Talk:Zophobas atratus

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles 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.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

Low

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

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Insects Low‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects 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.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Larvae that kill lizards: this happened to my anole when I was ten years old. It's cited elsewhere: BUBMBLEBEE.ORG--Victorcoutin (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC why dont they just make it so it redrects you when you enter super worm

They do cause indigestion so only feed to lizards over a foot long!--172.12.89.21 (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synonym for A. atratus

Recently, Zophobas morio is treated as a junior synonym for Z. atratus (see GBIF, Han et al.(2013) and Peng et al.(2018)). It may need to be renamed or merged, but is this synonymization accepted outside the academic realm ?--森津 (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dyanega: A user just moved this article to align with this comment. Do you have an opinion on this? - UtherSRG (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG: This is a mess, and I am unaware that there has been a clearly explained resolution, unless something recent has been published that I am unaware of. My understanding was that the names were synonymized in 1984, but a 2011 revision of the genus stated very explicitly: "The synonymy of Zophobas atratus (Fabricius, 1775) and Z. morio (Fabricius, 1776) is rejected; these taxa are interpreted here as two different interbreeding species which produce both hybrids and taxonomical confusion." So, this author concluded that morio Fabricius is valid, as is atratus Fabricius (they are separate taxa but they can hybridize) and it is OTHER authors' incorrect use of morio that are synonyms under atratus (e.g., entries in Wikispecies saying "Zophobas morio Champion, 1885 (nec Fabricius)" and "Zophobas morio Blackwelder, 1945 (nec Fabricius)". The implication is that apparently the beetle everyone had been calling morio was not morio at all, so - if this is true - how to treat the Wikipedia article is tricky. If all (or most) of the pre-2011 uses of morio referred to atratus, and if the insect being used in the pet food trade is atratus, then pretty much all of the content of the former morio article referred instead to atratus. Under these circumstances, morio should not be a redirect, but the content move is possibly appropriate. Again, that's not something I can confirm or refute. I do note that the 2021 catalog of genus names in Tenebrionidae specifically states "Helops morio Fabricius, 1777 (= Tenebrio atratus Fabricius, 1775)," but this appears without explanation or citation (and the Ferrer 2011 paper is missing from the list of references), so it is definitely possible that the authors of this catalog did not know about the 2011 paper, and may not have actively rejected its conclusion. My personal feeling is that the 2011 revision should be considered the authoritative source, unless there has been a subsequent paper that has explicitly rejected it, rather than simply ignoring it. The Han et al. and Peng et al. papers are not authoritative, and appear to be citing the 1984 synonymy, which was rejected in 2011. I do have contacts I can ask about this, in a better position to assess things, I'll try to follow up here. Dyanega (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, I heard back from one of the authors of the 2021 catalog, and he wrote "To be honest, we disagreed with the position in Ferrer (2011), this made no real biological sense to us. You are right that we should have been clearer though." He went on to suggest that the issue will require genetic analyses to determine whether atratus/morio is one taxon or more than one. In the meantime, he suggests treating it as a single taxon, with morio as a redirect, but adding text to the article to explain that the question is still open. However, I'm not sure how to write that without it constituting a NOR violation. Dyanega (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

two different interbreeding species which produce both hybrids and taxonomical confusion Ah... scientific snark. This is golden poop. :D Had the 2021 been more explicit, we could probably follow their lead. Their implicitness makes this more difficult. It is clear there is no single taxonomic answer at this time. Since there is such disagreement among the authorities, I think a single article is the best current solution. We can describe the taxonomic jumble, that this could be one or two taxa, and give the implications of each possibility. We can call out the explicit support for the various taxonomic arrangements. We can call out the silence of the 2021 catalog on their decision. Whether we use atratus or morio or atratus/morio is possibly something we can decide via consensus. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]