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 BorgQueen (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
... that species of the lacewing genus Polystoechotites(pictured) are possibly not closely related? Source: Archibald & Makarkin, "Taxonomic approach" paragraphs 2 & 3
ALT1: ... that fossils (pictured) are included in Polystoechotites due to being poorly fossilized, rather than due to relation? Source: Archibald & Makarkin, "Taxonomic approach" paragraphs 2 & 3
ALT2: ... that one species of Polystoechotites was described nearly a centrury before the genus itself? Source: Archibald & Makarkin Polystoechotites piperatus entry
Overall: ALT1, duly tweaked, is approved, the other two are meh IMO. (Also, technically the source paragraph given merely defines parataxa, but the paper goes on to state that Polystoechotites, as a "collective group", is a parataxon, so all good there.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
ALT1, duly tweaked, is approved, the other two are meh IMO. (Also, technically the source paragraph given merely defines parataxa, but the paper goes on to state that Polystoechotites, as a "collective group", is a parataxon, so all good there.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)