Talk:Lepidoptera/Archive 1

gender identification

I think we should include pictures or a link to a page showing how to identify most butterflies/moths by gender. I believe it is the same across the Order for pupa, and I know it's a lost cause for the larva, however, I think it would be helpful. I recently had a problem being able to find the information and think it would add to the wiki community. Unforunately, I don't know enough and my camera isn't fancy enough to take decent macro shots. -Kugamazog

superfamilies in taxobox

I have some doubts about the validity of superfamily lists in the taxobox. For one thing it makes the box unreasonably long. Also it seems to suggest that "moth" and "butterfly" are well defined classifications, which other pages here contradict. Perhaps such information should be included in the article body, not the taxobox. (unsigned comment by Zeimusu (talk · contribs)

I looked at it and before, the taxo listed "over 130 families". I figured having the 46 superfamilies from one of the texts I'm working from (the Firefly Encyclopedia...I list in References) wasn't too bad. I'm currently working at stubbing out all of the moth superfamilies. I'm open for suggestion, but figured this was a slight improvement. If you (or anyone else for that matter) strongly disagree, I will not be offended. :) My plan is as follows:
- blue link all superfamiles (as stubs)
- slowly go through and fill the superfamilies out to the best of my sources.

I welcome any constructive criticism. Wikibofh 3 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think Wikibofh's edits were helpful. It is true that there is no universally accepted distinction between moths and butterflies, but the schema presented here agrees with general wisdom (AFAIK). Wikipedia should have the (presumably layman) end user in mind when presenting information; while it might not be acceptable to rigidly divide the two groups of superfamilies in a scientific publication, it makes sense to here. Wikipedia isn't meant to stand in for specialized monographs on any given subject. If the taxobox moth/butterfly division is all that botherful, we could always include an explanatory footnote to explicitly state that the division is informal. (To disclaim my own text: I am not a lepidopterist, although I sometimes play one online.) -- Hadal 5 July 2005 06:58 (UTC)

It can be helpful to give non-taxonomic information in the taxobox, but it can be messy, for instance if we ever wanted to list suborders. I think it would be better to point out the two butterfly superfamilies in the article text. In the superfamily list, they can be distinguished with common names:

Hesperioidea (skippers)
Papilionoidea (most butterflies)
Micropterigoidea
...

That might help draw attention to any important groups of moths, too. Josh

So, you're proposing we remove the butterfly and moth headings from the taxobox, and put descriptions on the superfamilies? I don't have a problem with that. I thought the earlier concern was having the superfamilies in the taxobox at all. Generally speaking my preference is for the taxobox to only have the next most specific grouping, but that's just a personal preference. For instance I think that the Insect taxobox is a mess, confusing and not very logical, but that's just me. It could be for taxonomists it makes sense. Wikibofh 5 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)

That's a fair alternative, and agrees with what we've been doing with fish articles. To do so here would require excising one of the two images (due to width issues), but that's no big deal. Regarding the insect taxobox, I think it's fairly well-organized, considering the material. In that taxobox the orders are subdivided by sub/infraclass; one reason for this is that not all schemes may use a given subclass, and that it provides easier access to the individual orders while giving the reader an at-a-glance idea of where everything fits. As for the superfamilies here: as long as you reference them (as you're doing), they're probably fine, provided we avoid conflicting schemes. If the Firefly Encyclopedia mentions taxonomic authorities for the superfamilies, it would be good to include those too (in the individual articles, of course). -- Hadal 6 July 2005 03:58 (UTC)

Actually I spent days figuring out the whole structure of the butterfly kingdom last winter and spent days doing the taxoboxes so that they were complete. Now that I look at it all my edits are gone practically. I find this whole thing insulting to say the least. No help from me. Williamb 09:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathise. I have had experience of this kind, though not to the scale experienced by you. It helps to post your vision and summary of work completed on this page because anyone contemplating major changes to a page would scan the talk page before proceeding.AshLin

Creation of WikiProject Lepidoptera

I would like to announce the creation of WikiProject Lepidoptera so that we have a forum to discuss and hassle out these issues. Regards, AshLin 06:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved material-Family classification

Can someone reorganize the following and add it back suitably into the article or perhaps as a new article on the classification... Most of the information is repeated in the lepidoptera box in the footer. Shyamal 10:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of currently accepted families

Family	Otherwise included in
Acanthopteroctetidae Davis, 1978
Acrolepiidae Heinemann, 1870	Plutellidae or Yponomeutidae
Acrolophidae	Tineidae
Adelidae Bruand, 1851
Agathiphagidae Kristensen, 1967
Agonoxenidae Meyrick, 1926	Elastichidae or Coleophoridae
Aididae	Megalopygidae
Alucitidae Leach, 1815
Anomoeotidae
Anomosetidae
Anthelidae
Arctiidae Leach, 1815
Arrhenophanidae
Axiidae Rebel, 1919	Noctuidae
Batrachedridae Heinemann & Wocke, 1876	Coleophoridae or Mompidae or Cosmopterigidae
Bedelliidae Meyrick, 1880	Lyonetiidae
Blastobasidae Meyrick, 1894	Coleophoridae
Bombycidae Latreille, 1802
Brachodidae Heppner, 1979	Glyphipterigidae
Brahmaeidae Swinhoe, 1892
Bucculatricidae Wallengren, 1881
Callidulidae
Carposinidae Walsingham, 1897
Carthaeidae
Castniidae
Cecidosidae	Incurvariidae
Choreutidae Stainton, 1854	Glyphipterigidae
Coleophoridae Bruand, 1851
Copromorphidae
Cosmopterigidae Heinemann & Wocke, 1876
Cossidae Leach, 1815
Crambidae Latreille, 1810	Pyralidae
Crinopterygidae Spuler, 1898
Cyclotornidae
Dalceridae
Doidae Donahue & Brown, 1987	Arctiidae
Douglasiidae Heinemann & Wocke, 1876
Drepanidae Boisduval, 1828
Dudgeoneidae
Elachistidae Bruand, 1851
Endromidae Boisduval, 1828
Epermeniidae Spuler, 1910
Epicopeiidae
Epipyropidae Dyar, 1903
Eriocottidae Spuler, 1898	Incurvariidae
Eriocraniidae Tutt, 1899
Ethmiidae Busck, 1909	Elachistidae
Eupterotidae
Galacticidae	Plutellidae
Gelechiidae Stainton, 1854
Geometridae Leach, 1815
Glyphipterigidae Stainton, 1854
Gracillariidae Stainton, 1854
Hedylidae	Geometridae
Heliodinidae Heinemann & Wocke, 1876
Heliozelidae Heinemann & Wocke, 1877
Hepialidae Stephens, 1829
Hesperiidae Latreille, 1809
Heterobathmiidae	Micropterigidae
Heterogynidae Herrich-Schäffer, 1846
Himantopteridae
Holcopogonidae Gozmany, 1967	Autostichidae
Hyblaeidae
Immidae Heppner, 1977	Glyphipterigidae
Incurvariidae Spuler, 1898
Lacturidae	Yponomeutidae
Lasiocampidae Harris, 1841
Lecithoceridae Le Marchand, 1947	Gelechiidae
Lemoniidae Dyar, 1896
Limacodidae Duponchel, 1845
Lophocoronidae Common, 1973
Lycaenidae Leach, 1815
Lymantriidae Hampson, 1893
Lyonetiidae Stainton, 1854
Lypusidae Heinemann, 1870	Tineidae or Psychidae or Yponomeutidae
Megalopygidae
Metachandidae Meyrick, 1911	Oecophoridae or Gelechiidae
Micropterigidae Herrich-Schäffer, 1855
Mimallonidae
Mirinidae	Bombycidae
Mnesarchaeidae
Momphidae Herrich-Schäffer, 1857	Coleophoridae
Neopseustidae
Neotheoridae Kristensen, 1978.
Nepticulidae Stainton, 1854
Noctuidae Latreille, 1809
Nolidae Hampson, 1894	Noctuidae
Notodontidae Stephens, 1829
Nymphalidae Rafinesque, 1815
Oecophoridae Bruand, 1851
Oenosandridae Miller, 1991	Notodontidae (Thaumatopoeidae)
Opostegidae Meyrick, 1893
Palaeosetidae
Palaephatidae	Tineidae
Pantheidae Smith, 1898	Noctuidae
Papilionidae Latreille, 1802
Pieridae Duponchel, 1835
Plutellidae Guenee, 1845	Yponomeutidae
Prodoxidae Riley, 1881
Prototheoridae
Psychidae Boisduval, 1828
Pterolonchidae Meyrick, 1918	Coleophoridae
Pterophoridae Zeller, 1841
Pyralidae Latreille, 1802
Riodinidae Grote, 1895	Lycaenidae
Roeslerstammiidae Bruand, 1850
Saturniidae Boisduval, 1837
Schreckensteiniidae Fletcher, 1929
Scythrididae Rebel, 1901
Sematuridae
Sesiidae Boisduval, 1828
Simaethistidae	Pyralidae
Somabrachyidae Hampson, 1920	Megalopygidae
Sphingidae Latreille, 1802
Symmocidae Gozmany, 1957	Autostichidae
Thyrididae Herrich-Schäffer, 1846
Tineidae Latreille, 1810
Tineodidae Meyrick, 1885
Tischeriidae Spuler, 1898
Tortricidae Latreille, 1802
Uraniidae
Urodidae Kyrki, 1984
Whalleyanidae	Thyrididae
Yponomeutidae Stephens, 1829
Ypsolophidae Guenee, 1845	Yponomeutidae
Zygaenidae Latreille, 1809

List of relegated families

The following groups have been ranked as families in the fairly recent past, and the family names are still likely to be met with in books and on the internet. This list shows where the supposed families are now classified.

'Family'	Now included in
Agaristidae	Noctuidae
Amphisbatidae	Oecophoridae
Apatelodidae	Bombycidae
Apoprogonidae	Sematuridae
Argyresthiidae	Yponomeutidae
Autostichidae	Oecophoridae
Blastodacnidae	Agonoxenidae
Cercophanidae	Saturniidae
Chimbachidae	Oecophoridae
Chrysopolomidae	Limacodidae
Cocytiidae	Noctuidae
Ctenuchidae	Arctiidae
Cyclidiidae	Drepanidae
Cycnodiidae	Elachistidae
Danaidae	Nymphalidae
Deoclonidae	Gelechiidae
Depressariidae	Oecophoridae
Deuterotineidae	Eriocottidae

'Family'	Now included in
Dilobidae	Noctuidae
Dioptidae	Notodontidae
Epiplemidae	Uraniidae
Glyphidoceridae	Symmocidae
Heliconiidae	Nymphalidae
Hypertrophidae	Oecophoridae
Hypsidae	Noctuidae
Lathrotelidae	Crambidae
Libytheidae	Nymphalidae
Manidiidae	Sematuridae
Megathymidae	Hesperiidae
Metarbelidae	Cossidae
Oinophilidae	Tineidae
Olethreutidae	Tortricidae
Oxytenidae	Saturniidae
Parnassiidae	Papilionidae
Peleopodidae	Oecophoridae

'Family'	Now included in
Pericopidae	Arctiidae
Phaloniidae	Tortricidae
Phyllocnistidae	Gracillariidae
Pseudarbelidae	Psychidae
Pterothysanidae	Callidulidae
Pyromorphidae	Zygaenidae
Ratardidae	Cossidae
Satyridae	Nymphalidae
Schistonoeidae	Gelechiidae
Stathmopodidae	Oecophoridae
Stenomidae	Oecophoridae
Strepsimanidae	Noctuidae
Thaumetopoeidae	Notodontidae
Thyatiridae	Drepanidae
Thyretidae	Arctiidae
Walshiidae	Cosmopterigidae
Xyloryctidae	Oecophoridae

Classification according to Fauna Europaea

Classification of European Lepidoptera
Superfamily:	Family:	Subfamily:
Acanthopteroctetoidea	Acanthopteroctetidae
Alucitoidea	Alucitidae
Axioidea	Axiidae
Bombycoidea	Brahmaeidae
	Endromidae
	Lemoniidae
	Mirinidae
	Saturniidae	Agliinae
	Saturniidae	Saturniinae
	Sphingidae	Macroglossinae
		Smerinthinae
		Sphinginae
Choreutoidea	Choreutidae	Choreutinae
Choreutoidea	Choreutidae	Millierinae
Copromorphoidea	Carposinidae
Cossoidea	Cossidae	Cossinae
Cossoidea	Cossidae	Zeuzerinae
Drepanoidea	Drepanidae	Drepaninae
Drepanoidea	Drepanidae	Thyatirinae
Epermenioidea	Epermeniidae	Epermeniinae
Epermenioidea	Epermeniidae	Ochromolopinae
Eriocranioidea	Eriocraniidae
Galacticoidea	Galacticidae
Gelechioidea	Agonoxenidae
	Amphisbatidae	Amphisbatinae
	Autostichidae	Autostichinae
		Holcopogoninae
		Symmocinae
	Batrachedridae
	Blastobasidae
	Chimabachidae
	Coleophoridae
	Cosmopterigidae	Antequerinae
		Chrysopeleiinae
		Cosmopteriginae
	Deoclonidae
	Depressariidae	Cryptolechiinae
	Depressariidae	Depressariinae
	Elachistidae
	Ethmiidae
	Gelechiidae	Dichomeridinae
		Gelechiinae
		Pexicopiinae
	Lecithoceridae	Ceuthomadarinae
		Lecithocerinae
		Oditinae
	Momphidae
	Oecophoridae	Deuterogoniinae
	Oecophoridae	Oecophorinae
	Pterolonchidae
	Schistonoeidae
	Scythrididae
	Stathmopodidae
Geometroidea	Geometridae	Alsophilinae
		Archiearinae
		Desmobathrinae
		Ennominae
		Geometrinae
		Larentiinae
		Orthostixinae
		Sterrhinae
	Uraniidae	Epipleminae
Gracillarioidea	Bucculatricidae
	Douglasiidae
	Gracillariidae	Gracillariinae
		Lithocolletinae
		Phyllocnistinae
	Roeslerstammiidae
Hepialoidea	Hepialidae
Hesperioidea	Hesperiidae	Hesperiinae
		Heteropterinae
		Pyrginae
Incurvarioidea	Adelidae	Adelinae
	Adelidae	Nematopogoninae
	Crinopterygidae
	Heliozelidae
	Incurvariidae
	Prodoxidae
Lasiocampoidea	Lasiocampidae	Chondrosteginae
		Lasiocampinae
		Malacosominae
		Pinarinae
		Poecilocampinae
Micropterigoidea	Micropterigidae
Nepticuloidea	Nepticulidae	Nepticulinae
	Opostegidae	Oposteginae
	Opostegidae	Opostegoidinae
Noctuoidea	Arctiidae	Arctiinae
		Lithosiinae
		Syntominae
	Lymantriidae	Arctorninae
		Calliterinae
		Lymantrinae
		Nygmininae
		Orgyinae
	Noctuidae	Acontiinae
		Acronictinae
		Aedeiinae
		Amphipyrinae
		Bagisarinae
		Bryophilinae
		Calpinae
		Catocalinae
		Condicinae
		Cuculliinae
		Dilobinae
		Eublemminae
		Eustrotiinae
		Euteliinae
		Hadeninae
		Heliothinae
		Herminiinae
		Hypeninae
		Micronoctuinae
		Noctuinae
		Pantheinae
		Plusiinae
		Raphiinae
		Rivulinae
		Strepsimaninae
		Tytinae
	Nolidae	Chloephorinae
		Eariadinae
		Nolinae
	Notodontidae	Notodontinae
		Phalerinae
		Ptilodoninae
		Pygaerinae
		Stauropinae
	Thaumetopoeidae	Thaumetopoeinae
Papilionoidea	Lycaenidae	Lycaeninae
	Lycaenidae	Riodininae
	Nymphalidae	Apaturinae
		Charaxinae
		Danainae
		Heliconiinae
		Libytheinae
		Limenitidinae
		Melitaeinae
		Nymphalinae
		Satyrinae
	Papilionidae	Papilioninae
	Papilionidae	Parnassiinae
	Pieridae	Coliadinae
		Dismorphiinae
		Pierinae
Pterophoroidea	Pterophoridae	Agdistinae
Pterophoroidea	Pterophoridae	Pterophorinae
Pyraloidea	Crambidae	Acentropinae
		Cathariinae
		Crambinae
		Cybalomiinae
		Evergestinae
		Glaphyriinae
		Odontiinae
		Pyraustinae
		Schoenobiinae
		Scopariinae
		Spilomelinae
	Pyralidae	Epipaschiinae
		Galleriinae
		Phycitinae
		Pyralinae
Schreckensteinioidea	Schreckensteiniidae
Sesioidea	Brachodidae
	Castniidae
	Sesiidae	Sesiinae
	Sesiidae	Tinthiinae
Thyridoidea	Thyrididae
Tineoidea	Eriocottidae
	Lypusidae
	Psychidae	Epichnopteryginae
		Naryciinae
		Oiketicinae
		Placodominae
		Psychinae
		Taleporiinae
		Typhoniinae
	Tineidae	Dryadaulinae
		Euplocaminae
		Hapsiferinae
		Hieroxestinae
		Meessiinae
		Myrmecozelinae
		Nemapogoninae
		Perissomasticinae
		Scardiinae
		Setomorphinae
		Stathmopolitinae
		Teichobiinae
		Tineinae
Tischerioidea	Tischeriidae
Tortricoidea	Tortricidae	Chlidanotinae
		Olethreutinae
		Tortricinae
Urodoidea	Urodidae
Yponomeutoidea	Acrolepiidae
	Bedelliidae
	Glyphipterigidae	Glyphipteriginae
	Glyphipterigidae	Orthoteliinae
	Heliodinidae
	Lyonetiidae	Cemiostominae
	Lyonetiidae	Lyonetiinae
	Plutellidae
	Yponomeutidae	Argyresthiinae
		Praydinae
		Scythropiinae
		Yponomeutinae
	Ypsolophidae	Ochsenheimeriinae
	Ypsolophidae	Ypsolophinae
Zygaenoidea	Epipyropidae
	Heterogynidae
	Limacodidae
	Somabrachyidae
	Zygaenidae	Chalcosiinae
		Procridinae
		Zygaeninae

- This is beautiful! But I see it only has those taxa that occur in Europe. Sigh. It would probably be too long (and difficult to construct as a table?) if it included the global taxa, even if the subfamilies were relegated to the family pages. BTW, is there an easy way to make tables?
- Is there a preferred source for the systematic treatments, such as Kristensen, or Scoble ? Satyrium 14:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image

i replaced the old picture with an FA-quality moth. enjoy. --The Lizard Wizard 06:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

number of species

The article lists the number of lepidoptera species as 180,000. The website [1] claims to have 260,000 accepted names. TeunSpaans 22:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice picture

Image:Grand paon de nuit.jpg If somebody feels like inserting it into the article... Ajor 12:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Image:Grand paon de nuit 2.jpg This one is even better... Ajor 12:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The id is Saturnia pyri (Family Saturnidae). In English called as the Giant Peacock Moth or the Giant Emperor Moth. Added to the article. AshLin 14:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need for rework on this article

This article, despite being the premier article of WikiProject Lepidoptera, has not developed over time. It had a taxobox but that vanished; I have placed another just today. It had some taxonomic lists, but they are gone too. The sections also don't seem to be what the user would like to know from this wiki. We need major rework to bring it to at least Good Article status.

I have archived the previous talk so that we can start afresh. I propose that we work out step by step and move forward to improve it.

Step one, what information does the user expect to read here? Or what information is logically to be found here?

Can we have suggestions in the form of a heirarchy or logical sequence of section headings? Once we get a reasonable model, we can go ahead from there.

Regards, AshLin 19:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AshLin. I was looking for an article on caterpillar anatomy and morphology and couldn't find one, so was in the progress of starting one. This title should be about Lepidoptera order (with a taxobox) and list the suborders and families. The anatomy and morphology sections should be split off into a separate article. Ecology and relationship to people is yet another topic. There are no prizes for having the biggest article! SurreyJohn (Talk) 09:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under what comparison do you envision the split between sections? If one looks at, for example, the order Araneae, a much similar scheme can be noted. The same happens for the class Insecta, and, outside of the pages relating to arthropods, the Mammalia class article follows the same set-up - additionally, the Primates order is a featured article. None of these articles are about taxonomy alone, at all. Granted, there is an obvious difference between the various stages of an holometabolous insect, particularly concerning larva and imago, and the distinction is due. Nevertheless, does that warrant an article on itself? Furthermore, there actually is a dedicated page about lepidopteran morphology (which can be assisted by another page for entomological terms), which might be a possible good place for your expansion regarding larvae. Also, perhaps you didn't realize but you addressed a seven-year-old post. It is a given assumption that this article has improved since then. Snjón (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Snjón for replying. Yes I agree that some articles on a taxa, usually at the class or order level, do go into the subject at quite some depth, and all these class/order require some form of description, especially to distinguish the taxon and its members from other taxon. However, as you get into family, genus and species, articles tend towards listing their constituent members. There doesnt seem to be any hard and fast rule, but that isn't necessarily a problem.

Where I think improvements could be made, is where these articles become rather overcrowded, trying to cover too much subject matter. If Caterpillar anatomy was split off from Lepidoptera into its own topic, it could be dealt with in greater depth, be better cross-referenced from other WP pages, and the topic could be more easily found on search engines. At the moment a Google search comes up with the Caterpillar page well down the hit-list, which contains nothing about anatomy. The general public are most unlikely to search for "Lepidoptera anatomy", and even if they did, would only find an article on the Scale. I know I cant change the world in a day (it takes at least a week!), but would there be much objection to splitting out Caterpillar anatomy to a separate topic? SurreyJohn (Talk) 10:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your initial statement sounds self-explicative. Once articles go into lower taxa they find a gap (of sorts) of information, even though articles on single species can actually be extensive, for example, the page for Panthera leo (the lion) is actually larger than the page for both the family and the order it belongs to. Even the way species and groups of animals are part of our culture, so to speak, affects the way an article is built. Something I'm sure you are able to recognize. Which eventually leads this to more or less of a view on aesthetics. A dedicated article wouldn't be something to oppose per se, but there are considerations. Now I'm relatively curious as to what can be in fact produced regarding the theme. What do you have in mind exactly? Will you go over general morphology alone or take a good pointer into the variation that occurs throughout the order? Or is your idea just a page discussing the "general" sense? Snjón (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snjón

: My observations were purely from a systems analysis perspective, looking at design and reader's requirements, while searching for information about caterpillars. This content is difficult to find (search) and cross-reference if embedded into articles with a Latin/scientific name as the title. If I did split it out I wouldn't envisage any substantive additional content myself (I am not an entomologist). My initial thoughts would be to use a larger size of the anatomy diagram (thumb) as the basic for a "Caterpillar anatomy" article, with each part having its own header (A-C) and sub-header (1-7) corresponding to the parts shown in the diagram.

Also as a general rule or guideline, and addressing AshLin's comment, I think that each taxa article should include where the taxa is places in the species family tree, showing it parent and child members (this should include scientific and English names and ideally also the distinguishing differences). For consistency between articles, ease of navigation, and as a quick informative overview, there should allays be a Taxa info box. SurreyJohn (Talk) 09:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well alright, go for it. (Sorry for the late feedback). Snjón (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Distinguishing Characteristics"

Should this description stay in list format of be rewritten in prose? If it's rewritten in prose, I think it should be a description of the adult insect, and the information about larvae and pupae should go to "Life cycle". Thoughts? A little insignificant ^{Giving thanks to all that is me} 15:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it should be writen in prose, but this a collaboration of AshLin, so maybe s/he should give an opinion. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 17:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He thinks that the characters may be kept as list or written as prose but not seperated. Ashwin in real life but am a FOSS enthusiast hence named AshLin by my friends! AshLin (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KK, I but back the Distinguishing Characteristics for earwig I_{frogot xP}. Any thought regarded as putting them into a paragraph form? Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 17:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

Any regards about the structure of this article? I wasn't sure, so I based it a little on Ant. Any opinions? Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 17:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lepidoptera is a really huge topic (hopefully someday it will make it to FA), so we should provide information as brief as possible. I think the ant format is the best choice. Zoo Fari 17:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So its good? Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 18:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded a lot of sections, but it seems no one is helping :( There is a lot of work to be done. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 23:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need to get this article sorted out. There's many sections that are just lists or devoid of info, including an empty "Evolution" section and a lot of information relating to evolution in the "Phylogeny" sections.

I don't know about other people, but I know from experience that I work better using lists of specific tasks, and that's why I find it easier to address GA review concerns. But some basic things need to be fixed or cleaned up in the article- we can't ask the reviewer to write it for us. So could we set up a task system or something? For example: maybe we could assign people to different sections along with an overview of what needs to be done or improved. Thoughts? A little insignificant ^{Giving thanks to all that is me} 13:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sign me up. Would you allow me 'Morphology & Physiology'. It needs to be concise. We again seem to be replicating the morphology/physiology articles. AshLin (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but try to use the entomology book for info, its a rely good book.

Maybe a Little Insignificant can work with the Evolution section, and I'll do the rest. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 20:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of being assigned to sections. I was going to mention that earlier. I'll sign up for defense and predation. Zoo Fari 22:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 23:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll do evolution then. Oh, and someone should include some info about their diet, etc. I didn't see anything about that when I looked earlier. A little insignificant ^{Giving thanks to all that is me} 00:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Behavior section will include diet and stuff, but not as another sub heading. And maybe we the predation section should have something about moths and bats like the moths defense against bats. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 00:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I may work with the entire behavior section as a whole if I have time. Zoo Fari 01:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments: the defense section should perhaps be expanded as defensive and protective adaptations - since it needs to cover predators, parasites, pathogens, physical threats, cold, heat and dessication. Life-history adaptations such as diapause, slow growth as in Gynaephora, toxin sequestration, ant associations needs to be included. The diversity of life-styles needs to be covered rather than sticking to only the stereotypical lepidoptera- so things like aquatic lepidoptera and more generally the "microlepidoptera" need a bit more coverage and these need to be cited carefully without making generalizations that appear to apply to the entire group. Shyamal (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason I doubt the reliability of "Enchantedlearning.com," but i'll leave that to the reviewer. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 20:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just laying out a format right now. I'll be adding details as soon as I get the basics. Zoo Fari 22:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's-a-get it together, peeps!

Almost there, guys! The article is almost in a good and stable state. A couple sections left before we can slack off for the holidays:

Polymorphism, just a couple notes now, need to be expanded into beautiful ~~butterflies~~ sentences. We can probably use some info contained in other sections, so I don't think this needs much in the way of new research.
Flight! Bugboy wrote a nice flight section in the Insect article, I'm thinking the section here should be a summary of the other one with Lepidoptera specifications.
Communicado, which should be fun to write. Research and sources can be found on the internet, including this one (provided by someone else.)
For that matter, here's a general note: When looking for sources online, remember you might find a wider array of results by searching for "butterflies" or "moths" than you might by searching for "lepidoptera."
Last is Relationship to people, which means researching and writing, which should be fun! Also, see the note about researching above.

Methinks we can work on this together, and if we can get this out of the way the sooner we can relax without having to take care of it after New Year's and all that. So what say you? ALI ^{nom nom} 01:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to dedicate Saturday to finishing up most of the stuff. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 02:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

References are important in order to bring up to Good Article status. With that in mind, there are a lot of refs that are not using cite templates, which I can convert, but some don't include page number and Chapter. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 16:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you include page number, would chapter be necessary? Zoo Fari 00:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hundred percent sure on that, but put it just in case. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 02:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lepidopteran vs lepidopterans

I noticed we're constantly using "lepidopteran" for plural forms of lepidoptera, but the lead states "lepidopterans". Which one should it be? Zoo Fari 07:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that is a problem: How do we refer to the species of the order in general? Do we say Lepidoptera species, Lepidopteran, or Lepidopterans? I think a consensus is in order; I think we should use Lepidoptera species and Lepidopterans... any other opinions? Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 12:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree on that. Zoo Fari 19:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I am aware (and was tought) Lepidoptera is both singular and plural. Lepidopteran = of Lepidoptera (i.e. possesive noun) and should not be capital L unless at the start of a sentence. Hope this helps. HKmoths (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antennae

The thorax section mentions some info on antennae. Shouldn't that be merged into the head section? Zoo Fari 19:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the whole point of adding that as a seperate paragraph was the hope that it would be expanded, but I let it up to the person who wanted to expand on that section to do so. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 19:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found this source that maybe we could use to expand the thorax section and merge the antennae info afterwards. What do you think? Zoo Fari 19:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost done...

We've made great progress! It looks like things are starting to get tidy. --Zoo Fari 23:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we made progress but I feel we are just about half-way there. There's lots more to do. None of the sections is encyclopaedic enough as of yet. AshLin (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should be the one to blame... I took a little mini-brake and wil, be bake to work. I see the Polymorphism section has been worked on, but I'm mostly concerned about it's state. I was looking at the Russian article, and I liked the way it was organized.. any thoughts on certain sections that should be added or thing in particular I should work on before I get started sometime this weekened? Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 01:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No finger-pointing, especially at oneself please. Wikipedia is not a slave-industry! Take your breaks, come back & work at your interest. WikiOgres are an important ethnic group in WikiLand! I have been adding desultory facts to Polymorphism. Feel free to work on it, especially on balanced polymorphism etc. Only remember that each phenomenon will require a more detailed article or stub to back it. I'll check out the Ru link. AshLin (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something to add to sexual dimorphism?

There is strong sexual dimorphism in a lot (or all?) species of Bagworm moth. I made some species articles recently. Females are wingless and resemble larvae, while males look like typical moths (i.e. have wings). Might be usefull to add? Ruigeroeland (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead & add it as a an example of sexual dimorphism. It has one of the most contrasting differences. We'll rewrite for style & encyclopeadiac value later when adequate facts are filled. AshLin (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absent much?

Sorry for my extraordinarily long absence... but has anything been acomplished? I'll be getting back to it right now. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 16:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feeding

Nothing in this article about the associations between lepidopterans and plants? No feeding behaviour except in the section on humans? How am I supposed to do my homework!? :-P But seriously, a section collecting that sort of information would be helpful. --Danger (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The long road to GA status

This article has been WikiProject Insects' current collaboration since December 2, 2009. I think it's probably time to move forward. I have looked over the article, and I can't see too many pressing issues. The references could do with tidying up (some works are repeated, albeit for different chapter; some have important details missing), and the prose could be tightened, but overall, it's not too far off the required standard. One substantive comment I have to make is that it seems strange to include the Viceroy-Monarch example under Batesian mimicry, only to admit that it's actually Müllerian mimicry. It would be better to find an unambiguous example of Batesian mimicry.

The place where most effort is needed, I think, is the ecology. There is a brief mention under "Distribution and diversity" of a general association with flowering plants, but I'm sure there must be much more that could be written. My advice is to expand on that, and then nominate the article at WP:GAN; the helpful reviewers there will let you know if anything else is amiss. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article content is still not complete imho. In addition, to what you pointed out, the morphology etc still needs improvement. The mimicry section is too large and I cannot guarantee that it accurately reflects the state of nknowledge. My problem is that NOT being a professional biologist but a fauji and an abhiyanta, I have to get hold of stuff, learn it, understand it, corelate it, place in context etc which makes it very slow and difficult. I began working on the External morphology of Lepidoptera so that I could summarise it for this article; the anatomy and physiology of Lepidoptera are still to be done. As External morphology of Lepidoptera has reached a better level than Lepidoptera, perhaps we could consider that first. AshLin (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be taking note of all that while I am working on the article. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 14:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Lepidopterist into this article?

I started discussion on Talk:Lepidopterist Scientific29 (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last steps..

The simple stuff.

References that are bare or not using cite templets need to be fixed.
~~Paragraphs that are missing references need some~~
~~Typos~~
~~Sentences that are unclear, or not understandable to readers that are not experienced in the subject.~~

The Complicated stuff.

~~Internal morphology needs expanding~~

IMPORTANT: Some contradictory sources, does the corpora allata or the corpora cardiaca produce PTTH, or both? So far I put both

Relationship to people can use expanding
Another standing problem is that I'm not a hundred percent sure what information goes where. For example, The info about the eggs being made of chirion, should that be with the morphology? Or how caterpillars can sequester the toxins they eat from plants to deter predators, would that go in defense and predation? Or butterflies' mutual association with ants goes in ecology? or diapause in egg laying, should that go in the diapause section?
Phylogeny needs correcting and expanding
~~Taxonomy~~
to be continued...

Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 14:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~NOTE to self: The internal diagram needs dorsal tubules to be changed to heart chambers. Also need to add sources~~

Comments from Smartse

~~The use of koinoboint and idiobiont in the parasitism is confusing - you should explain what these terms mean.~~

Kionobiont was clarified by another scietific term, and I fixed the hidden note added by it. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 16:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a whole section on polymorphism which you define as "within a single species" but then there is discussion of mimicry between different species... Maybe move some of this into the defense and predation section of ecology.

~~could you clarify that.~~ Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 17:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, basically what I mean is that the polymorphism section should only discuss the variation within a species. The final two paragraphs about mimicry are not about polymorphism and that's why I think they would be better dealt with in the ecology section. SmartSE (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the text into word and corrected the errors I found, but I think more may exist.
I added a few hidden notes after ^{[clarification needed]} where I found a sentence didn't make sense and I wasn't sure how to fix it. SmartSE (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, the problem is that we need a reviewer and people to help me fix up what needs to be done, especialy during the reviewing process. Have you considered being the reviewer of the article? Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 17:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, I'm afraid I won't be able to help further as I'm going to be busy IRL for a while. Good luck! SmartSE (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

Insted of "le-pee-DOP-tə-rə", wouldn't the correct spelling be "le-pi-DOP-tə-rə"? Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 12:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monarch Butterfly.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Monarch Butterfly.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration missing from taxobox

The taxobox has an extensive caption, but the illustration to which it refers is missing. Jacob (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wing structure / veination / pattern

No mention in the article about the wing structure, the wing veination or wing patterns. These are useful points that enable identification of the many Lepidoptera species. Note that wing veination may take a numbering system or is based on the Comstock-Needham system (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect_wing) - four main veins (in Lepidoptera) arise from the wing base - Sc (subcostal vein), R (radial vein), M (medial vein) & Cu (cubital vein). Wing pattern should focus on mapping out the names given to the edges, corners and regions of the wing, as well as pattern types (stigmata, fascia, streaks). HKmoths (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good

Nice article, it helps, but why such big paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.84.111 (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suborders

I started on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycaenidae and was trying to determine the taxonomy of butterflies for a research paper I’m editing. I just wanted to know how butterflies are classified. I also checked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossata in my attempt to find the suborder Rhopalocera. But the butterfly page did not match the Lepidoptera page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepidoptera which listed four suborders (including Glossata), none of which is Rhopalocera. I’ll leave this to an entomologist to figure out, being an ecologist and cyperologist myself. Someone needs to check out various butterfly pages and figure out who is what (suborders pages need to match other wikipages. Sedgehead (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Sedgehead[reply]

Additions

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Fall 2013. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Washington University in St. Louis/Behavioral Ecology (Fall 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

I have added an example of a butterfly causing crop damage. Thanks!

Ichooxu (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why have external links to non-english language lepidoptera websites?

I have deleted external links that refer to non-english websites. Why is there such little talk on such a major article? bpage (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Western population of the monarch butterfly

I am very glad that an interest is being shown in this article. At first glance, it seemed to me that no one had continued to improve it. The edit that I did to the caption on a photo of roosting monarch butterflies is very specific to the western population of monarch butterflies but not to the population of eastern monarch butterflies. Each population overwinters in different places. It is not accurate to assume that the photo represents the typical locale where monarchs overwinter. Most monarchs overwinter in Mexico. The photo of the roost in CA is representative of western monarch overwintering behavior, but not representative of all monarchs overwintering. My edit was to clarify. I make a lot of typos, but this wasn't one of them. PLEASE, please, feel free to continue to review and edit this article because I think that it needs it. I also invite you to review and edit any of the other insect related articles that I work on. There seems to be such little activity in the lepidoptera portal. Best Regards to You. bpage (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too Big and Not Specific

This article is too big and not specific. It may be well written and has some excellent and valuable contributions, but it is covering several topics, not just the order Lepidoptera. Unfortunately it should be a fail, and if it is a pass, then the endorsement may prevent improvement.

I was looking for an article on caterpillar anatomy and morphology and couldn't find one, so was in the progress of starting one. This title should be about Lepidoptera order (with a taxobox) and list the suborders and families. It is not consistent with other order articles.

The anatomy and morphology sections should be split off into a separate article. Ecology and relationship to people is yet another topic. There should be no prizes for having the biggest article! SurreyJohn (Talk) 09:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Error in the phylogeny diagram

Hi, I'm new here. I was looking at the diagram in the Phylogeny section, and I'm not sure it is right. It looks to me like the coloured band representing the Angiosperm Radiation is in the wrong place. The comment beneath the diagram says this occurred between 130 and 95 Mya, but that's not what the diagram shows. I have also checked the Labandeira article and the Encyclopedia of Insects (both quoted as sources of the diagram) and they are different from this diagram and show this band with the correct time period. Can you double-check this yourself and see what you think? Regards Piano beat (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hungry little beasties, poor little plants

I don't know where to put this comment so I'll put it here, though I think it's more appropriate for the individual plant pages and not this page as it's not specifically about this page. I've found a lot of pages on Wikipedia about plants with a 1-liner comment about Lepidopteras eating the plant that the Wikipedia page describes. This is very interesting and all, but why is it so important that we all know what Leipdopteras eat? Is it more important that we know that these pre-pupal butterflies eat so many different plants and not, say, deer, rabbits, slugs, or even humans eat these plants too? Just wondering why these animals were picked out over other animals that eat the plant that the Wikipedia page describes, over all animals that could prey on the plants. Granted I think a good effort is placed on fungi/bacterium that eat these plants ("Plant Diseases").

Although your comment is understandable, it is also understandable that a good reason (presumption) these plants you mentioned are known anyway, is because of their relation to lepidoptera as host-plants, and this might be why anyone created a page for them in the first place. To put it shortly, people who know about cheetahs will generally know about gazelles - this is not to justify the paltry information on many stub articles, but it might answer your question, in case it wasn't rhetorical. Snjón (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lepidoptera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070622044831/http://www.leps.nl:80/ to http://www.leps.nl/
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110727194040/http://leptr.org/ to http://www.leptr.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Lepidoptera/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.

This article is nearly an A-class article, with a good list of references, and practically everything it needs. What strikes me though is that if you remove the "evolution" section, there is very little left! Why not have a bit more about ecological role, life cycle, anatomy, etc.? I know that most of this already exists on articles such as "butterfly", "moth" and "caterpillar", but there should still be a section that summarizes this kind of info with a link to the main article or the appropriate section in another article. Not much is needed to reach A-level!! IronC hris | (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 00:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lepidoptera. 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) 07:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lepidoptera. 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) 15:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lepidoptera. 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) 05:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]