Talk:Mecoptera

New cladogram needed

Given this information: [1], the cladogram needs to be updated. Jalwikip (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Siphonaptera are really Mecoptera?

There isn't a reference to back this up, but even if there was, I don't think DNA entirely overrules the other taxonomy characteristics that are taken into account. In any case I don't think the claim that Siphonaptera are a part of the Mecoptera is widely accepted. The Tree of life and the Systema Naturae certainly don't think so. I'll probably remove that from the taxo box unless there's good evidence that the claim is widely accepted. - Taxman ^Talk 15:52, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

You're probably right that it's not widely accepted yet, so feel free to remove it from the taxobox, although it should probably be mentioned in the article. I'll add the reference in a minute. AFAIK the DNA evidence does not really contradict other evidence -- it's just that before, nobody really knew where to put fleas since they are so highly specialized, and so as a stopgap they made them their own order. With TOL/SN, it's unfortunately hard to tell if they disagree with a research result or if they just haven't heard about it yet. --Chl 20:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

More than happy to leave it in the article the way it is now as a mention, especially if you can find the reference for it. But I'd really like to remove it from the taxobox unless there's further verification that the claim is widely accepted. Covering it that way seems appropriate given the facts of the situation as I see them so far. Thanks for responding also - Taxman ^Talk 21:04, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Needs citation and more detailed discussion (i.e. which sequence? nDNA, mtDNA, ...? Have HGT or parasite-forced evolution effects been discussed (Have Wolbachia studies been done in these taxa?)? Morphological apomorphies seem to me at first sight and being fairly ignorant about syn- vs aut- in insects to be equivocal as for being syn- vs autapomorphies: the exact nature of the reversal would be interesting to know; Resilin vs no resilin is apparently a highly autapomorphic character in arthropods so its presence is not very informative. (Reversals tend to screw up parsimony analyses because they're unparsimonious per definition; might be worthy of note if we can get a current morphology paper/discussion too)

Also, there is one word missing from the Boreidae part; please see the source as I have outcommented it, being unable to resolve it myself and the information making not much sense at present - probably just "and", but might as well be "versus" (i.e. phylogeny -> B. (M. + S.) ). In any case, scrapping Siphonaptera would only be a relevant question to ponder if Mecoptera would be polyphyletic otherwise, and even then it might be better to split up the latter as Siphonaptera's evolutionary "trajectory" has gone along a very different course for considerable time. It might even be possible to live with a paraphyletic Mecoptera (to the exclusion of Siphonaptera); it is basically what weighs more, phylogeny (where they came from) or evolution as a whole (where they're at). Dysmorodrepanis 02:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link which might be helpful: [2] --Kjoonlee 22:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Somehow the article formatting got screwed up

If you know how to fix this (I don't), please do! Thanks 64.252.206.245 (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Images

@Chiswick Chap: just wanted to let you know, I was looking to give a better overview of the Mecopteran diversity, as the gallery and page both were almost entirely of Panorpa sp. The fossil and evolution section is woefully lacking still so that section will be expanded to add the supporting text needed.

Yes, far too many of the most commonly photographed species. I've moved the fossils to the fossil section where they can or will support the text in that section as it is worked on. I don't think, actually, that we need an enormous essay on fossils for an Insect order article, but clearly it's a bit sketchy at the moment. Diversity will be best handled in the "Diversity" section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree about not needing a large section on fossils. By fossils I mean extinct members of the order. The extinct taxa provide the evolutionary history of the order, and an article that glosses over them should not be considered ga or fa level. --Kevmin § 19:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, we plainly agree that we need a section. It needs to cover "the main points", as the guideline says, of the history, and to be proportionate to the rest of the article in length and style. The evolutionary history of most groups of insects has been ascertained at least as much by molecular phylogeny as by anything else. Nobody's attempted to write very much of one for this article in the 12 years it has existed; I'm happy to write something, but if you'd rather do it, feel free. I'll probably put in a few basic details of what lived when. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Cladograms

Given the space taken up by the cladograms, should we be including the images on the first one? Also do we have a good idea of how accurate both are given the amount of research that has happened since they were published?--Kevmin § 22:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, that's three good questions all at once. On the images, yes, I think so: by far the most helpful place for the images is at the leaf nodes where they belong, so they give an immediate visual impression of the phylogenetic relationships. On the space, I think it's very reasonable, given the agreed importance of the evolutionary history of the group (and while I'd not use otherstuffexists as an argument, you will certainly find much larger cladograms for other groups). On the accuracy, the external relationships are pretty solid, very well agreed by people in the field and not changed in 16 years now. The internal relationships are boldly presented as doubtful because nobody has yet done any better: any cladogram with three-and-a-half-way branches is going to get revised eventually! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Title

Insect orders that have English names are normally titled in English. Scorpionfly is a widely-used name for the order, not used for anything else, and familiar to amateur naturalists and experts alike. I therefore propose we move the article to that title. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that scorpionfly is only the common name for the panorpids, with Bittacids commonly known as hanging flies (not having the enlarged genitalia) and Meropids are forcepflies. I would say it should stay at Mecoptera. See Hymenoptera, Neuroptera and Lepidoptera for precedent.---Kevmin § 21:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you are overstating your case. The Nannochoristids, Choristids, Panorpodids, Panorpids, Apteropanorpids, Boreids, Eomeropids and Meropeids are all reasonably called scorpionflies. Even the Bittacids are sometimes called hanging scorpionflies, a special kind of scorpionfly. It's plain that 'scorpionflies' has spread from the narrower usage (Panorpus) to all-the-Panorpids to all the Mecoptera, as has happened with many other English names. (The Lepidoptera would all be called 'butterflies' if it hadn't been for the strength of 'moth', and the French indeed call all of them 'papillons'.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I am going with accuracy over vernacular inaccuracy, and we should be working at informing of the complex naming of the groups by leaving the article at the most commonly used name, Mecoptera. Bitaccids and meropids, make up at least half the order, and are most often not called scorpionflies. Lepidopterans should be precisely be called moths as butterlies are simply derived moths, so that doesnt actually work as a strong argument either.--Kevmin § 13:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

All "vernacular" names are "inaccurate" by taxonomic standards: if we followed that logic we would never use any English name for any taxon, but on the contrary Wikipedia favours common names. When a name is in widespread usage for a group among naturalists both amateur and professional, we should properly use it. That does not require a count of the number of bittacids or meropids, but of what people generally call the group, which is scorpionflies. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 18:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, I'll review this. Strange creatures, I remember finding one with a large "tail" as a kid, and thinking I had found an unknown species... FunkMonk (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, and great to hear the enthusiasm! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm unsure about the two galleries, per WP:galleries. Considering the giant amount of empty white space next to the cladograms, for example, it would seem you could easily spread the best ones (many of them seem repetitive) out in the article.

I've used one of the galleries to populate the cladogram with small images. I think the other one on fossils makes sense only in the context of the fossil section, so I suggest we leave it there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm still not sure why the remaining gallery is necessary. Three similar photos of a single fossil wing? Seems you could keep the reconstruction and one of the complete specimens, and the same would be conveyed, just without the repetition. FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The images are from different periods and different continents. I've removed one of the Jurassic, China and two of the Eocene, Washington State images.

• Nothing on taxonomic history? Who named the group? Synonyms? Historical changes in classification?

Started with Linnaeus; group named by Hyatt & Arms 1891. No synonyms that I can find. See 'Internal relationships' item below.

• "The Mecoptera's crown group" Why genitives? Also, crown group should be linked, and could be briefly explained, if possible.

Gone, see next.

• To the aforementioned crown group sentence, if you mean these are the first known member sof the group, it could be stated much clearer if most readers are to understand this.

Done.

• "based on a 2008 analysis of four loci (18S and 28S ribosomal DNA, cytochrome oxidase II, and elongation factor 1-alpha)" I think you cna just say "a 2008 genetic study", the current text is overly technical

OK, DNA and protein analysis it is.

• "The Boreidae (snow scorpionflies) are seen to be the sister clade to the Siphonaptera, so the Mecoptera as traditionally understood was paraphyletic" Why change in tense?

Switched to the present.

• "are all monophyletic" Why is this important to note? It is assumed to be the case, unless otherwise stated.

Removed.

• "The relationships of the families are however unclear." Either say "interrelationships" or "relationships between the families".

Done.

• "The informal cladogram" What makes it "informal"?

Removed.

• "places the Nannochoristidae as a separate order, with the Boreidae, sister to the Siphonaptera, also as its own order." This seems to contradict what the article states elsewhere. If Boreidae and Nannochoristidae do not belong in Mecoptera, you must either explain that there is some sort of controversy, or change the article accordingly, so that they are not within the scope.

Said the Nannochoristidae and Boreidae were once seen as part of Mecoptera, so they are part of the historic scope; and that the relationships are a matter of debate.

• "(by the entomologist Natalie Lindgren) at the Southeast Texas Applied Forensic Science Facility near Huntsville, Texas" Is all this really relevant here?

Removed.

More

• There are quite a few unfamiliar terms under Morphology that could need in-text explanation. Also to a lesser degree in the rest of the Biology section.

Wikilinked and glossed several.

• "or a brown salivary secretion to the female" What can the female use this for?

Added that it's edible.

• "prey between 3 and 14mm long" Needs conversions.

Done.

• No photos of eggs or larvae? The hanglfy image seems to have nothing to do with mating, other than its caption.

Photos would be nice, but we don't have any on Commons. The hangingfly image is what's available.

• "(from the Greek: mecos = "long", ptera = "wings") " This should be stated under taxonopmy as well.

Done.

• "in the superorder Endopterygota" Only stated in intro.

Also in the cladogram.

• "Mecopterans are sometimes called scorpionflies after their largest family, Panorpidae, in which the males have enlarged genitals that look similar to the stingers of scorpions." Only stated in intro.

Added.

• "before the evolution of other insect groups" Only stated in intro, also seems dubious, unless you specify which other insect groups we're talking about.

Moved ref out of lead; pollination is discussed in the Fossil history section, and mentioned bees.

• Their long rostra could be mentioned in the intro.

Done.

• The article looks solid to me now, so will go ahead and pass. FunkMonk (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks as always. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mecoptera. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050818104810/http://myrmecos.net/insects/mecoptera.html to http://www.myrmecos.net/insects/mecoptera.html

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) 00:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)