Talk:Pyrops

Idea of a new classification and updating to current classifications.

There are 2 possible errors that I want to note Uploader1234567890 (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Error 1: The classification is anyways not upto date. Contant recently shifted pyrops to Fulgoridae incertae sedis, and a DNA based study transferred it, along with Neoalcathous and Saiva. It should be updated, no matter what. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Error 2: The genus pyrops, though not noted, is a wastebasket taxon. I fact, there's a matrix of species from it a related genera that belong here and there. I have noted the changes down in unpublished papers, which I cannot publish because I'm just 11 years old in age. But I think these classifications are more reliable too. So should Wikipedia adjust to my classification? If so, then how can I change it? Uploader1234567890 (talk) 04:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On issue 1: First, any such changes would need to come along with a reference supporting the change. Second, that reference should not be a primary source; that is, it should be some official collection or database that has accepted a primary source's restructuring or reclassification. We do not change our content on the drop of a single paper; we wait until that paper has become accepted fact by its incorporation into other papers and such.

On issue 2: Again, if you have a published reference stating that it is a wastebasket, then yes, go ahead and add that into the article. But since you wrote the paper yourself and it is not published, then no, you should not be making any such changes.

- UtherSRG (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the papers is published, in which pyropsini was created: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353596074_Characterization_Comparative_Analysis_and_Phylogenetic_Implications_of_Mitogenomes_of_Fulgoridae_Hemiptera_Fulgoromorpha Uploader1234567890 (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was the DNA based study I mentioned. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a typo and forgot to to add some info.

" Constant recently shifted pyrops to Fulgoridae incertae sedis, and a DNA based study transferred it to pyropsini, in aphaeninae, along with Neoalcathous and Saiva." Uploader1234567890 (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, we don't shift our content on the drop of an initial, primary source. We wait until that change has been incorporated into other bodies of work. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had given the link, and it is a mystery to me that why other databases didn’t update accordingly. I have not yet found any works in contradiction to this yet, ant I don’t think that a contradictive work even exists. I think taxonomic databases aren’t interested in DNA studies. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also added Pyrops condorinus (Lallemand 1960) to the list of species. I will soon create an article dedicated to it. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Pyrops nigripennis beacause it is a synonym of P. Clavatus. Synonymized over here: Uploader1234567890 (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315657054_Review_of_the_clavatus_group_of_the_lanternfly_genus_Pyrops_Hemiptera_Fulgoromorpha_Fulgoridae?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6Il9kaXJlY3QiLCJwYWdlIjoiX2RpcmVjdCJ9fQ Uploader1234567890 (talk) 03:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And how come that P. sultanus was written as sultana? Pyrops is a masculine genus, not feminine Uploader1234567890 (talk) 06:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are not slaved to ICZN's rules. We do not make changes based on those rules; that is the job of folks writing papers. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal; it is an encyclopedia. We only report on what others have published, we do not create new words ourselves. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Search pyrops sultana and you will find that on every website pyrops sultanus is accepted. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Provide references for your changes; that's your job as an editor. Note that the database Dyanega listed below uses sultana. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which database?

See FLOW:

https://flow.hemiptera-databases.org/flow/?page=explorer&db=flow&lang=en&card=taxon&rank=species&id=17558

I think "sultana" is an error. Since I knew this species, I had never heard of "sultana". Uploader1234567890 (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Sultanus" is even accepted py Inaturalist and and GBIF Uploader1234567890 (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the one Dyanega says is most reliable for Pryops. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That one... I know that database, and I referred to it as 31 auchennorhyncha. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd use that database as the reference for pyrops lathburii. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The pyrops lathburii image that I used to replace the previous one is misidentified as candelaria. I can tell it is lathburii by the apex of the cephalic process, which is brightly coloured, and the shape of the cephalic process, which is thicker. Differs from Pyrops pyrorhynchus group by hindwings and tegmen pattern (Hindwings not visible, but tegmen I always visible.) Uploader1234567890 (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell it is lathburii this is not a verifiable source. Your knowledge is not relevant. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been identifying Pyrops for more than an ear. pls do not identify on your own without going through research papers. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say again: Your knowledge is not relevant. What you can prove via published papers is. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a Wikimedia commons item I am talking about, which was misidentified, because I thought. that if I don't explain you will relabel it. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another option is to start a discussion on the article's talk page and build consensus to change it. Put the idea out there and let it sit for a bit. If there are no objections, then make the change. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which article's talk page? Uploader1234567890 (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article where the image is used. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The. image is the pyrops lathburii image used here. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, the image was labeled pyrops candelaria, which was a misidentification, and I thought you would change the image thinking it was that species. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have also created an article for pyrops sultanus a few hours ago. I am waiting for it to be approved. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can approve it as sultana per the hoppers db. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'm just used to sultanus. When I were on on iNaturalist, in that database, it was called sultanus Uploader1234567890 (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you shift "pyrops sultanus" to Pyrops sultana? Uploader1234567890 (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Note the several changes I've made. Binomials should be in italics, genus names always capitalized, species epithets almost never isolated from a genus name. Wrap references in appropriate templates. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Uploader1234567890 (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Make a separate discussion thread for replacing the image or relabeling it. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't understand what I mean. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said that I thought you will mislabel it or remove it... Uploader1234567890 (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Start a new thread about what it is you want done with the image. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How am I supposed to start a thread? Uploader1234567890 (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The same way you started this one, presumably: go to the top of the page, and hit the + sign. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By Wikimedia common item I mean an image on Wikimedia commons. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go through the key of that paper, ok? Uploader1234567890 (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I were just noting the misidentification, not up to conflict with you. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not my job. It's your responsibility as an editor to provide adequate sourcing to your edits. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG Pyrops astarte is invalid. Synonymized here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359973157_The_Lanternfly_genus_Pyrops_in_Vietnam_A_new_species_from_Central_Vietnam_taxonomic_changes_checklist_identification_key_Hemiptera_Fulgoromorpha_Fulgoridae

Accepted by these databases:

FLOW:

1) https://flow.hemiptera-databases.org/flow/?page=explorer&db=flow&lang=en&card=name&id=13420

2) https://flow.hemiptera-databases.org/flow/?page=explorer&db=flow&lang=en&card=taxon&rank=species&id=23571

3)https://flow.hemiptera-databases.org/flow/?page=explorer&db=flow&lang=en&card=publication&id=4037 and

31 auchennorhyncha: https://hoppers.speciesfile.org/otus/71942/overview Uploader1234567890 (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So use the hoppers link in your edit of the genus page. Making the change with no reference is not acceptable. I'm not second guessing your work, most of the time; I'm seeing there is no given reference and rejecting the change on that basis. You must provide a reference. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! Uploader1234567890 (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to mention that my classifications are completely based on evident features, so don’t judge me by my age. For example, I based constellatipyrops (from con, together, stellate, and Pyrops, an existing generic name) for similar species from Saiva and Pyrops, namely C. cultellatus (type species, from pyrops), C. itoi (from Pyrops), C. ochraceous (from Pyrops), C. semiannulus (from Saiva) and C. pyrrhochlora (from Saiva), all of which have orange to white hind wings, and the tegmina green to orange or yellow, with distinct yellow spots (after which I named it). Uploader1234567890 (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have based each genus against proper diagnostic characteristics. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot add things to Wikipedia based solely on your own personal research; this is very explicitly prohibited (see WP:NOR). The best source you can use for Pyrops that qualifies as a reliable secondary source is this one. If a name does not appear in this source, you should almost certainly not be using it in Wikipedia. Dyanega (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the tribe Pyropsini is recognized by this source, but it is placed in the subfamily Fulgorinae (not Aphaeninae), and its constituent genera are listed as Datua, Hariola, Pyrops, and Saiva. This is the presently accepted classification, and this is what should be used in Wikipedia. Dyanega (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partly incorrect. I can agree that I cannot write on Wikipedia based on unpublished papers. But because I could present the link to the dna study, that should be updated. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also see the conclusion on page 15. There it is stated that pyropsini is within Aphaeninae. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 02:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we do not change taxonomy based on a single paper. There must be multiple papers using that taxonomy, or some database (such as the one Dyanega pointed to) that has adopted the taxonomy. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted, it is not about who adopted it. In fact, most databases are extremely incomplete. I will point out to this using the following example: Uploader1234567890 (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Search for cantao, a genus of pentatomoideans from the old world, on COL (Catalogue of life) and there will be no results. But this is a very well known genus at the same time. Hence it doesn’t matter which database adopt and which doesn’t. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, we do not change taxonomies based on a single primary source. This is how Wikipedia works. If you are not willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, you will eventually have your editing privileges removed. The paper you point at is irrelevant as far as taxonomy is concerned until that taxonomy is used elsewhere. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pyropsini

Since I do research on fulgorids, I thought I should check into this name. It turns out that under the ICZN it is an objective synonym of the tribe Laternariini, as they have the same type genus. This is not immediately obvious, but it is because the genus name Laternaria was declared unavailable by an ICZN Commission ruling, in favor of Pyrops. Under certain circumstances, it is possible for a family-rank name (such as Laternariini) to be based on a genus which is no longer valid, but under ICZN Article 39, a family-rank name cannot be based upon an unvailable name. Therefore, Laternariini is also an unavailable name, and Pyropsini is its replacement. Technically, therefore, the genus Pyrops has been in a tribe called Pyropsini since 1955; its inclusion there is not recent at all. In fact, the appearance in Wikipedia of the tribe name Laternariini is a demonstrable error, easily addressed by citing almost any authoritative sources. It is the suggestion that the tribe Pyropsini belongs in Aphaeninae that is recent, and needs confirmation. Dyanega (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the above comment regarding pyropsini in aphaeninae Uploader1234567890 (talk) 02:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you research on Fulgoridae, can you join me in trying to increase Fulgoridae species article’s coverage on species? Uploader1234567890 (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrops sultana

FYI: under the ICZN, only words that are Latin or latinized adjectives have their spelling changed to agree with the gender of the genus. The reason that the spelling of Pyrops sultana was not changed to sultanus in most sources is because it is not a Latin or latinized adjective; it is a Spanish noun. I see that UtherSRG moved Pyrops sultanus to Pyrops sultana - this in fact the correct spelling, despite the genus Pyrops being masculine. Dyanega (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the names candelaria and curtiprora are nouns, and likewise do not change spelling. Dyanega (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]