Template:Did you know nominations/Styx (butterfly)
- 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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Styx (butterfly)
- ... that Styx has been described as a "living fossil", a "moth", and a "missing link"? "Interestingly Vane-Wright (2003b: 500) pointed to the existence of a number of living butterfly fossils, typically highly distinct endemics ... Styx infernalis (Riodinidae) in Peru" Roger LH Dennis in Butterfly Biology Systems "For many years, Styx was considered to be a "missing link" among butterflies, perhaps shedding light on the relationship among riodinids, lycaenids and nymphalids." Andrew VZ Brower writing for the Tree of Life Web Project "Staudinger (1876), for example, in his description of the species Styx infernalis (Figure 1, endemic to the Peruvian Andes), noted that the taxon was so odd that it had initially been taken for a moth, but then placed it within Pieridae" Marianne Espeland et al. Ancient Neotropical origin and recent recolonisation: Phylogeny, biogeography and diversification of the Riodinidae (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea)
- ALT1: ... that Styx was named because it seemed to have "come from the underworld"? "eher aus der Unterwelt zu stammen scheint als aus der prachtvollen Tropenvegetation", in English "seems to come from the underworld rather than from the magnificent tropical vegetation" Otto Staudinger writing in Neue Lepidopteren des südamerikanischen Faunengebiets
- Reviewed: Sigismund Danielewicz
- Comment: five of five DYK nominations meaning this is the last one before I'm no longer exempt, though I want to review an article, so for the time being the QPQ will be TBA. Moved to mainspace on 21 November, 2021 by KylieTastic. No specific preference for which hook used, the omitted portion in the first quote just refers to Baronia brevicornis, another butterfly from Mexico. Was wondering if articles made a while back would be eligible for DYK if they've been approved in the AfC queue and moved to mainspace within the 7 days of eligibility? Thank you in advance for the reviewer!
Moved to mainspace by KylieTastic (talk). Nominated by Ornithoptera (talk) at 10:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC).
- Update: reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Sigismund Danielewicz! Ornithoptera (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
-
- Hello @Kevmin:, thank you for taking the time to review this article. I am just wondering if you are going to follow up on your review? I might be a bit quick to jump but its always good to ask you know? I hope everything's alright! Ornithoptera (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Article new enough and long enough. We cited to neutral reliable sources. Article is balanced and neutral in wording. No policy issues are present from what I can see. Hooks are both cited, with ALT0 the more hooky. Both offline and non-English sources taken AGF. QPQ completed. Looks good to go. Apologies for the delay, it was a longer article to review, but additional Real life things took my time. --Kevmin § 18:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oh no I hope everything is well on your end! Thank you for your review and it was nice working with you! Hope everything is sorted out and thank you again for taking the time to review the article! Ornithoptera (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
