User talk:Meganmccarty
Welcome to Wikispecies!
Hello, and welcome to Wikispecies! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:
- Help:Contents provides a good introduction to editing Wikispecies.
- Templates are there to help you to follow our syntax and formatting standards.
- Have a look at Done and to do.
If you have named a taxon, then it is likely that there is (or will be) a Wikispecies page about you, and other pages about your published papers. Please see our advice and guidance for taxon authors.
If you have useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at Wikimedia Commons. This is also true for video or audio files containing bird songs, whale vocalization, etc.
Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) and the date. Please also read the Wikispecies policy What Wikispecies is not. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Again, welcome! OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Please don't use not reliable sources for add lepidoptera species. Use only original material (books, bulletins). Otherwise we need a lot of time to revise the sides.
PeterR 18:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This means not that you can't add species. If I know your background and hobby You can add a lot of species from reliable pages.
You can answer me on my talk page.
Regards,
PeterR 20:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The side you refer to is not reliable. If you add species you need full text and references. See for example Aemulatrix. I add the species out both books. I add the species from bulletins like Zootaxa, Lambilionea etc. who I borrow from my library NEV (Nederlandse Entomologische Vereniging). If you have the original books or bulletins you can make the text in Wiki complete.
Regards,
PeterR 18:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- You can do what you think is right under the wiki system - there is no compulsion to obey PeterR provided that you stick to Wikispecies policy and format
Stho002 23:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
There are reliable sides but you have work like the professionals. If you are interesting to do a lot of work I can help you. I'm working now on Zootaxa bulletins 2006 and 2007 full text.
PeterR 10:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Reliability of Websites[edit]
Megan, I have seen your correspondence with Peter concerning the reliability of other websites as sources of current taxonomy, so I did a very small piece of research. My area of specialisation is Asian Lycaenidae and I have recently created all the WikiSpecies pages on the Lycaenopsis group of genera, in accordance with the last major published revision by a recognised authority (1983). In this work, which covers the whole of the world for this group, there are listed only 15 sepcies in the genus Celastrina when used correctly in its strict sense. Compare this with Zipcodezoo's page on Celastrina and you will see that they list 177 species. Somewhat different. Many of the species they list under Celastrina are now correctly placed in other genera, many of which were only first erected in 1983. For example, they include a species called corythus under Celastrina whereas it should be listed as Ptox corythus. In fact corythus was originally described under the genus Cyaniris in 1895. Then in 1909 it was moved to a new genus Lycaenopsis by a French man; in 1929 a Dutch man erected Ptox as a new grouping, but considered it a sub-genus of Celastrina and finally, when more information became available, Ptox became established as a genus in its own right following the combined efforts of an Englishman and a Japanese. All subsequent specialist authors have agreed with these last two gentlemen.
So unless you have access to all this history, it is difficult to write WikiSpoecies pages that show the whole story and stand up to critical examination. I invite you to put Celastrina into the Wikispecies search box and see what comes up. Look at the species pages and the publications that are cited as references. Then you will see why just using a single web site as a source is not really enough. I hope this has been useful, as it was intended. Alan Accassidy 18:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello again Megan. Following some of the earlier correspondence about the reliability of websites as references, I found I could buy a copy of the Atlas of Neotropical Lepidoptera - Checklist Part 4A, edited by Gerardo Lamas, in a local entomological bookshop for just £40 ($55). I think the ISBN is 0-945417-28-4. Most of those who are here editing or creating pages on the butterflies agree that this work is reasonably authoritative and offers the potential for some stability among the American butterfly species names, so we are using it as the main source of information for New World Genera. I'm sure that if you could get a copy, and then compare what it says with what you find on other websites, you could draw good conclusions about what is generally agreed and what might still be controversial. I want to encourage you to continue to make contributions, so please take this suggestion positively. It is certainly not the position of one editor to exercise undue influence over another, so I am not trying to do that. Its just that I think that your research would be made more satisfying if you could use a book such as the one described. Best wishes, Accassidy 19:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikispecies reliability[edit]
Hello again Megan. I am a little alarmed by what you are being told by both PeterR and Accassidy (although I do not think that they mean any harm). When, I first started being an editor on Wikispecies, I was very concerned by the problem of keeping the information reliable, but my suggestions for improvement were rejected by the community, and I was told that I could not protect ANY pages from editing by others. Effectively, I believe that what PeterR and Accassidy are trying to do here amounts to the same thing - but rather than physically blocking you, they are insisting that you do it their way or not at all! same thing! Hence, I would like to once again point out that you have the right to do whatever YOU think is best, provided only that you follow Wikispecies agreed format and policy. If they don't like it, tough!
Stho002 23:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
PS: Although Accassidy's advice may sound reasonable (and indeed is reasonable in large part), I am still worried about 'So unless you have access to all this history...' Very few people have access to all the information they need for complete reliability, and I don't think we want to limit Wikispecies to just those people and prevent others from being editors. Accassidy himself is clearly at least "semiprofessional", with good access to reliable resources, but the same cannot be said for some others singing the same tune here...
Stho002 23:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Megan, actually I am completely amateur, in the sense that I do not and never have made any money out of studying insects. It is actually a hobby that takes up significant time but does not cost an arm or a leg. But the history of taxonomy is full of "amateur" experts who have made exceptional contributions. As I am a Member of the Royal Entomological Society in London, I have access to that library and can get copies of small publications by paying for their photocopying. I imagine that you could do the same with the US Institutions to which you belong. I also have bought many of the larger books myself, but inevitably newer academic papers sometimes render older books less reliable.
- Taxonomy is a bit like detective work; you always have to seek out confirmation of one person's story from other sources. This way a consensus of what is currently 'best evidence' can be deduced. I would like you to take encouragement from my messages, not the opposite. This detective work is clearly more time consuming than just using a single web reference, but it is very satisfying when you track down a number of leads and discover that something is actually reliable information after all. Best of luck, Alan Accassidy 09:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Megan, I have not get response from you that you will work with reliable sides. I work on the same way as Alan Accassidy. I ask the library of NEV for copies and books. Copies they send me direct and cost me pages 1-10 €1,00 other more page cost me €0,10. If the copy cost are more then €4,50 then I order the book or bulletin via the local library. I have correspond with John W. Brown and other entomologist about the status of their work. If you want you can do the Tortricidae. PeterR 13:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Megan, Once again I must register my unease at other editors (i.e., PeterR) telling you what you can or cannot do (i.e., 'If you want you can do the Tortricidae'). If you want, you can do anything you like (subject only to policy/agreed format). Stho002 23:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Requesting deletion[edit]
Add {{delete|REASON}} to request a deletion of the page. If you're not sure about it, ask at the Wikispecies:Village Pump. Maxim(talk) 00:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Cercyonis page[edit]
Megan, I have added my suggests to the Cercyonis page. After looking at it, please delete and continue with you excellent work.
Ed Uebel 11:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Template genus[edit]
Megan,
If you make a template for a genus like Asterocampa please make it
| Taxonavigation: Papilionoidea |
|---|
|
Superregnum: Eukaryota |
Familia: Nymphalidae
Subfamilia: Apaturinae
genus: Asterocampa
PeterR 17:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Peter didn't explain this very clearly, but what he means is to please put a line break after the genus name when making a template for a genus. Look at the source code for Template: Asterocampa now that he has fixed it for you. Stho002 20:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)