Talk:Thaumetopoeinae

Untitled

Is Raumier the correct name for the early study of this caterpillar? Fabre's "The Life of the Caterpillar" mentions that Réaumur has written about it, but no one called Raumier.

See the text of Fabre in English: http://www.ibiblio.org/eldritch/jhf/c01.html

Londonbroil (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subfamily Thaumetopoeinae

Hello. Thaumetopoeidae is treated as a family in this article, but recent molecular phylogenetic studies, for example [1], [2] and Zahiri et al. (2011) suggest that it should be a subfamily of Notodontidae (since recognizing Thaumetopoinae as a family would make Notodontidae polyphyletic group). J.S. Miller, cited in the article, also treats Thaumetopoinae as a subfamily of Notodontidae in another paper. Perhaps the title of this article should be changed to "Thaumetopoeinae". --森津 (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 January 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: 'Moved to Thaumetopoeinae per nom. No such user (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thaumetopoeidae → Thaumetopoeinae – It needs to be reclassified as recent molecular phylogenetic studies suggest that it should be a subfamily of Notodontidae. See above section. 森津 (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Please indicate whether you Support or Oppose the requested move, giving brief reasons. Those that cite relevant policies and guidelines will be more useful. Those that show no understanding of the issues may be discarded. If new to Requested Moves please see wp:RMCOMMENT.

Relisting comment: Raises some interesting issues! See #Discussion below. Andrewa (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

A place for more detailed comments.

Lots going on here. Watch this space. Andrewa (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The creation of Thaumetopoeinae is not all that recent, the redirect here was created on 01:32, 2 June 2007‎ by User:Dysmorodrepanis~enwiki so pinging them here. So at least some people have been using that name for more than ten years. It should be in many sources by now.

The rationale It needs to be reclassified as recent molecular phylogenetic studies suggest that it should be a subfamily of Notodontidae (my emphasis) is irrelevant. We go by sources, see wp:correct. The issue of which name should be used in the literature is the convention that the suffixes dae and nae are used for particular levels of classification. The issue for Wikipedia is which name is being used, not which name should be used.

One relevant naming convention seems to be Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Currency. As a naming convention this has the status of a policy.

Probably more to follow. Andrewa (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your instruction. As I am a newbie, I didn't know there are so many related topics.

This group was first described as Thaumetopoeinae, then reclassified as Thaumetopoeidae, and in recent years it is often treated as Thaumetopoeinae (see the above sources). So, according to #Currency, the proper one seems to be Thaumetopoeinae.

Google search shows 66,200 results for "Thaumetopoeidae" and 39,900 results for "Thaumetopoeinae", but the latter one includes information for a subfamily of "Thaumetopoeidae". Therefore, the former seems to be more widely used. On the other hand, here are the data from CABI and EPPO, which treat this group as Thaumetopoeinae, a subfamily of the family Notodontidae. It is difficult for me to determine "which name is being used", but I think these are helpful and I believe "Thaumetopoeinae" is appropriate on this basis. --森津 (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this in the right way! I can't now wp:!vote or close it as I'm involved. But if your considered opinion is still that it should be moved and if there are no objections it will I expect be moved by someone else in due course. Apologies for the delay. Andrewa (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@森津: Would you please update the lead of this article, I'm at loss at all reclassifications... also, the articles within the family and their taxoboxes should be recategorized? I know taxonomy basics, but this is out of my league. I suppose we should merge and redirect Category:Thaumetopoeidae into Category:Thaumetopoeinae – confusingly, there had already been two even before this move? No such user (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished reclassifying as much as I can. Category:Thaumetopoeinae probably existed as a category to include a subfamily of Thaumetopoeidae, but I've included them all in the reclassification. Category:Thaumetopoeidae needs to be removed.--森津 (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I redirected Category:Thaumetopoeidae, that should be enough as the bots are supposed to keep it empty. No such user (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your works. --森津 (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]