Template:Did you know nominations/Cephalotes caribicus

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Cephalotes caribicus

(

)

Cephalotes caribicus worker in amber

... that workers of the fossil ant Cephalotes caribicus (pictured) reached adult lengths of only 4.64 mm (0.183 in)?

Source: "Measurements (in mm) and indices: TL 3 .97-4.64" (de Andrade 1999 pg. 420)

- ALT1:... that Cephalotes caribicus worker ants (pictured) have semitransparent expansions on their bodies possibly for protection?

Source: "vertexal angles and membranaceous expansions semitransparent" & "Expansions of different body parts serve to protect the appendages and should function primarily against other ants and arthropods in general" (de Andrade 1999 pages 420 & 848)

Reviewed: Diprion similis

Created/expanded by Kevmin (talk). Self-nominated at 00:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC).

There is no link to the cited source (de Andrade & Baroni) even though I easily found a full scan online with no paywall (here). Please verify the page numbers. I found nothing about C. caribicus on pages 537–538 (cited in the article). — Kpalion^(talk) 09:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused, where does the review stand. ~~Please clarify what you are meaning regarding the page numbers,~~ also please do not use the template, it creates problems with the DYK page exceeding the depth limits.@Kpalion: --Kev min § 18:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Pagination has been corrected in the article.@Kpalion:--Kev min § 02:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Template removed as requested. The current status is:

New enough, long enough; neutral, no plagiarism found; picture is free, used in the article, and clear enough as a thumb; QPQ checked. ALT1 is more interesting of the two hooks. The citation from page 420, regarding the presence of semitransparent expansions on the worker's body, checks out. However, although page 848 does discuss the interpretation of body-part expansions as defensive adaptations, it does not mention C. caribicus. Please verify. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It discusses the expansions in regards to the Genus as a whole, and thus is applicable to C. caribicus as a member species. @Kpalion:.--Kev min § 19:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced. We're talking about a caption to a table that only lists particular species and C. caribicus is not one of them. It looks to me like a case of WP:Synthesis. Perhaps this adaptation in the genus as a whole is discussed elsewhere in the source article? — Kpalion^(talk) 20:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The table lists C. caribicus on page 849....--Kev min § 00:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

849 is not the same as 848, is it? Please correct the citation in the article. — Kpalion^(talk) 00:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Done, and could have been requested without the attitude.--Kev min § 02:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, must have been tired when I wrote that. Anyway, good job, ALT1 is now good to go. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)