User talk:PeterR/Archive 2008-1

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

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:

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!

Hi. Please use help files on how to contribute to wikispecies. See also this. Thanks. Lycaon 12:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Beste. De helpfiles van Wikispecies zijn redelijk uitgebreid. Gelieve deze te gebruiken bij het invoeren van nieuwe soorten. Anders moet iemand na u alles weer gaan aanvullen. Bedankt voor uw bijdragen. Met vriendelijke groet. Lycaon 13:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


Bedankt voor je hulp. Ik ben er ook achtergekomen, dat als je iets overneemt van een ander je niet precies krijgt wat hij ook heeft. Ik heb dus allerlei hulp nodig. Ik ben zelf gespecialiseerd in vlinders en motten. Ik ben nu bezig om de Coleophoridae bij te werken via World Catalogue of Insects volume 8 van Baldizzone,van der Wolf en Landry en de laatste entomologische bulletins. Als ik er niet helemaal uitkom, kan ik dan je hulp inroepen?


Uiteraard kan dat. Ik ben hier wel niet dagelijks aanwezig. Lycaon 13:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work[edit]

I see that you're getting used to wiki-language. This is really good. Just don't forget to cite the name, author, the year of authority, and references (if available) OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


Can you look to Coleophora aleramica if I have done it well?


I'll take a look at it in a second. By the way, when you write comments to a person, you should do it in the discussion page, not the userpage. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please improve your edits[edit]

Please if you can Instead of:

Species: {{splast|C|oleophora|argopleura}}

''Coleophora argopleura'' (Meyrick,1917)

Please write:

Species: ''[[Coleophora argopleura]]''

== Name ==
''Coleophora argopleura'' ([[Meyrick]],1917)

Thanks for your contributions!

Mariusm 15:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the difference between Name and Author. I mean the author from Coleophora argopleura.


Thanks for your replay!
We have rigid conventions at WIKISPECIES, so the field must be Name and not Author
Also Meyrick permits us to link to the page of author's details while "Meyrick" does not link! (see the blue color)
Mariusm 15:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for explain me the function. I shall Author changed in Name.


You also don't need to type out your signature every time. Instead, type ~~~~ and it will automatically sign a signature for you when you save the edit. Note that this practice should not be done on species articles. It is only used on discussion pages. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


Per your problem on Issikiopteryx's talk page, I think I fixed. See if that's what you want it to display. OhanaUnitedTalk page 08:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Nog enkele kleine opmerkingen. Als er meerdere auteurs zijn voor een taxon, zet je ze elk appart tussen dubbele vierkante haakjes, zodat ze elk naar hun eigen pagina linken. Zet ook niet meer dan één lijn tussen verschillende secties. Bvb. tussen de Name en de References secties. Lijkt mij dat je het merendeel van de syntax al onder de knie hebt :-) Lycaon 08:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget to italic the species name [1] OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nog niet helemaal je dat...[edit]

Dag Peter. Nog enkele opmerkingen: zie hier. Formaat van de paginas moet erg consistent en consequent zijn. Groet. Lycaon 20:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Errors in your edits[edit]

I've noticed some errors in your edits.

You assign all your species as Genus Species (Author, year) -- but it is not allways correct!!!!

Most of the entries should be written: Genus Species Author, year -- Without the parantheses!!!

The parantheses are to appear only when the original genus name described by the author was different than the genus name currently used.

For example: Coleophora pagmana Toll, 1962 should be without parantheses because the name which Toll used originally was Coleophora and not something else.

Be sure also to put a space between Toll, and 1962

Mariusm 07:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what is the difference between:
  1. Coleophora ferganaToll, 1961
  2. Coleophora fergana‎ (Toll, 1961)
Mariusm 09:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Parentheses --- Yes or No[edit]

I've seen you are still confused about the paretheses. Let me make it very clear to you:

If there exists a synonym with the original author and a different genus then write: Genus species (Author, year)

If no such synonym exists then write: Genus species Author, year

For exaple Valdesiana curiosa should be without parentheses because no synonym with the original author and a different genus exists. So it must look like: Valdesiana curiosa Carpintero & Dellape, 2008

Mariusm 10:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference section[edit]

It is great to see you creating many species pages under Coleophora but, if they all come from the reference, "World Catalogue of Insects, volume 8 (Baldizzone,van der Wolf & Landry)", I suggest adding:

* {{aut|Baldizzone,van der Wolf & Landry}}, ''World Catalogue of Insects'', '''8'''.

to each new species page you create. You can just copy and paste it - without having to retype it. This would be helpful because one of the current weaknesses of Wikispecies is the lack of references which people point out; for example, here and here. --Georgeryp 13:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


I have update Coleophora letter K. Please can you take a look for mistakes? If there are now no more mistakes then I can update the other letters.

PeterR 20:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A good job[edit]

Thank you! You are doing now a good work!

Mariusm 10:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Leptopelis anura ?![edit]

Peter, I think you have a mistake. The frog species you refer to is called: Leptopelis mackayi Köhler, Bwong, Schick, Veith, and Lötters, 2006, Herpetol. J., 16: 184, and I included it.

Anura is the name for frogs, and probably that's why you confused it...

Please, in the future write to my talk page user talk:Mariusm, because the discission pages are not accessed regurarly by me, or anyone else.

Mariusm 10:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Answer to your questions[edit]

1) The subspecies of Actias heterogyna are written correcly -

It must be like this:
Genus: <genus name>
Species: <species name>
Subspecies: <subspecies name(s)>

2) You can add tribus to the family. The correct order is:
familia: <familia name>
subfamila: <subfamilia name>
tribus: <tribus name(s)>

Please write to me the tribus which you want to add, and where, and I'll show you exactly how to do it.

How to link[edit]

For example if you want to link to the site just write the address or you can write:


and you'll get: [2]


I don't understand your last question... look at Homo sapiens for a good example how to use subspecies.

Link to ACTAZOOL[edit]

Actazool site address is without the WWW so you have to write:

== References ==

* Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae: []

Actias kongjiaria[edit]

You've done a good work with Actias kongjiaria !!

Just don't forget the reference like:

  • Baldizzone,van der Wolf & Landry, 2006 World Catalogue of Insects, 8 or something similar

Mariusm 12:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

How to add the tribus[edit]

1) write the folowing in the Saturniinae page:


Tribus: [[Attacini]] - [[Bunaeini]] - [[Saturniini]] - [[Urotini]]


Note: You'll have to delete all the Genus: ..........

2) Create templates for the tribus:

  1. Type in search box: Template:Attacini
  2. It doesn't exist yet, so an empty window will open
  3. Type in that window:

Tribus [[Attacini]] <br />

Do save page

Do the same for Bunaeini, Saturniini, Brotini

3) Fill the genera for each Tribus page: Type:

Genera: {{g|...}} {{g|...}} ... {{glast|...}}

Do you understand me? If you want me to do this give me the genera for each tribus, and I'll do this.

Mariusm 15:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

More Answers[edit]

1) Peter, I noticed you created a new page for genus Disca, but it is not correct. You have first of all to create a Template for this genus.

To do this, Type in the search box: Template:Disca and press go. In the empty window that opens type:

Genus: ''[[Disca]]'' <br />

2) You are allowed to put a picture on the page only from Make a search of the picture name you want. If you find it then you add the picture to your page by:

[[Image:Dark Small-branded Swift.jpg|thumb|right|250px|''Pelopidas mathias'']]

Where Dark Small-branded Swift.jpg is the name of the picture file.

3) You can make only a link to a picture anywhere else by typing:

== References ==
* Picture of a monarch: []

Mariusm 05:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


Welcome back,

First off all you have to make a template for the subfamily, then you have to create a template for the Genus. Give me the name of the subfamilia/Genus and I'll show you how.

Mariusm 15:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

NO! Don't make a template for subgenus! for each species you have to write:

Subgenus: ''[[Polex]]''
Species: ....

Mariusm 16:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to create a template for each Genus! Templates are just to save typing. Instead of template for Genus Polex you can write for each species:

Genus: ''[[Polex]]'' <br />
Species:....    (or Subgenus: ...)

Subfamily Gelechiinae[edit]

No - your edit for Gelechiidae is not OK!

First you have to write all the subfamilia of Gelechiidae like this in the page of Gelechiidae -- no tribus in this page!! :

Subfamilia: [[Gelechiinae]] - [[ ..... ]] - [[ .....  ]]
Then you have to create a page for Gelechiinae:

Tribus: [[Anomologini]] - [[Gelechiini]] - [[Gnorimoschemini]] - [[Litini]]

You didn't create yet a page for Gelechiinae !!!!

Mariusm 09:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


I've fixed Gelechiidae and Gelechiinae. Look there and see how it should be done.

Mariusm 10:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

More Answers[edit]


  1. As for Andrey A.Kuzmin: His edits aren't standard, and "original combination" need not be used. "Synonyms" is the word to use. I'll write to him, and explain him this.
  2. I noticed that you made some pages with the genus Triepeolus, but they are no good because you didn't create a template for Triepeolus.
  3. I hope you allow me to give you an advice: Because the Lepidoptera is so big (180,000 species), I suggest you start from the top down: First make all Familia pages you think need revision, Then go on to all the Subfamilia pages, then to all Tribus, then to Subtribus, then to Genus, then to Species, and only after all this information is proper and correct, you can start filling in the details for each individual species. It is much important for Wikispecies, that the higer ranks will be complete, then the individual species rank.

Mariusm 08:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


  1. I didn't received any question about ITIS ?!
  2. I think you didn't understand what I meant about your work: I wanted to point out it is more important you concentrate on the higer ranks - starting from Familia and going down, and work on individual species only after all the higher ranks are complete.

Mariusm 08:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


  1. Are you a taxonomist or a hobbyist ?
  2. ITIS is not updated and is very incomplete - I know this.
  3. I thought you had the material of Lepidoptera under your hand ...

Mariusm 09:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

about myself[edit]

I'm not a taxonomist either. I practice as an electronics engineer specializing in hardware. Being always interested in zoology & botany I took taxonomy as a hobby, learning from books etc. I think it's a fascinating subject, and it gives me many hours of pleasure & interest. I contribute also to Wikipedia. Look for example here for a page I revised.

Mariusm 15:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As a token of gratitude[edit]

Exceptional newcomer.jpg The Exceptional Newcomer Award
:This award is presented to PeterR for his exceptional work in WikiSpecies even though he is a newcomer. OhanaUnitedTalk page
  • Good work PeterR! Keep it up! — Mønobi
  • PeterR, considering there are more than 180,000 species of Lepidoptera, you are very brave to start with them. I expect you to persist to the finish... ;) Mariusm
  • Kevmin

Answer about Baldizzone[edit]

Peter, The author Giorgio Baldizzone already existed in the Taxon Authorities page. (I presume it is Giorgio). All you had to do was to make a redirect from "Baldizzone" to "Giorgio Baldizzone". You do this by opening a new page: Baldizzone, and typing in it:

#REDIRECT [[Giorgio Baldizzone]]

I've done it myself, so now you can see that Baldizzone is colored in blue.

Mariusm 04:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

How to treat subgenus[edit]

Peter, You aren't treating correctly the subgenus entries. The steps you must take are:

1) Define correctly the subgenera in the genus page:

Subgenera: {{subg|P|olex|Bilobiana}} {{subg|P|olex|...}}

no species will be in this page!

2) Open a new page for the subgenus with the name: Pollex (Bilobiana)

Subgenus: Pollex (Bilobiana)
Species: {{sbgsp|P|olex|B|ilobiana|dumogai}} {{sbgsp|P|olex|B|ilobiana|...}}

== Name ==
Pollex (Bilobiana)

3) When entering data of the individual species write:

Subgenus: Pollex (Bilobiana)
Species: Pollex (Bilobiana) dumogai

== Name ==
Pollex (Bilobiana) dumogai

If you don't know, or want to follow these steps, it is better not to enter the subgenera at all!!!

Mariusm 08:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A mistake[edit]

I made a mistake:

Instead of:

Subgenus: Pollex (Bilobiana)

You should write:

Subgenus: ''[[Pollex (Bilobiana)]]''

and also:

Species: ''[[Pollex (Bilobiana) dumogai]]''

I corrected it myself in your subgenera

You are doing fine !

Mariusm 10:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

More advice[edit]

You may think I'm too pedant, but if you make a work, it's prefered to make it perfect. So there are a couple of things you need to improve:

1) At your last species pages you forgot the first line which is:
2) Your two references lines are actually one reference to zootaxa and it is prefered to combine them and write it as:
*Zootaxa 1567: 1-116.2007. [ zootaxa]

Mariusm 08:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

How to create an author[edit]

You must make the following steps:

1) Type in the search box: "Hugo van der Wolf" and press Go to open a new page.

At that page write:

Hugo van der Wolf   ('''van der Wolf''')

Entomologist, The Netherlands
== Selected publications ==

{{DEFAULTSORT:van der Wolf, Hugo}}
[[Category:Taxon Authorities]]

Enter his selected publication here (if you know them); save the page

2) Type in the search box: "Catalog:Taxon Authorities/V" and press Go. Press Edit and go to the proper abc place and add there:
* van der Wolf, H ('''van der Wolf''') [[Hugo van der Wolf]]

save the page.

3) I suppose the name you type in the species page is "van der Wolf", so you have to make a redirect: Type in the search box: "van der Wolf" and press Go to open a new page.

At that page write:

#REDIRECT [[Hugo van der Wolf]] 15:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

More answers[edit]


  1. Only "administrators" can block a person. For a list of administrators look at WS:SYSOP
  2. Did you succeed in creating the author van der Wolf?

Mariusm 10:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I have taken a look at that IP's contribution and all of them seems to be constructive. What did do wrong in Cosmopterigidae? And I cannot block everyone who edits that page. However, I can place a protection so that only registered users older than 4 days may edit the page. Since your account is older than 4 days, this protection will not hinder you. BUT I have to see concrete proof that IPs are contributing destructively before I can place protection.
If that IP is adding junk or spam, there is a way to quickly revert things. First go to a page (let's say User:OhanaUnited/Sandbox). Feel free to mess up that page if you want. I know you're learning so making mistakes is fine as long as you learn =) Now I'm going to pretend I'm a destructive user. I added "George Bush is the worse guy on earth." That clearly doesn't belong to WikiSpecies. You are on a mission to get rid of the not-useful stuff. Click on "History", located on the top near center of the page (beside the edit button). Choose the most recent 2 versions and click "compare selected versions". Now you see that I edited some not-useful stuff in my 2nd edit. How to get rid of it quickly without typing and removing words? On the 2nd half of the panel, it says "Current revision (22:52, 1 April 2008) (edit) (undo)". Click on the "undo" button. You will see a screen that removes all edits from the previous version (only 1 previous version). Confirm that everything else is what you want, and click save. (Note: Go ahead and try using the "undo" feature on that page. I created so that you can practice on it) Note that "undo" is only for non-constructive edits. It is rude to undo someone's work simply because you disagree with that edit. It is only for obvious vandalism.
By the way, that IP looks like it's from Amsterdam as well.[3] You can try talk to that person using its talk page. Yes, IPs also have talk page. You have to access it by first click "my contributions" on top right corner of each page, then copy and replace your name (PeterR) with Click search. Near the top, you can see the link to talk page, just click on it and leave a message. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I still don't see an immediate need to protect the page. Nobody has supreme rights to edit certain pages and not others. So yes, wiki is about collaboration. It doesn't matter if you hold a PhD in biology or a high school dropout, you're treated the same as others. If you do encounter problesm, let me know in my talk page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Just remember to leave comments on talk page. You were leaving them in my userpage so I had to move them to talk page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet some more amswers[edit]


  1. You can create the author by the name of Mark I. Falkovitsh and redirect from Falkovitsh.
  2. Do you have at hand information about Holotype, Type locality and Author citation? It would be nice to incorporate them as well in the data, but the work involved is great...
  3. I live in Israel.

Mariusm 10:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You can look at the help section Help:Name section to see exactly how the ideal format is constructed. the name section accordingly is to look like this:

''Glomus przelewicense'' [[Błaszk.]], 1988
Host-Substratum/Locality: From soil under ''[[Thuja occidentalis]]'': Poland
Holotype Department of Plant Patholgy, Academy of Agriculture, Szczecin, [[DPP]]578
* ''Glomus przelewicensis'' [[Błaszk.]], 1988

Mariusm 11:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Entomologist's information[edit]

Peter, Here's the entomologists details that I managed to get hold of:

Razowski, Józef --- born in 1932 in Milówka, Southern Poland
Nemeş, Ioan --- born 1924 Hungary
Ortner, Anton --- died 22.11.1953 Germany
Braun, Ernst-Ludwig --- born 13.02.1903 Germany
Glaser, Wolfgang --- born 01.10.1924 died 08.09.1981 Austria
Gozmány, László --- born 09.11.1921died 15.12.2006 Hungary

bye, Mariusm 10:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Answers 4 Apr.[edit]

Peter, I see you're a hard worker!

  1. There's a problem in incorporating distribution or range information for a species. It isn't standard by the rulls here, and may deleted by administrators or anyone else. I tried to persuade the administrators to allow me to add a Distribution section, but I was refused. What you may add is Type locality and Holotype.
  2. About Metriotes (Coleophoridae) - You redirected from synonyms to Metriotes, but need to remove the double '' around the synonyms, because redirecting again to the same page isn't a good practice.
  3. I noticed you don't add Name and References sections to genus pages. Why? Genus must be treated like species pages.

Mariusm 14:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  1. In Argepinotia vilosa you forgot an "l", that's why it isn't black. It must be the name like the title: Argepinotia villosa.
  2. If you write Type locality: Burma under the name section it's OK, so you can add that information if you want...

Mariusm 16:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Answers 5 Apr.[edit]

1) You didn't create the page Enarmoniini ! It isn't enough to create a template for Enarmoniini. Now you must open a new page Enarmoniini and write in it:

Genera: {{g|...}} ...

Enarmoniini Author, year


2) When making an http link you don't need to make double breakets [[]], it's enough to make [].

Mariusm 15:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Just do the following steps:

  1. Create the tribe Enarmoniini as I described above.
  2. Move all genera from Enarmiini to Enarmoniini by copy and paste.
  3. Tag Tribe Enarmiini to be deleted by an administrator by writing in it: {{delete|This page is a mistake}}

Mariusm 15:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Enarmiini.This had to be Enarmoniini

Answers 6 Apr.[edit]


I see you work on the Eucosmini. please look here for some information about this Tribus.

You can extract from there info about authors & reference - for example:

Genus: ''[[Antichlidas]]''

''Antichlidas'' Meyrick, 1931

*Meyrick, 1931: ''Bull. sect. Scient. Acad. roum''. '''14''': 66. 

The link of the picture was ok.

Mariusm 07:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand... I see both Opostegidae and Nepticulidae... Just press on the links...

Mariusm 11:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Answer 8 Apr.[edit]

You asked me if it is possible to divide the species of a genus into groups. It isn't a recommanded practice, although zoologists sometimes divide into species group, species subgroup and superspecies. It isn't something official in Wikispecies, but if you have a genus with a lot of species, and you want to organize then into groups, you can do it in the following way at the genus page:

Genus: ...

===Species Group a... ===
{{sp|...}} ... {{splast|...}}

===Species Group b... ===
{{sp|...}} ... {{splast|...}}


Mariusm 15:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Answers 9 Apr.[edit]

Because Aurivillius is an author and also a genus, and because Aurivillius is already writen in many places, you must make a "trick" to overcome this problem.

1) In the genera list at the family page write {{g|...}} ... {{g|Aurivillius (genus)|Aurivillius}} ...

2) Make a template Aurivillius (genus) instead of Aurivillius.

3) Instead of writing Genus: ''[[Aurivillius]]'', write Genus: ''[[Aurivillius (genus)|Aurivillius]]''

Mariusm 07:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Add categories to authors[edit]

Hello, I see that you are adding authors. That is great. Could you also put them in categories?

All should be in the basic category [[Category:Taxon Authorities]]

Use {{DEFAULTSORT:Last Name, First Name}} to sort them properly

Then they should be placed in whatever specialty they belong to.

Thank, --Open2universe | Talk 13:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please add categories to the new author articles you make. See here for an example. --Open2universe | Talk 12:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. Thank you so much --Open2universe | Talk 03:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Answers Apr. 11[edit]

I'm sorry, but you have several severe mistakes in your edits of Ectoedemia:

  1. You created 2 pages ECTOEDEMIA and Ectoedemia which are different. Why? No capital letters are allowed in the genus name!
  2. In the page Ectoedemia you didn't write all the subgenera.
  3. In the page Ectoedemia (Formoria) you wrote the subgenera instead of the species!!
  4. You made 2 pages: Ectoedemia (Formaria) and Ectoedemia (Formoria) which are different. Why?
  5. Species Group weaveri is ok at page Ectoedemia (Formaria) but not ok at individual species pages!
  6. At individual species pages you may write: Species: ''[[Ectoedemia (Formoria) degeeri]]'' (Species Group weaveri) but don't use === Species Group weaveri ===
  7. It's great you enter the information, but please repair your mistakes! Please be more careful in your edits !!!

Mariusm 14:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Problems 12 Apr.[edit]


I've noticed lately you're making again many errors with parentheses.

For example: Oeonistis delia Fabricius, 1787

Has the synonyms:

  • Noctua delia Fabricius, 1787; Mantissa Insectorum, 2: 140
  • Gnophria ceramensis Vollenhoven, 1872; Tijdschr. Ent. 16: 246, pl. 12, f. 1
  • Tigriodes splendens Lucas, 1890; Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (2) 4 (4): 1068
  • Oeonistis braeckeli Debauche, 1938; Bull. Mus. r. Hist. nat. Belg. 14 (9): 8

So it has to be: Oeonistis delia (Fabricius, 1787)

What are your sources? are they reliable? Why don't you add the synonyms?

Mariusm 15:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Answers 14 Apr.[edit]

  1. To answer your question: You have to know how google works: When you enter a new species in Wikispecies, it doesn't appear automatically in google!! Google makes a scan of this site about every 2 weeks, so you have to wait 2 weeks until a new species appears at google. Your friends can surf directly to Wikispecies, and find there everything immediately.
  2. I want to bring to your notice a few minor problems with your edits:
    • Write Tribus and not Tribu.
    • When making a list of many Genus write Genera in plural and not Genus.
    • write Genus: ''[[...]]'' in italics, and also Subgenus: ''[[...]]'' in italics, and also at the templates: Genus: ''[[...]]'' <br />.

Mariusm 07:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  1. I don't see any problem with Euphorbia mauritanica!! All seems ok and the picture shows all right...
  2. Open2universe sent you a message to add these lines to every author page you create:
{{DEFAULTSORT:Nieukerken, Erik J.‎}}
[[Category:Taxon Authorities]]

Where Nieukerken, Erik J. is the author name. These lines help to sort the authorts in categories!

Mariusm 15:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Answers 15 Apr.[edit]

  1. The link for Acantheucosma trachyptila is ok, but, since it contains information about type locality and holotype, why won't you incorporate these details in your data? It's just a simple matter of copy and paste. The link itself may be rendered more correctly by writing: J. Baixeras, J. W. Brown, and T. M. Gilligan: Online World Catalogue of the Tortricidae [4]
  2. The synonyms for genus Aethes have some problems:
    1. The synonyms are written in capital letters.
    2. The place of the citation (which comes after the author's name) is not here, but in the reference section.
  3. About the author Nieukerken the problem is he has 2 different pages:
    1. Erik J.Nieukerken
    2. Erik J. van Nieukerken

So you must mark the first page for deletion and leave the second page. In any case, you must insert a space between the J. and the Nieukerken

Mariusm 10:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


I've changed Actinocentra aliena and added also a reference. Please look now there to see how it should be done. (press edit to see how it is written.)

Mariusm 11:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)



Baburia abdita it OK ecxept one thing: Instead of TL write: Type locality.

I want to give you a tip to make your work easier:

Make in your word proccessor (preferably Notepad) a "template" like this:

Species: ''[[genus ]]'' 

Species: ''genus '' [[]]

Type locality:

Holotype: [[Holotype|

=== Synonyms ===
* ''
* ''


copy this "template" many times in your word proccessor, and now for each species, you have to fill only the data, without the headers. Now copy the "template" from your word proccessor and paste it to Wikispecies! I'm allways working like this!

Mariusm 12:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Peter, would you mind if you ask questions by using my talk page? Everytime you always leave a message in my user page instead of my user talk page. Thanks. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Answers 24 April[edit]

Hi, Peter,

You can treat formae like this:

At the species page:

Species: ''[[Asota heliconia]]''
Formae: [[Asota heliconia f. brevipennis|''A. h.'' f. ''brevipennis'']] - [[Asota heliconia f. xxx|''A. h.'' f. ''xxx'']] - [[Asota heliconia f. yyy|''A. h.'' f. ''yyy'']] ...

At the forma page:

Species: ''[[Asota heliconia]]''
[[Asota heliconia f. brevipennis|''Asota heliconia'' f. ''brevipennis'']]

''Asota heliconia'' f. ''brevipennis'' Author, Year

Press Edit to see better how I wrote it.
Look here for an example.

Carry on with the good work!

Mariusm 07:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Forma with subspecies[edit]

At the subspecies page:

Species: ''[[Asota heliconia]]'' <br />
Subspecies: ''[[Asota heliconia timoran]]'' <br />
Formae: [[Asota heliconia timoran f. brevipennis|''A. h. t.'' f. ''brevipennis'']] - [[Asota heliconia timoran f. xxx|''A. h. t.'' f. ''xxx'']] - [[Asota heliconia timoran f. yyy|''A. h. t.'' f. ''yyy'']] ...

At the forma page:

Species: ''[[Asota heliconia]]'' <br />
Subspecies: ''[[Asota heliconia timoran]]'' <br />
Forma: [[Asota heliconia timoran f. brevipennis|''Asota heliconia timoran'' f. ''brevipennis'']]

''Asota heliconia timoran'' f. ''brevipennis'' Author, Year

Mariusm 08:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


Why did you blank this page on the 8th? I have undone this; please provide an explanation for your actions. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


Regarding Antarctoperlaria, Plecoptera, Eusthenoidea, and Leptoperloidea, I saw that User:EVula deleted it. Please contact him for details. I have dropped a notice for you at EVula's talk page but you need to explain to him why it shouldn't be deleted. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

About User:Isfisk[edit]

I have contacted him and ask him to read the documentation pages. Hopefully he will correct his mistake. But it is not totally his fault (nor your fault either!) From a log, his account was registered in 26 May 2006. We have changed our formatting several times so he may not be aware of the latest formatting. Let's hope he can follow up. Great work from both of you. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he's unaware of the subfamily in that tribe. I'm guessing that he obtained the info from Wikipedia, because Wikipedia lacks a lot of minor details that Wikispecies have (for example, subgenus). Sorry for the cleanup trouble. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't make the page Pseudophasmatidae. If you look at the history of the page all I did was to add a < br >. So it wasn't me who created the page without subfamilies and only tribes. Secondly, You made a mistake when you put a link for Lowry in the Gbroidea page. Lowry links to a Porter P. Lowry II but the genus Gbroidea was errected by a J.K.Lowry. Because of the time it takes to check if a person with a certain surname is the same who described the new species, I don't link to the authors. A lot of the newly described species I add to wikispecies is listed at which only list the surname, so is difficult to check the first names. Basicly, I think it's better to added new species and not link to the author, than not to add them. Finally, sometimes/normally I'm a bit lazy so I just add the link in the summary of my edit. I know I should add it in the page itself. I'll try to do it in the future.

Isfisk 11:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You write on my user page (I have moved the comments to my talk page) that "You have to fill the species. Only the link is not enough." I think adding a new genus is an improvement. Not filling out the species is not a mistake but rather something that would be appreciated. Isfisk 11:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand that a link to the author of a species is better than an unliked name. But as a wrote two comments above sometimes I just doesn't have the authors first name, so I risk linking to a wrong author with the same surname. As you have done (you haven't fix the mistake as you wrote) when you edited Gbroidea. The author name Lowry still links to Porter P. Lowry II while the author of Gbroidea is a J.K.Lowry.

I'm a political science student, so I don't have any professional knowledge about taxonomy, but I update newly described species when I see new descriptions.

Isfisk 19:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see you corrected the mistake on the species page Gbroidea dingaalana but not the genus page Gbroidea. I have corrected it now. Isfisk 19:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for giving me the new species. I'll incorporate them in the data as soon as I reach the respective familia. I'm planning to make Anura complete, so every new species is very welcome.

I'm suggesting that you work also more systematically, completing one familia to perfection before moving on to another, otherwise the data will ultimately be very patchy and insignificant.

Bye, Mariusm 11:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Answers 2 May[edit]

Hi, Peter,

  1. If you think the author Gerardo Lamas is different then the author Gerardo Lamas Müller then:
    1. Go to page Gerardo Lamas
    2. Press on top of the redirected page on (Redirected from Gerardo Lamas) (Its written in small print).
    3. Press Edit to edit this page to your liking. Now Gerardo Lamas will no longer redirect to Gerardo Lamas Müller.
  2. Thanks for the new Anura species.

Mariusm 14:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Answers 15 May[edit]

Hi Peter,

You became a major contributor for Wikispecies! Well done!

I see you begun to deal with the Acari??!!

Infraordo is in the hirarchy between Subordo and Superfamilia. In the case of Lohmannioidea, you must begin first with Ordo Sarcoptiformes (which isn't defined yet in wikispecies).

  1. Make a template for Ordo Sarcoptiformes. (using the Superordo Acariformes which is defined in Wikispecies)
  2. Make a template for Subordo Oribatida.
  3. Make a template for Infraordo Mixonomata
  4. Make a template for Superfamilia Lohmannioidea
  5. Make a template for Familia Lohmanniidae

Each template uses the higher hirarchy. For examplae the template for Infraordo Mixonomata will look like:

Infraordo: [[Mixonomata]] <br />

Tell me if you want me to make these definitions for you.

Mariusm 07:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I've done it for you. You had 2 mistakes: Instead of Mixonomata you wrote Mixonomota and instead of Lohmannioidea you wrote Lohmannoidea.
  • The Acari are not insects! They have 8 and not 6 legs!

Mariusm 08:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Answers 16 May[edit]


You must be patient regarding Isfisk. We are all here volunteers, so you can't ask a member in this community to do a particular species even if it seems to you the best way. Everyone does his edits according to his ability and his good will. Nevertheless, I'll write him and tell him about his mistakes.

Mariusm 09:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in what Isfisk answered me about linking to authors:

I can understand that linking to the authors name can be informative, but only if there's information on the authors site. Linking to Bourguignon and all the page contains is his name (which can be found in the reference to Pericapritermes papuanus ). I just don't see the value in it other than to boost the page count. I would be happy to creat author pages but I don't know nothing about them.

Plus, just linking to every surname without checking if the surname links to another taxonomist with the same surname is definitely not informative. I just checked one of you latest additions Pristimantis thymalopsoides (Lynch, 1976). But the Lynch link refers to two persons that died in 1924 and 1935 respectively. So I don't think any of those described a new species in 1976.

Isfisk 14:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""

Mariusm 15:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This is what I've answered to Isfisk:

You're perfectly right about the author name's ambiguity, but in my opinion the case of Lynch is somewhat rare. Some author pages do contain more info than just the name, and may be extended in the future, putting some "meat" in them. It is also nice to have a uniform and standard format for all Wikispecies pages, and not everyone including or omitting info according to his inclinations. In any case I would be glad if you inform me about such author discrepancies, and I'll give it a try to sort them out. Meanwhile I'll be glad if you could make the effort and add the author links in-spite of all your justified reservations.

Mariusm 17:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Edits to pages I created this afternoon[edit]

I don't get the first change you have made to the page I created for Onychostenhelia bispinosa. I had used the templates ( {{glast and {{splast ) as recommended here: Help:Taxonavigation section but you have removed them, why?

Isfisk 21:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This is what I replied to Isfisk:
  1. As for the case of the author Lynch which you rightly pointed out, I added a new page for the Colombian Herpetologist John D. Lynch. I'll try, if the time allows me to change the links to [[John D. Lynch|Lynch]]
  2. I happened to see your mail to PeterR, where you ask him why he made the modifications in your page. I'm afraid he's rightly done so: The templates {{g| }} and {{sp| }} were constructed for handeling lists of genera in Family pages and lists of species in Genus pages. The line "Species: [[]]" must contain the full name of the species and not the abbreviation resulting from the template.
Mariusm 06:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
My reply to Mariusm.

I understand the argument, that a species page should list the whole species name and not just eg. E. coli.

But I don't understand why I cannot use the genus template {{g: on genus and species pages. There isn't any difference as far as I can tell.

Isfisk 08:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter, You are absolutely correct !! But sometimes it's very difficult to convince someone to change his way of thinking !!
Mariusm 10:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


Hi Peter, seems you forget to put the genus name in italics when you create articles for Cymothoe-species. Isfisk 09:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Same problem with species articles for Lethe. You might want to use the glast:-template as it garantees you tht the genus name is in italics. Best regards Isfisk 09:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Same problem with Taraka and Liphyra. Otherwise you're doing a great job. Isfisk 09:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hi, Peter,

I saw the message of Isfisk, and I think he's right:

Instead of writing:

Genus: [[Cymothoe]] <br />
Species: [[Cymothoe hobarti]] <br />

Please write:

Genus: ''[[Cymothoe]]'' <br />
Species: ''[[Cymothoe hobarti]]'' <br />

And also in the genus templates.

The rule is: All names of genera, species and subspecies should be in Italics.

Mariusm 16:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Off course this is a minor issue.

The reason genera and species is in italics is not because of some special wikispecies formatting rules (which you indicate by your answer to Mariusm). So they should not be written in italics beceause they are the subjects of the page.

According to en:Binomial nomenclature the writing of genera and species names in italics is a international rule within binomial nomenclature.

Isfisk 18:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. Even high school and university students were taught to italic genus and species names. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


On your first point you're not correct. I wrote Mariusm "I don't understand why a cannot use the genus template {{g: on genus and species pages. There isn't any difference as far as I can tell." and he answered me: "Regarding the genus you're correct: no difference. Mariusm 08:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)"

Second point. You could add the species groups to Ecnomina but I don't think it's that important. Isfisk 19:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Answers 25 May[edit]

Hi, Peter,

  1. Wikispecies is not a personal (or I think you meant "custom"). It is based on the international taxonomic rules and syntax.
  2. Anyone can change Wikispecies, so sometimes it's very confusing seeing some entries which aren't standard. We must find these non-standard edits and correct them, and inform the people which made them to improve. It sometimes is tedious and frustrating, but nevertheless we must be patient with those members, and help them understand what they did wrong.
  3. The rules are written in the HELP [5] section, and you can check that they conform to the international nomenclature standard. Maybe you can suggest ways to improve this section, and make it clearer and better.
  4. "species groups" can be used, and I also use them. The problem is, many members of Wikispecies are not familiar with them, being amatures, so they think it's illegal to use them.
  5. On the "Italics" issue: you have to change only the genera templates, and add the '' '' there, and not deal with specific species, so really it isn't much work to do.

Mariusm 12:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia for everyone in the world. It has over 250 languages and 10 million articles. It is not a personal database. The contents there will be read by everyone, just like Wikispecies. For a person like you, Wikipedia may not be suitable for you because it contains a lot of "trivia" information. I'll use Walrus as example. In Wikispecies, it is Odobenus rosmarus. In Wikipedia, it is walrus. You can find information such as where they grow in, how heavy do they normally weight, their population in entire world, what they eat, etc on Wikipedia. On the other hand, Wikispecies focus straightly on species names, author, the year of authority, reference, and its common name in different languages. Generally, I sometimes find Wikipedia containing too much information and takes a lot of time from filtering out the information that I need from those that I don't.

There are also more troublesome and hostile users on Wikipedia where they always question why you did this and why you did that. If you're not too good in English to explain your edits, they love to remove your edits simply because they didn't try to understand what you say. I would strongly recommend you to stay here because the editing environment in here is much better than in Wikipedia, even though more people reads Wikipedia than Wikispecies. Wikipedia targets general audience (from musicians to plumbers, teachers to computer engineers) while Wikispecies targets biologists. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Answers 27 May[edit]

  1. Thank you for the data you've sent me. The species up to and including 2007 I already have, and the 2008 species I'll put in when I reach the respective familiae.
  2. Do you get zootaxa for free ?
  3. Sometimes I think the Wiki system has many problems. There are many vandals, and many mistakes of those who are not familiar with taxonomy. After 3 years of opperation, not a single major taxa is complete yet! Even Mammalia is far from being complete. So I'm trying now to complete Amphibia to perfection (more than 6000 species!). If you put one species in a familia, and than another in another familia, there remain big holes in the data. The best way is to work systematically on a single familia until it is complete.

Mariusm 10:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Nieuwe users die op Lepidoptera willen werken[edit]

Dag Peter,

De beste manier is hen een berichtje na te laten op hun talk page. Ik kan hier minder aan doen dan jijzelf. Moesten er conflicten opdagen kan ik wel bemiddelen. Mvg. Lycaon 14:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Polyura (Nymphalidae)[edit]

Hi Peter,

Just a minor thing. When you made pages for this genus you put the genus name as Polyura and not Polyura (Nymphalidae) so the link on the species page directed to Polyura which is disambigues since there's both a animal and a plant genus of that name.

You wrote somewhere that you check for zootaxa-updates by doing a google search. It might be easier for you to just go to and then click on Online issues in the top bar. Normally there is a new issue every monday, wednesday and friday. (But you probably already knew that).

Finally, if you don't know you might wanna check it out. They list all newly described species from Zoological Record. If you go to [6] you can see all new species of Lepidoptera. They list 400 new species of Lepidoptera since february, which is quite amazing.

Best regards, Isfisk 09:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a simple question. What's the difference between


Sorry, can you rephrase your sentence? I am having trouble understanding. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, you're doing fine. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, those br codes. They work both ways. I know <br /> is the better way but since all browsers that can read XHTML must be able to read HTML, both tags do the same thing. <br> = <br /> = <br></br> OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Answers May 30[edit]

Hi, Peter,

  1. We all at Wikispecies are users who can't change the way it works. The entities who created the Wiki system didn't allow for democratic modification of concept, so the things you suggest are just autopia, that can never be implemented. So we must do with what we have or quit this business alltogather!
  2. I really don't understand exactly what OhannaUnited did that aroused your resent. Can you please elaborate?
  3. You can divide the Tribus into sections, but too much division is not so good either, since it clutters too much the screen, and makes navigation difficult. However if you have a lot of Genera, it can be done, providing each section begins clearly in a new line.
  4. Have a nice vacation!

Mariusm 06:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk 06 June[edit]

Hi, Peter

Welcome back. I hope you had a nice vacation. As to your question, I don't know if you mean the familia is pertiotioned into sections of genera, or each genus is partitioned into sections of species. Please let me know.

Mariusm 16:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


Hi Peter,

Just a little reminder, please remember to write genus names in italics. This also applies to pages of individual species. You haven't done this on species pages in the genus Aethes. In any case, you do a great job. Isfisk 12:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Paratubiluchus bicaudatus[edit]

Thanks for the reference to the article. Concernings names: according to recommendations of the Code (art. 51.2) the authority should be mentioned as surnames. So I prefer to write surnames only (but link to article about author in form of "Name Surname" in a good practice). --Andrey A. Kuzmin 18:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The aim of a link to author page is to link to it. The surname in our case is Zhang. If there is a person with such a surname the link is blue. That is not the same person - as you noted, but that is not a reason to write Z._Zhang. That's a reason to create a disambiguation page for "Zhang" or to link in form of Zhang or better Zhang. --Andrey A. Kuzmin 18:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

NO CAUSE to sign initials in "Zhang": NO uncertainty in identity of this scientist. Alternative example: there were two marine biologists of the family Sars, who introduced some names in adjacent taxons, so we may refer to them in authority as "M. Sars" for the farther and "G.O. Sars" for the son. In our case there is NO uncertainty.
This is the official way we work in taxonomy. In Wikispecies author pages are accessory in relation to taxon pages: it is much more suitable to make disambiguation pages for authors.--Andrey A. Kuzmin 21:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Answers 17 June[edit]

Hi Peter,

About Code 51.2: You didn't understand: the Code he's refering to isn't a Wikispecies atricle, but to the "International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature", and the artice he's refering to is "Article 51 -- Citation of names of authors" (you can read here the article).

Mariusm 07:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


I am not sure if we need that category, but if so then you create it as you would an article at Category:Geologists --Open2universe | Talk 12:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Naming Conventions[edit]

There seems to be some concerns around naming conventions and abbreviations. For botanists, it is clear that we use IPNI for the list of abbreviations. For others there may not be one and we may need to create a disambiguation page. For clarity, and to make sure it links to the correct person, it would always be correct to link it as [[full name|cited abbeviation]]

Also, in creating an author with a middle initial, place a space between the middle initial and last name. Thanks. --Open2universe | Talk 12:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Author syntax convention[edit]

Hi, Peter,

I think the best way to write the author names is like this:

[[V.C.Silva‎|Silva]] or [[Vera Cristina Silva‎|Silva]]

On the screen will appear only the surname Silva as is appropriate by the international standard, but when clicking on the link, it will go to the right author.

This way, you also won't need to create the redirect to V.C.Silva‎, but use the full name, which will be invisible on the screen.

Mariusm 08:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Answers 23 June 2008[edit]


  1. To use [[Vera Cristina Silva|Silva]] you need to make the Catalog:Taxon Authorities/S and the DEFAULTSORT: but no redirect.
  2. If you write the author names this way then only the name "Vera Cristina Silva" will be used, and all the other confusing short names like V.C.Silva, V.C. Silva, VC Silva etc. will be unnecessary.
  3. There exists an help section with examples (see Help:contents). I agree we need to improve the help section, but only an administrator can do this and it is very difficult to convince an administrator to change these pages!
  4. On my computer the font of the Vernacular names is the same size as the other fonts. What windows version are you using? What browser? Which encoding? Which text size?

Mariusm 07:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Salticidae en andere beslommeringen...[edit]

Beste Peter,

Je mag gerust de subfamilies aanvullen bij de Salticidae Ik beschik daarover momenteel niet over de geschikte bronnen en ben zelf begonnen met Brachyura in een nieuw kleedje te gieten.

Wat nieuwe gebruikers en vervuilen betreft. Tja, daar zullen we mee moeten leren leven. Ik was vroeger (toen er nog slechts enkele sysops waren) een stuk strenger en vlugger met blokkeren. Tegenwoordig zijn we daar een beetje gematigder in want we zijn met meer, dus de controle gaat sneller. Dat betekent ook dat als iemand echt verkeerd bezig is op een bepaald lemma, er sneller een sysop kan gewaarschuwd worden en er eventueel ook prompter kan worden ingegrepen.

Individuele gebruikers hebben echter niet—en dat zal in de toekomst hoogstwaarschijnlijk niet veranderen—het alleenrecht op een bepaalde groep organismen. Wikispecies (en de andere wikimediaprojecten) zijn samenwerkingsprojecten. Nu en dan gaat er wel eens iets fout, maar dat is in het totaal van de bijdragen echt wel verwaarloosbaar. Die fouten worden trouwens vrij snel rechtgezet. Het is een kwestie van praten, sturen en zich niet te veel op te winden heb ikzelf ondervonden.

Ik zie dat je in de korte periode dat je aan dit project bijdraagt (sedert maart dit jaar) al bijna 15000 (!!!) edits hebt gedaan. Dat is veel en veel belangrijker dan die enkele foute lemma's die in die tijd door de mazen van het net glipten, en zowieso eerlang toch in orde komen.

Groet. Lycaon 14:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


We will need disambiguation pages for many of these authorities and then point to the correct one. I did create one for Müller. --Open2universe | Talk 03:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Gerardo Lamas[edit]

I did not understand you. Are Gerardo Lamas and Gerardo Lamas Müller the same person? If so we only need one article. If they are not, can we add more information that separates them? --Open2universe | Talk 13:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Answers 23 June 2008[edit]


1)) You can handle the sections like this:

Tribe: Eumaeini

Section Brangas: Brangas – Thaeides – Enos – ...

Section Atlides: Atlides – Riojana – Arcas – Pseudolycaena – ...


So you don't have to create a new page for each section, but write all the tribe's genera in one page.

2)) I'll add the Anura 2008 species when I finish with all the species up to 2007. Thanks for the links. Just be patient, because the older species are as important as the new ones!

Mariusm 15:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


Dag Peter.

Tja je mag kiezen uit één van volgende redenen: niet opgemerkt, geen tijd, niet belangrijk genoeg... Bij eigen gemaakte lemma's altijd bij—al dan niet—kleine aanpassingen doe ik het vaak niet. Inhoud is altijd belangrijker dan vorm, maar als je van niets begint kun je het ook maar onmiddellijk goed doen... ;-)). Groet. Lycaon 18:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.