User talk:PeterR/Archive 2008-2

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.

Orphaned pages[edit]

Hello, I just want you to know that there is a report that shows all pages that no longer have links to them. Special:LonelyPages. As you are working on insects, you have occasionally broken links. They might link back up later, or perhaps they are now a synonym? If so then could you change them to be redirects? Thanks so much. --Open2universe | Talk 14:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I could not run a report but I am working on it by hand. Here are the A's

Orphaned Lepidoptera A

Re: Subgenera[edit]

I don't understand well your question. Where I must make subgenera? --Digigalos 21:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear PeterR: Chaetacanthus is not a Subgenera, according to what I have seen, it is a genus of Acanthaceae, but it is a genus of Polynoidae too. To distinguish both: Chaetacanthus (Acanthaceae) and Chaetacanthus (Polynoidae). Is it correct? --Digigalos 09:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Amblyoponinae[edit]

Hi Peter,

you edited this page, Amblyoponinae, by deleting the genera and instead added the tribe. But the tribe points back to the Amblyoponinae. Could you please clean this up. Thanks. Isfisk 22:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Species[edit]

Because I thought that first must fill higher taxa. To fill all species I'd need two more lives ;) --Digigalos 11:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Answers 10 July 08[edit]

Peter,

I fixed the Amblyoponinae page. According to recent revision by Bolton, 2003, it contains no tribes but only one genus. Please don't follow ITIS here because they are not updated!

By the way: why do you add the "*" mark before the holotype? it is really unnecessary.

Mariusm 06:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Move page[edit]

Hi Peter, I just want to point out something in case it comes handy. On top of each page, there is a button call "move". If you misspelled the name of the organism, you can click on the move button, follow the instructions and type in the correct organism name and click move. Everything on the previous page will be moved to the new page. This way you don't need to retype everything again.

Also, your page is getting really really long. Do you want me to help you archive (not delete!) the contents of the page for better organization? OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Done! If you want to access to older discussion, just click on the archive link. Now the page is shorter and takes less time to load. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Synonyms or Synonymy[edit]

Hi Peter,

By all means it should be Synonyms, to keep it consistent across all Wikispecies. I'm glad to see you so active around here...

Mariusm 06:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's wrong in doing so - we must edit acording to the instructions in the help section - see [1]
Sorry... I don't understand your last question...
Mariusm 06:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh! I see... You have at the bottom when you edit a line titled "Summary" (just after the words COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!). There you have to put the text which summarizes your current edit. This text appears also at the page of "Recent changes".
Mariusm 06:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

How to use New Combination[edit]

Here is a site which explains all the zoological terms we need to know [2]. New combination goes under the section "Synonymy" which should include all the names that have been used for the organism including synonyms, new combinations, misidentifications, etc. Here at Wikispecies we are using the term "Synonym" (maybe wrongly for the pundits). So all New Combinations must also come under the section "Synonyms".

A way to make things clearer is to write like this: (under the section "Synonyms")

  • Plethodon aeneus Cope & Packard, 1881 (new combination)

Mariusm 13:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Boring comment[edit]

Peter,
be careful with terms. We are talking about names saying "combination", "synonym" or something alse. Species is taxon and "name of taxon" is not "taxon" itself.
--Andrey A. Kuzmin 19:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Templates & Taxonavigation[edit]

For genus, we recommend you to use the template style, that is {{g|GenusName}} or {{glast|GenusName}}. But since typing it out like ''[[GenusName]]'' shows the same thing, either works fine. Only in species we really really want to use the templates.

As for Synonymy vs. Synonyms or Reference vs. References, we should use the plural form. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

More on combinations...[edit]

  1. There is no way to make a clear distinction between "Mentions" and "True synonyms". The difficulty increses for this community, being composed of amatures, mainly, so "Mentions" is what actuly is practiced here.
  2. One way to deal with such ambiguties, is to follow "Fishbase" practice. (look here for an example)
  3. It appears there are the following main types for synonyms and you can add the exact type in parentheses if you know it:
    1. original combination
    2. new combination
    3. junior synonym
    4. misspelling
    5. misidentification
  4. Many serious sites (look here for an example) use the word "Synonymy" to denote what you call "Mentions", so really our rulls here shouldn't be stricter than that !!
  5. We can ask the administrators to change the section name from "Synonyms" to "Synonymy", and to run a bot to change all the pages accordingly.

Mariusm 07:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Alochthonius[edit]

Hello, I dont think that was a mistake.

If I understand correct, you wish who I included the subgenus on those species, but its wrong ... there arent a homonymy genus for Allochthonius. CaCO3 20:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of content[edit]

You continue to remove content on pages, like you did here, without providing any reasoning. You must stop doing this. Removing content without any reasoning is a violation of policy. Consider this a warning, as I have spoken to you about this before. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Bombus[edit]

Does Bombus (Kallobombus) and Bombus (Kallobombus) soroeensis follow the correct formatting? I had a look at many of the pages using the Template:Sgsp to see what format they used, however there was lots of variation! Suicidalhamster 12:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks for your help, I will change the formatting on the other Bombus pages. Suicidalhamster 12:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


I don't really have any spciality as such, but will probably edit wherever things need to be done (I have noticed a lot of the higer taxonamy of the mammals needs updating so may try to help out with that). Regarding subgenus etc., it is obviously good if new articles follow the correct formatting, however I don't really mind about old articles being different. They will hopefully get fixed one day. Your work on the Lepidoptera is very impressive.

In my opinion it is useful if the binomial name (without subgenus) is a redirect to the binomial with subgenus eg. Bombus breviceps. What is your opnion about this? Suicidalhamster (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean to imply that we should not follow the guidelines (except to say that it may take a while for all articles to reach them). As far as I know the issue of whether redirects should exist for Bombus breviceps is not addressed in the guidelines amd templates, so wondered if you knew any better (I may ask about it on the Village Pump).
I had a look at Zootaxa and it does look a great resource for new classifications, I also have a fair amount of experience with Google Scholar which I normally find is as good if not better than something like Web of Knowledge.
One thing I want help with is Bombus (Bombus sensu stricto). Should the species in this subgenus be Bombus (Bombus) affinis, Bombus (Bombus sens. str.) affinis or something else? Is the subgenus correctly named? Many thanks. Suicidalhamster (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 species[edit]

Hi, Peter. Thanks. I've already created all the new 2008 Amphibia species (up to 23 July 2008 !!). So hopefully, the data is complete and up-to-date. If you know of new species defined after 23 July 2008, please notify me.

Mariusm 08:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

  • If you can improve the data in Amphibia, please go-on and do it yourself - this is the essence of Wikispecies.
  • I didn't have the time to update the author's information, and I thought it of secondary importance in relation to the species' data proper. Take in consideration that 6400 species is a lot of work, without weighting-in the authors too. In the future I may take some time to handle the authors also.
  • Sometimes it is better to disregard subgenera, for clarity and accessibility sake, and add them on the genus page only - partitioning the species accordingly - like I did in Craugastor. Mariusm 16:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Replacement name[edit]

Peter,
Replacement name (nomen novum) is a new name for a taxon, previous name of which is invalid. In case, which Lamas (2008) resolved, there occured a series of homonyms (junior homonyms are invalid even if homonymy appeared after changes of ranks and general affiliations (secondary homonymy)). The author of nomen novum is an author of current valid name of the taxon. Previous name (and authority) are considered invalid until invalidity persists. Elder (invalid) name is not a synonym. I suppose to treat these situations like this:

==Name==
Santia Sivertsen et Holthuis, 1980 (nom. nov. pro Antias Richardson, 1906 (praeocc. in Antias Distant, 1884))

or: ...pro Antias Richardson, 1906 (junior homonym of Antias Distant, 1884)

For species-group names situation is analogous:

==Name==
Arhopala ariana wanggu Lamas, 2008 (nom. nov. pro Arhopala ariana hainana Wang & Gu, 1997 (primary[?] junior homonym of ...))

or just: Arhopala ariana wanggu Lamas, 2008 (nom. nov. pro Arhopala ariana hainana Wang & Gu, 1997)

Else we can not mention elder invalid name at all.
If here we will accept that there would be only one section for "names other than the valid one" ("Synonymy" of Mariusm) than any invalid names will be referred there. Andrey

I suppose your decision on Arhopala ariana wanggu is acceptable. Don't you think that *-mark implies an unnumbered list? Maybe just <br>-mark would be better? Andrey A. Kuzmin 08:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

About unfinished articles[edit]

I have replied on my talk page OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Cyrtoscydmini and File History[edit]

You're right, Cyrtoscydmini's formatting is incorrect. We shouldn't use that. As for file history, I'm not sure what you are referring to. Are you talking about how to find your contributions? OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You can access it by clicking on the word "Archive 1" OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Another thing. If you want to add something that you previously wrote in talk page, consider to use :(colon) instead of creating a new section. It makes your words indented (such as this paragraph that I am writing) OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, genus templates are pretty useless. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
That's correct, Peter. Normal users only look at the data, not the computer codings behind it that generates the information on the page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Comb.[edit]

Peter, I prefer to use this form:

== Name ==
Heterias (Fritzianira) exul (Müller, 1892)

===Combinations===

The first is original combination and the last is currently accepted combination which reflects the current generic affiliation of a species. Andrey.

As I see we have no standart form to treat combinations. I think that my decision is more clearer than yours. In my example: a user sees current combination in the "Name" section (with original authors in parentheses) and then a history of affiliation conceptions in "Combinations" subsection. Anycase your variant is correct.
Andrey A. Kuzmin 16:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Russian[edit]

Peter,
You asked me about work of Nabozhenko:
Armenohelops. Type-species: Armenohelops armeniacus

  • Armenohelops armeniacus. Holotype: male, Armenia: fork of the road to Lusashok. Deposited in the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences (St-Petersburg).
  • Armenohelops kagyzmanicus. Holotype: male, Eastern Turkey: viayat [Turkish word?] Kars, Kagyzman. Deposited in ZIN RAS.

About English list of Russian entomoligsts: I suppose that it dosen't exist.
Regards, Andrey A. Kuzmin 18:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Nematoda[edit]

Peter,
the higher classification of Nematoda is now up-to-date. (Besides my previous revision I have deleted a redundant subclass "Chromadoria"). Secernents are not a distinct class or subclass - they derived inside a large line of Chromadorea and are considered now as only an ordo with the name Rhabditida (not equal in volume to previous order "Rhabditida"). I used the recent works of Blaxter, Chesunov and other major nematologists to reconstruct the system of Nematoda. A bipartite system of Adenophorea/Secernentea is rejected even in 80-s.
Andrey A. Kuzmin 13:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hyalonema[edit]

Sorry, but I dont delete this page.
Regards
CaCO3 14:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hydraenids[edit]

Hey Pete, I'm pissed! :( I started the Prosthetopinae page and put the latest Zootaxa reference in it, but now it is gone, and there is no trace of it in the page history!! What is going on???? 130.216.1.16 07:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Italics[edit]

Please put only genus and species names in italics, not family-group names! 130.216.1.16 07:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Spelling and pleural[edit]

Please be careful of spelling (e.g., it is Laricobiinae, not Laricobinae). Also, please change appropriately between pleural and singular (e.g. genera/genus), so on a subfamily page the genus list should be headed genera (even if there is just one genus in the list), but it changes to singular on each genus page. 130.216.1.16 21:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Laricobiinae and Ceutorhynchinae[edit]

  • The spelling is Laricobiinae for both Laricobius and Laricobia, it would only be Laricobinae for Laricobus or Laricoba.
  • Please don't add taxa like Ceutorhynchinae (Curculionidae) without first reading the talk page and associated references. We have to follow just one classification of weevils, and the one I have chosen (the best available at present) has Ceutorhynchini as a tribe of Baridinae. 130.216.1.16 08:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sysop access[edit]

Do you know how i get sysop access? I have been an active editor for the 2 months as stated in the requirements. Chemistrygeek 12:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Chemistrygeek 13:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Species of Butterfly[edit]

Ok thanks, will keep an eye out for your work and make sure that I dont copy what you have already put in. Chemistrygeek 19:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Answer 13 sep.[edit]

Hello,

  1. I'm trying to sort out the orphaned pages, that's why I've done Labridae.
  2. By the way: there are a lot of lepidoptera orphaned pages. When you insert in tribus and subtribus, please make sure no genera are being 'lost' in the way. If there are genera you're not sure about, please put them under 'Incertae Sedis'.
  3. There's no way to prevent non-experts from getting in information. That is one of the drawbacks of the Wiki system, which we have to live with, just as we live with an illness... Mariusm 15:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikispecies:Done and to do[edit]

It's there just to keep track of what we have completed and what we need to finish. The list is very incomplete and doesn't force people to work on things that are not within their area of expertise. OhanaUnitedTalk page 12:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a lot of people go there, so even if you put your name up on that page, the chances are people didn't read it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Which part of the help documents do you want me to add this bit into? There are many pages and I am not sure which one this part should be placed in. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Nope, not angry at all. I'm at work but today is very relaxing because network went down and can't do a lot of tasks. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Answers 15-16 Sep.[edit]

On your talk page (the archived part) you mentioned Coleophora abbasella. (the exact sentance was "If I write Coleophora abbasella (Baldizzone,1994) the colour is red not blue. but from Meyrick is blue. What do I wrong?".) So Google is seeing this too!!! You can delete this sentance from your talk page archive... Mariusm 17:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course you have to delete this answer too, or else Google will spot the species here and list it !!! Mariusm 15:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Psyllinae: reply[edit]

At present I do not know if there are tribes/subtribes of Psyllinae, but there probably are. But it doesn't matter, you can still add genera if you want to, and then I or someone else can rearrange them into tribes... 130.216.1.16 00:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC) The same thing applies to your other questions. Just add the species to whatever level of classification is there, and worry about tribes, etc. later. In many taxa, there is no meaningful classification anyway... 130.216.1.16 21:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Answers 17 Sep. - Coleophoridae[edit]

Look Peter, I appreciate the work you're doing here, but you can't do just half of a work. You think there are only 5 genera. OK. It's fine with me. But there remain many other genera which were formerly part of the Coleophoridae and now are just hanging in the air. Where do these genera belong?? What to do with them ?? Where to put them ?? You can't say "they don't belong here" without providing an adequate alternative !! This is chaos !! So please leave these genera in the Coleophoridae or find for them a better place !! But don't throu them out like they don't exist !! Mariusm 08:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:Nepticulinae[edit]

hello,

I Worked on the Ectoedemia only because of the many species which you left orphaned (with no parent), and I found some errors you've made. One of the errors is the subgenus Ectoedemia (Fomoria) which you wrote as Ectoedemia (Formoria) with an 'r'. It is difficult now to repair this because all the old names must be deleted, and new name inserted, so I left it as it is. If you have the time please repair this. I also added some information where you left gaps. Mariusm 12:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter. When you have a mistaken page, for example Ectoedemia (Formoria), please mark it with the {{delete|reason for delete}} template for deletion by an administrator, else it will remain as an orphaned page in the database !! Mariusm 15:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
You did OK. Thanks. Mariusm 09:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Araeopteron[edit]

Hello, Peter. I looked at the histories of Araeopteron makikoae, Araeopteron patella, and Araeopteron ussurica, and have seen the contributions of 130.216.1.16. I think 130.216.1.16 is a good contributor, who understands taxonomy, and only improved these pages, so I don't think he deserves your criticism. As for the format "Fibiger, Michael & Vladimir Kononenko" opposed to the format "Fibiger, M.; Kononenko, V.", I think the format "Fibiger, M.; Kononenko, V." is more in compliance with the usual taxonomic standards. Mariusm 08:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Peter, you're confusing all the author standards together. Please, you have to distinguish between the following cases:
  1. Species authority in the name section should preferably be Fibiger & Kononenko, but can also be M.Fibiger & V.Kononenko.
  2. Author name in the reference section should preferably be Fibiger, M.; Kononenko, V., or Fibiger, M. & Kononenko, V., but can also be Fibiger, Michael & Vladimir Kononenko. I don't see why you are confusing between these two cases...
Mariusm 15:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Ornithoptera[edit]

Done. Mariusm 11:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The forma rank is below variety rank, so you have to use variety (use the Var template). Please try not to use forma and variery in zoology, because these ranks are not standard and are usually restricted to botany.
Use the REDIRECT for the existing species without the subgenus. For example for Ornithoptera aesacus, write: #REDIRECT [[Ornithoptera (Ornithoptera) aesacus]].
Mariusm 11:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Eumaeini[edit]

I advise you to put these genera temporarily under section Incertae Sedis. When you are certain about a synonymy or a precise placement, you can either delete or change position. In any case, for genera in red, you don't need to use the delete template. Mariusm 17:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Coleoptera[edit]

Yes, 130.216.1.16 is changing my classifications too according to his wishes, but I suppose he's more knowledgable than me about the Coleoptera, so I let him do his own way... Mariusm 10:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Ornithoptera (Aetheoptera) victoriae[edit]

Generally you made the farma OK except some minor errors:

  1. The A (of the subgenus) have to be under parentheses (A).
  2. When more then one farma write Formae: in plural and not Forma:
  3. Insert a "-" between the formae.

Mariusm 07:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Bebearia eremita[edit]

The format "Genus (Incertae sedis) species" is not in accordance with the taxonomic rules. Try to avoid it. The correct way to do the Incertae sedis is:

Subganera: B. (Apectinaria) – B. (Bebearia)
Subganus incertae sedis species: B. artemis – B. brazzai – B. clotho – ...

Mariusm 13:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

ab.[edit]

ab. is aberration, and has no status today 130.216.1.16 08:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

just list the ab. names (prefixed with ab.) under synonymy. I don't know what Bona means .. bona fide???130.216.1.16 08:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


Euaesthetinae[edit]

Peter, please can you try to find out which tribe Kiwiaesthetus belongs to? I don't currently have access to the publication: Puthz, V. 2008: Kiwiaesthetus, a new genus of Euaesthetinae from New Zealand (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). 100th contribution to the knowledge of Euaesthetinae. Zeitschrift der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Oesterreichischer Entomologen, 60(1-2): 59-69. Thanks 130.216.1.16 20:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Peter! Would it be possible for you to send me a copy of the Kiwiaesthetus paper? Preferably, you could email me an electronic copy, but a hard copy would be OK. If you are agreeable, I will give you my contact details...130.216.1.16 20:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
if you can photocopy to a pdf (or scan individual pages), which would be cheaper for you than sending a hard copy, please email it to wiki130@yahoo.co.nz

If not, let me know and I'll give you a postal address Cheers 130.216.1.16 23:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comments suggest that you emailed a copy to me (wiki130@yahoo.co.nz), but it hasn't come through! Please try again. 130.216.1.16 00:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
so, Peter, do you really intend to send me that copy, or are you just fooling with me???130.216.1.16 19:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thanks for your efforts, but it isn't working! Try this: just log into my email (wiki130@yahoo.co.nz password: letmein) which I created just for this purpose. Attach the file to a new message (address it to wiki130@yahoo.co.nz), and just save it as a draft.
It worked this time! Thanks Peter! I owe you a favour! :) 130.216.1.16 20:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

A good source[edit]

Here is a good source for Author name & publication for genera: Nomenclator Zoologicus Mariusm 08:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Rapala cassidyi[edit]

The format of Rapala cassidyi wasn't in accordance with Wikispecies standards. I changed it. You can go on and improve it. Mariusm 05:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Tambulyx[edit]

Hi Peter,

I dont know very much about Lepidoptera, I was actually correcting the image caption formatting on the Ambulycini page. Looking through the page history you actually added Tambulyx a while ago.

Sorry I cant be of more help --Kevmin 15:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Microcraspedus and Ochrodia[edit]

You can now edit Microcraspedus and Ochrodia as you please. Mariusm 11:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Papilio (Pterourus)[edit]

Hello PeteR

I have placed a disputed mark on Papilio (Pterourus) because some authors have considered the Pterourus as a genus. I dont know who is right ... so I have marked.
I think who you could write your references in the discussion page of the Papilio (Pterourus) and let every know it.
Regards
CaCO3 13:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello again !
I think who you must write your references in the talk page of Papilio (Pterourus) and delete the disputed warning.
regards
CaCO3 17:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Copeina[edit]

Hello ... I have putted a link to ITIS as one possible reference for now (not as source) ... in the future i hope more editors to add more info.
regards
CaCO3 17:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Bedankt Peter[edit]

User:Tristan Miller 1 verwijderd van wikispecies en de toegang ertoe ontzegd. Er lopen wel meer rare individuen binnen de laatste tijd ;-). Lycaon 19:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Stho002[edit]

As I said, nobody can trump over another person's edit. Issues or conflicts should be discussed between both parties, and if they cannot agree with each other, then they can ask for third-person's comments or community's comments. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

First, regardless of whether you're a student, amateur, or a professional, we value everyone's contributions regardless if the subject is their expertise. When we mean by "3rd person", it usually means the party (could be 1 person or more) that is not actively engaged in editing those pages. In here, it's a great way to learn how to work collaboratively. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


Peter, it is an all too rare, but highly admirable quality to admit ones own weaknesses (and strengths). As I see it, your great strength is your seemingly endless energy and enthusiasm, but you just need to accept a little guidance when it comes to matters of classification (above genus). The guidance ought to come from the references that I am citing to back up my edits, but realistically, you can't be expected to read and understand all that stuff. At the end of the day, we all need to rely on the expertise of others - if you had an illness you would consult a doctor, for example, rather than try to learn everything about the illness (perhaps on Wikipedia!!!) and cure yourself! Please give it some thought ... Stho002 06:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

We have to agree that this is probably Wikispecies' systematic bias. Just like anything out there, nothing is perfect. We have to agree that there are different categorization (and many more out there!). Instead of fighting who's better than others, why not include them all to keep everyone happy? OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Nacaduba angelae[edit]

Peter, Thanks for your note about only adding species from reliable sources. In this instance, I am the original author and I have supplied an image showing two of the type series, so I think this is pretty reliable. Best wishes. Alan

Lycaenidae[edit]

Hello Peter, I am an amateur also, but I have a lot of experience with SE Asian Lycaenids and have published a few papers. These were after field trips to Borneo and Sulawesi (Project Wallace). I have worked regularly with BMNH in London.

I will sort the species alphabetically if that is the way on Wiki. I have been using the order first settled for Nacaduba by Tite in 1963 and followed by subsequent authors. But I can do alphabetical if you want. I'll do the same for subspecies on the species pages.

Thanks, Alan

Lepidoptera[edit]

Thanks for the invitation! It is a big field.

I have contributed to Trans Lepid Soc Japan, and I have a collection of several years volumes. However, my subscrition ceased a little while ago, so I am not current here either. I have access to any literature at the RES and to the collections at BMNH, but this is a part-time hobby for me and I am unlikely to be able to do much in the summer, when my work is especially busy. After 2010 I hope to work more both on Wiki and on EOL.

My area really is Lycaenidae, and I am quite prepared to add to this area as time permits. I am now getting better at making my own templates etc as I learn the Wiki traditions, so I will get quicker. But I see this as a long-term project, growing relatively slowly. Accassidy 16:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thyatirinae[edit]

Just go to the page and press the 'discussion' tab on the top of it, then enter your text. Mariusm 18:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

When you enter a page which has a talk page, you see the discussion tab on top painted in blue (and not red). This is the only way you can tell a certain page has a talk page attached. Mariusm 13:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nacaduba[edit]

Peter, Will make the 'locality' changes in due course. Do you have a copy of the paper for this new species? If so could you scan it and email it to me at accassidy@aol.com. Or you could just make the page yourself if you would prefer. Accassidy 15:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thyatirinae (continued)[edit]

You can write instead of the line
Subfamilia: [[Thyatirinae]] <br />
Write:

Subfamilia: [[Thyatirinae]] <sup>[[Talk:Thyatirinae|(1)]]</sup> <br />

Then you get a (1) beside the name, and when you press it you reach directly the talk page! Mariusm 17:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sub-Genera[edit]

Peter, Can you give me some advice on how Wiki likes to deal with subgenera?

I see a Template for listing species in subgenera, but I would like to be pointed to en example of subgenera being used in the official style. I will then see how to cascade genera/subgenera and species in a consistent way.

I am hoping to do some work on the Lycaenopsis Group, after Eliot & Kawazoe, and they make extensive use of subgenera. Thanks, Accassidy 22:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Metarbelinae[edit]

Hi, can you show me links that say Metabelinae is a family, not sub-family? OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ceropres or Ceroptres[edit]

An anonymous user had made a redirect from Ceropres to Ceroptres. Do you agree that is correct? I am asking since you created the original. Thanks --Open2universe | Talk 13:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Genus[edit]

Hello, Peter,
You make here a mistake: I never told you not to create genus templates. In the contrary: If you have 100 species in a genus, and you have to transfer that genus to another place, then instead of making 100 changes, you make 1 change of the template, and that's it! So go on and make genus templates. In my opinion it's OK. Mariusm 10:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I only mentioned the possibility of creating a genus without a template, but I still prefer using templates, to save much work later, when revisions are needed. Mariusm 17:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

An ambiguous species[edit]

Hello Peter, can you please check the species Angulopis puntalaraensis. Angulopis was deleted according to your request and replaced by Electrostrymon, leaving the species orphaned. Mariusm 17:47, 24 December 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.