Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Mantophasmatodea families

How many families does the (sub)order Mantophasmatodea have? Wikipedia currently treats it as having a single family Mantophasmatidae, but this appears to have been entirely based on Arillo and Engel (2006) and has been so since 2008.

When you look to other sources, Zompro (2005) uses two families, Ensiferophasmatidae and Mantophasmatidae, but places a number of genera in synonymy with Mantophasma (which others after him have restored as valid). Meanwhile, Klauss et al. (2003) and Damgaard et al. (2008) prefer to use three families, Austrophasmatidae, Mantophasmatidae and Tanzaniophasmatidae. Looking to online databases, ITIS (uptodate as of this year apparently) uses Klaus et al.'s three families, while Mantophasmatodea Species File seems to use a combination of Zompro's two families but Arillo+Engel's tribes and genera (and some genera described more recently).

Personally, I think Wikipedia should following the three-family classification set up in Damgaard et al. (2008), which I think might be the most accepted one at present (but I could be wrong). But I wanted to check here first, in case I shouldn't update Wikipedia accordingly with this classification for whatever reason. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like three families might be the way to go, but whichever it ends up being, it would be a good idea to include mention of these alternate taxonomies on the relevant articles. awkwafaba (📥) 00:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I would be inclined to follow Species File as that has the most up to data species checklist and we can use it for the whole classifcation rather than mixing sources. It uses one extant family, but recognises the three Damgaard family groups as Austrophasmatini, Mantophasmatini and Tanzaniophasmatinae (they also have Tyrannophasmatini).  —  Jts1882 | talk  06:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, ITIS is also complete and reviewed this year, which means we could use that without needing to mix sources. What I was trying to say is that I think the actual scientific literature in recent years prefers to use the three families classification so far as I can see.

Checking Google Scholar now, there are 87 results for "Austrophasmatidae" and 20 for "Tanzaniophasmatidae", while "Austrophasmatini", "Tyrannophasmatini", "Tanzaniophasmatinae" each have only one result, Arillo & Engel (2006). "Ensiferophasmatidae" has only two results, Zompro & Adis (2006) and Arillo & Engel (2006). (Google Scholar's index is clearly incomplete as Zompro (2005) is missing from all of these, it is still clear which is preferred.)

Works such as Predl et al. (2012), Wipfler et al. (2018) and Kreuz & Eberhard (2022) and books such as Essential Entomology 2nd edition (2023) and Insect Biodiversity: Science and Society, Volume 2 (2018) all use the three family classification.

I do not have full access to Perkovsky et al. (2024) (and it is not implemented in either ITIS or Species File at present), so I do not know for sure which classification they are following, but I see on Plazi that they cite Klass et al., 2003 and Wipfler et al., 2018 in their treatments. Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

It's only the ITIS record for Mantophasmatodea that was reviewed in 2024. The subordinate taxa have older review dates. ITIS doesn't have records for Minutophasma or Kuboesphasma, the two genera described by Wipfler et al. (2018). Species File includes records for these genera and their species. Species File is also the source used by Catalog of Life, which uses other Species Files to cover the whole of Polyneoptera. A test of how current the Species File will be when they incorporate the Perkovsky et al. (2024) findings.  —  Jts1882 | talk  17:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake then, clearly I misunderstood how ITIS records work. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Easily done. It's not really clear how ITIS update their records. I assume it is literally the record for the taxon that has been verified, not the classification within that taxon. I tend to treat ITIS as a last resort as so many parts are very out of date and it's hard to work out which sections have been comprehensively updated. In contrast with CoL you can get the datasets of the updates on ChecklistBank. For SF Mantophasmatodea the latest is version 0.40.3, issued 2024-04-18. Although strangely CoL itself has the latest update in Jan 2024 (link). Not sure what to make of that discrepancy.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Acanthocephala terminalis

There’s a bit of a disagreement going on over at Talk:Acanthocephala terminalis and I would really appreciate if some more experienced editors could weigh in, specifically regarding the inclusion of some potentially self-published sources. Thanks Ncb1221 (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there a more appropriate WikiProject to post this request for help? I didn't want it to get archived without being noticed. Ncb1221 (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

What does "ab." mean?

Does anyone know what "ab." means, for example, as used on Acraea atolmis and Acraea alciope? I couldn't find a definition by searching online, and I'm trying to de-jargon articles that use it. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

"Aberration". The ICZN glossary defines it as "A term used to denote a class of individuals within a species. A name which explicitly refers to an aberration is unavailable.". Basically it's some aspect of morphology that differs from what is usual for a species. Plantdrew (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Those articles certainly need de-jargonising. Ab. means aberratio (see Form_(zoology)). I don't think that using Ab. in the article is useful and may be a hold over from the a source being followed too closely.  —  Jts1882 | talk  17:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both; that's very helpful! -- Beland (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)