Talk:Phaeosaces lindsayae

Lepidoptera Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of an in situ or specimen photo be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Requested move 3 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 19:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptolechia lindsayae → Phaeosaces lindsayae – I am requesting that this page be moved and renamed Phaeosaces lindsayae. My rationale for this request is that this is the currently accepted name for the species. I refer you to the citations listed in the recently expanded article page. Particularly those cited in the taxonomic section as well as those citations used the justify the statement concerning the endemic nature of the species. Ambrosia10 (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per cited sources. Plantdrew (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that Dugdale ref is dense. Support on the condition I don't have to read it again! Basie (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.