope and of interest to people also. Surprisingly we have a large gap in quality and quantity of these 'morphology' articles while species accounts do rather well. AshLin (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed outline - external morphology

Gen body plan.
Head & head appendages

- Head
- Antenna
- Mouthparts

Thorax & thoracic appendages

- Neck
- Thorax
- Wings
- Legs

Abdomen & its appendages

- Andomen
- External genitalia
- Other appendages

Exoskeleton & scales

After Gillot(1995). Any comments? AshLin (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, advice taken. 19:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Insect morphology

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Insect morphology's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Heppner":

From Lepidoptera: Heppner, J. B. (2008). "Butterflies and moths". In Capinera, John L. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Entomology. Gale virtual reference library. Vol. 4 (2 ed.). Springer Reference. p. 4345. ISBN 9781402062421. Retrieved 14 November 2010. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
From External morphology of Lepidoptera: Heppner, J. B. (2008). "Butterflies and moths". In Capinera, John L. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Entomology. Gale virtual reference library. Vol. 4 (2nd ed.). Springer Reference. p. 4345. ISBN 9781402062421. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third paragraph in lede

An editor has pointed out that this paragraph is unsourced and deleted, but the deletion was reverted. Does anyone have any sources for this material? If not, it will likely be deleted. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a paucity of insect fossils (there are probably more than there are vertebrate fossils). Morphology still is at least as important as DNA analysis for reconstructing insect phylogeny. This is just a (shoddy) bit of pro-DNA propaganda (and therefore violates NPOV). Where are the sources?? It should be deleted immediately ... Stho002 (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that at the very least the paragraph needs to be tagged out until a reference is added. I does strike me as a rather dubious statement which needs a good reference if it is included.--Kev min § 06:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense. Stho002, we're not going to finish WP before lunch today, so there's no need to rush, and labeling material here as "pro-DNA propaganda" even if that might be true, based on your experience/personal knowledge is less than helpful. If you have sources supporting your view, bringing those to the table would be helpful (personal communications with faculty wouldn't help, any sources would need to conform to WP:RS). --Nuujinn (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need sources to support my view! My view is irrelevant! How am I supposed to prove that there isn't a paucity of insect fossils?? What matters is that the paragraph as written is unsourced, and can thereby quite justifiably be removed. If you don't do this, then it is gross negligence on your part ... Stho002 (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody who actually understands WP policy has taken care of it, so end of story ... Stho002 (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not end of story, as noted in the edit summary of said editor, the behavior has not been very civil. In particular, we are not a battleground for the DNA vs Morphology battle - one I find highly amusing when I read about it elsewhere, but this is an encyclopedia, and bring the battle here is as prohibited as inserting unsourced material that is challenged. In the future, just argue WP:BURDEN and that is that, no need for hyperbole and nasty attacks on other editor's integrity. Being technically right on a content issue is no reason to disregard the need for decorum, civility, and a collegial environment. In addition, I remind you that WP:IAR is also policy.--Cerejota (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed!!! :) Stho002 (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been gone for a bit and honestly don't know what's going on, so I'm going to shoot in the dark here and say that lead doesn't need to be sourced if it repeats information from the actual article. As I'm shooting in the dark, I'm not sure if does so I'm going to read over the section and see whats up. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 02:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And after some quick searching I found this: 1 Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 02:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I cant see beyond the pay-wall, so I'm going from the abstract, but I cant tell if the paucity being referred to is the fossil record. from the abstract= "This paucity of data is often due to real biological and historical causes, such as shortness of time spans between divergences for evolution to occur and long time spans after divergences for subsequent evolutionary changes to obscure the earlier ones." Its seems that they are referring to modern taxa and not fossils.--Kevmin § 17:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is my read as well. Bugboy52.4, can you supply so quotes from the article? --Nuujinn (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can see beyond the pay-wall, and this is a highly specific article which in no way supports the wild generalisation that the removed paragraph implied. The "paucity of fossil record" applies only to rapid radiations. The article quite clearly states that *both* morphological and molecular approaches are inadequate to reconstruct phylogeny for these rapid radiations. The removed paragraph gave the very misleading impression that there was a lack of insect fossils in general, so morphology had been replaced by molecular methods for phylogenetic reconstruction! This is a gross misinterpretation of the article above ... Stho002 (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC) In other words, the article cited above is discussing the particular issue of problem cases (rapid radiations), for which no method has worked well to date, and suggests that a particular genomic method *may have* some potential to help. Stho002 (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying, but I think you're think too much: the leads is only a generalization of the information of actual article. If it will help I will change the paragraph to fit what you are saying (with a more neutral, "on the fence") and go into more specifics further into the article (quoting info from the source and I'll find more). Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 19:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lede is very important (as it is probably the only bit of the article most people read). Think of it more as an abstract. The removed para does not need to be replaced, even in modified form, as it is not relevant to the meat of the article ... Stho002 (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering that this is an article on insect morphology and paragraph in question is discussing the use of morphology in phylogenetics, I can only assume the connection... well at least considering the fact that pretty much wrote the entire aticle. And plan on including a phylogeny section now that it has been brought to my attention. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 23:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Writing quqlity or something

Folks, I encountered this article in passing, and there is a problem. It is hugely important and it is huge and it is getting a lot huger. As I see it, it is a poster-page (one of many of course!) for WP. Now, not pointing fingers, and willing to help (a bit! I only have so many lives) it is badly written, minor errors that need schoolmarmish delousing ("it's" as a genitive and the like) plus unclear, barely readable English, plus misspelt taxa such as Thermophilium (Termophilum, believe it if you like!). Does anyone have any useful suggestions? I for one am not prepared to get people's backs up and cause edit wars about every second paragraph, but if the spirit here is right, I might manage some assistance, though I hope there are others in a position to contribute. JonRichfield (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prima facie, it seems the sections are over-thick. The article needs thinning down, enrichment, copy-editting, checking for missing main facts & peer review after that. Perhaps the main contributors can move some material out to stubs as a first step. Oh yes, we sorely miss expert advice. AshLin (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colour editing

I see that Gigemag76 undid an edit that associated text colours with colours used in figures. I am not about to make an issue of this, and have not in fact so much as read through the affected passages carefully, but was this justified? It seems to me that something of the type could prove useful, and in any case harmless. Any thoughts anyone? JonRichfield (talk) 06:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon

This is an important article, since it provides the basics for understanding the articles about specific insects. Wikipedia has provided some guidance regarding the explication of technical language at Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. This article currently often uses technical language without such explanations. Some sentences are very well done such as In many insect species, the fore and hind wing are coupled together, which improves the aerodynamic efficiency of flight. The most common coupling mechanism (e.g., Hymenoptera and Trichoptera) is a row of small hooks on the forward margin of the hind wing, or "hamuli", which lock onto the fore wing, keeping them held together (hamulate coupling). However, others are not, for example the term "process" is used half-a-dozen times in the sense of a bodily projection or outgrowth (Gordh, Gordon, ed. (2001). "Process". A Dictionary of Entomology. Wallingford, Oxfordshire, England: CAB International. p. 734. ISBN 978-0-85199-291-4.) without indicating what it means. Wiktionary lists this usage as the third meaning of the noun process, and one limited to biology. Similarly redlinked terms cry out for either a footnote with a one sentence description, or a link to Wiktionary. See When to link. Some terms are better defined in the article than others. "Postcubitus" is an example of the not-so-good ones: The postcubitus (Pcu) is the first anal [is a word missing?] of the Comstock and Needham system. The postcubitus, however, has the status of an independent wing vein and should be recognized as such. That sounds more like argumentation in a scientific paper than an encyclopedic description. It is also less informative since the referent "Pcu" does not appear in the accompanying "venation of insect wings" diagram, but only much later in the "joints" diagram. These are just some of the specifics that relate to the general topic of needing better clarification of terminology, so that readers of other articles can be linked here for a better understanding of what is being said. --Bejnar (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endocrine system

The salivary glands are not part of the endocrine system. These glands are part of the endocrine system:

Neurosecretory cells

Corpora cardiaca

Prothoracic glands

Corpora allata — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polinizador (talk • contribs) 16:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Insect morphology. 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) 05:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Insect morphology. 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) 05:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]