User talk:PeterR/Archive 2009

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.

Request for comment[edit]

There is presently a [discussion on the use of daggers to denote extinct taxa. This will affect a large portion of the pages in wikispecies as the project grows so if possible please read the contributions so far and comment. Thanks --Kevmin 06:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to alarm you PeterR, no you have done nothing wrong. I left messages for all the contributors who have been active in the last couple of days feeling that the issue was a community decision.--Kevmin 19:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nacaduba zaron[edit]

Peter, I have received a copy of the paper from the author, along with several others, and so have now been able to complete this taxon page. Cheers, Alan Accassidy 00:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: your message[edit]

I am a member of the Lepidopterists' Society, the North American Butterfly Association, and the Ohio Lepidopterists. I don't understand your concerns regarding my adding lepidoptera species; I am certain that my data is correct. Meganmccarty 15:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me why you think the site I reference is not reliable? Are you saying I'm only supposed to use books and not other websites? Meganmccarty 22:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
As I responded to Stho002 and Accassidy, sometimes it's hard to tell what I should or shouldn't be doing here with everyone's differing opinions, but I do sincerely appreciate all the feedback I've received. As I understand it from all concerned, all our goals are to provide the best reliable information that we can based upon the resources we have available. And I will continue to do that as I carry on with my research. Meganmccarty 18:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

a favour[edit]

Do you have easy access to the following article? Please let me know if you can locate it.

  • Kolibáč, J. 2006: A review of the Trogossitidae. Part 2: Larval morphology, phylogeny and taxonomy (Coleoptera, Cleroidea). Entomologica Basiliensia et Collectionis Frey, 28: 105–153.

Stho002 07:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: I have a photocopy of the title page (and one other page) only of part 1, but part 2 is more important (as it reclassifies the family, and I can't update Wikispecies until I see it). So, if you did also want to give me part 1 that would be great, but part 2 is ESSENTIAL. You could perhaps put a copy in (password: letmein) as before (I have just cleaned out all the spam!)

Many thanks in advance for your kind assistance,
Stho002 20:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I might be able to get it more quickly from elsewhere - thanks anyway Stho002 20:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I have a copy now - it wasn't as difficult to get as I thought! Stho002 01:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


Do you want all the pages using the above template deleted as well? Maxim(talk) 20:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

[[Template:Lithosiinae], which you tagged for deletion today. Maxim(talk) 20:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Peter, you need to make sure that ALL the former Arctiidae are reclassified before deleting the old templates! Stho002 20:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for your interest in my work. During my work with fish, I did not noticed that ITIS is not reliable; until now all their data was cosistent with books and other data I have. I can not say the same for Fishbase, and yet, many people are saying that they are the best (check Spicara flexuosa and Spicara smaris). If you have any idea for other pages for linking data, I will gladly try. Regards --Armchoir 12:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC) I will be carefull, and check it twice. Thank you for your advice. And sorry that I introduced myself with my old name, now I am known as Lasta. --Lasta 18:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Other Sites[edit]

Dear Peter, I have written to Megan explaining why I think Zipcodezoo is unreliable, at least in my specialist area, so I have tried to persuade her of the need for citations from the literature. I am not in a position to referee on the higher classification of the Nymphalidae as there have been so many publications since around 1999.Ackery et al, Brower in 2000, Yoshimoto in 2001, Lamas and so on. Fortunately, in my area of the Lycaenidae I can deal with genera and species without having too much controversy, at least in the Oriental region.

As for the Eumaeini... Eliot, 1973, has them as a sub-family of Theclinae and there seems little controversial there. Eliot does himself use "Sections" to contain linked genera, as does Hirowatari, 1992. However, unless these are actually published as named subgenera (as Eliot & Kawazoe, 1983, did in the Lycaenopsis group) I think that on Wikispecies it is best not to mention such tentative groupings. So in the Polyommatini, I have now created a lot of the genera, but I have made no effort to group them into Sections. My preference with the Eumaeini would likewise to be just to list the genera alphabetically and leave it at that. The someone can get on and do the detail work on the species.

As an example of the problems of "Sections", Eliot has a Trichonis section which contains just 2 genera, Trichonis and Micandra. on the Wiki Eumaeini page, these two genera appear in different Sections. These are my thoughts. Best Wishes to you. Alan Accassidy 22:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


Peter, could you tell me your reference for the groupings under the Poritiinae/Lipteninae/Poritiini (Lycaenidae) as there is a notable divergence from Eliot, 1973. Thanks, Alan Accassidy 18:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter, it seems there is a conflict between Williams that you quote and Brower's tolweb. Brower keeps Liptenin and Pentilini separate and groups the genera much as in Eliot. Wiki Poritiinae has been set up with Tribes accoring to Tolweb but sections according to Williams (I think this is what has happened). Can you give me the full reference for Williams 2008, please, so that I can try to find out a bit about this paper? I think I would prefer to keep Wiki aligned with tolweb as a general rule. Thanks, Alan. Accassidy 19:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
So I have now looked at funet and tolweb and they agree with each other about tribes and subtribes of Poritiinae. However, WikiSpecies has a different layout for the Tribes, still including Pentilini. I think we should remove Pentilini article and transfer its genus/genera to Liptenini (following the 5 sub-tribes if you wish - or keeping them as Sections) as now agreed in funet and tolweb and, presumably as I have not yet seen it, as agreed by Williams. If you agree to this, will you do the changes or would you like me to do them? Alan Accassidy 20:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I will arrange the Poritiinae as per Williams, down to the generic level. I should be able to do the Poritiini to species based on information I have here already, but will have to get a copy of Williams to do the Liptenini, so that may have to wait until I have more of the Oriental Polyommatini done. Best wishes, Alan Accassidy 23:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


Peter, would you look at Liptenini and give me a view on this way of listing subtribes. It keeps all the genera of the tribe available yet breaks them down into Subtribes (Sections sensu Eliot, Hirowatari et al). As sub-tribes or Sections of genera are not Standard Formatting, this may be a possible solution. Alan Accassidy 20:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


Cercyonis seesm to be dealt with here quite adequately on funet: Alan Accassidy 22:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Lamas, 2004, leaves out some Nearctic species. Accassidy 22:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello again Peter. I have concerns about the current organisation of the Satyrinae, at supra-generic groupings because of differences between Lamas and Wahlberg (NSG - as reflected in Markku's site). It would appear that Markku also favours Maniolina over Coenonymphina for Cercyonis, possibly because of Wahlberg's recent works in DNA analysis. So personally, I do not a strong view on this other than to say that it would be great to see people creating all the Genus and Species pages (if they are not already done) and leave any firm conclusions on higher taxonomy until more of the current disagreements have died down. The reservation I have about Lamas is that he really seems to be looking only at the Neotropical fauna and there are a great many Satyrines in the Holarctic region that he has to ignore. Hence his analysis is possibly incomplete for these tribes. Alan Accassidy 23:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made changes to put Cercyonis into Coenonymphina, as you suggest. I do not disagree with using Lamas, so I suppose this is a reasonable move. We will see if anyone objects!! Alan. Accassidy 15:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: copies[edit]

Thanks Peter, but as I already indicated to you (see above), I have in fact managed to obtain copies from elsewhere, and I have already put most of the information on the relevant Wikispecies pages, but thanks again anyway. :)
Stho002 23:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Celastrina oreas[edit]

Hi Peter, if you are content with the validity of these new subspecies, then please add them to the C. oreas page. Here is all the help I can give:-> This species is primarily Himalayan/Chinese with additions in Taiwan and Korea. Individually, subspecific names refer to regions as follows: oreana - N India, Nepal; baileyi - Tibet; yunnana - Yunnan and Mekong Valley; orisana - Taiwan; oreas - E China/Tibet border; septentrionis - China, Shansi Province; hoenei - China, Zhejiang (Chekiang); mirificus - Korea. If the new subspecies are from any of these areas, I would be thinking they may be synonyms, but if the description makes clear distinction about why they are different from those listed in Eliot & Kawazoe, 1983, then they deserve adding. Alan Accassidy 20:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

My respect[edit]

Hello Peter,
I think you’re a good and serious editor of Wikispecies, and I don’t like the behavior of Stho002. But you give him the upper hand by quitting now after so much work. Most of the members here appreciate your work and want you to continue. You mustn’t feel humiliated, but proud in your principles of accuracy and in being true to science. Mariusm 09:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


Peter, Not sure about this reference. I will ask the Librarian in London if she knows. Alan Accassidy 22:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


On balance I agree with Mariusm that I owe you an apology. Just note that nobody has suggested that I was wrong to object to what you were telling Megan, so please don't try to pressure people into doing things your way when this is a free Wiki. Unfortunately, I am in "battle mode" just now, as I am locked in a far more serious conflict with someone around here who is hiding behind their professional position. But it doesn't justify my taking out my frustrations on you, and for that I do apologise... Stho002 06:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Markku Savela[edit]

Peter, do you have a current email address for Markku of Funet? I have been unable to contact him from links on his website. Thanks. Alan. Accassidy 10:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have tried these page links after References, but they do not work with my email provider (AOL). I think they have to be used with some other kind of email programme, perhaps Outlook or similar. I was hoping to get a regular email address for him:, that sort of thing. Alan Accassidy 10:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try that address. Alan. Accassidy 11:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Peter, I have sent an email now to that address and it has not been rejected, so I await a reply with some degree of optimism. Alan Accassidy 14:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter, yes I have now made contact with Markku. I am also starting a process to make my papers downloadable from the web as pdf files. The first is my Lycaenopsis paper for Sulawesi. If you click here you should be able to download it. Please let me know if the process fails. Thanks, Alan. Accassidy 17:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Two more papers are now available at the same link. Accassidy 09:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


Peter, please do not put names above genus in italics in the Name section of the pages. Thanks Stho002 20:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


Peter, my reply is on the Pump. Accassidy 16:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nomina nuda[edit]

You could add them without any harm provided that they are clearly flagged as nomina nuda, but my advice would be not to bother as your time is better spent entering valid species. However, I am not "your boss", so it is your decision...
Stho002 19:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Template genus[edit]

I'm following the template format for genera that everyone else uses. Meganmccarty 18:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You are correct about this Peter, and I have explained it to Megan a bit more clearly on her talk page. Stho002 20:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Molippa kohlli[edit]

Peter, I just came across this page. There seems to be a conflict on it between the spelling of the page title and the spelling of the species name lower down. kohli or kohlli. Accassidy 09:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

new sp[edit]

Hello Peter, I think it would be pointless to add these 'potential' new species pages until they have been properly named and described. This may be some time in the future, depending on the plans of Mr Robbins. Occasionally in other books, for example Parsons on New Guinea, he states that there are specimens in this or that collection that are probably new species, but I think we must ignore these suggestions until they have been peer reviewed and published. Sometimes this can take a long time. When in the museum in Amsterdam I found a number of specimens that Toxopeus had tentatively named but not published before his accidental death. In that case it took from 1940 to 2003 before the species was actually described by me. Examples of this are Monodontides (Monodontides) chapmani and Hypochrysops pyrodes. It will be a while before I get to Hypochrysops, but I will, given time!!

Regarding Megan, I don't think we can control another Wiki-person, but I will suggest on her talk page that she try to get a copy of Lamas, pt4. I found one her in UK for just £40, so it does not represent a big expense for a consuming hobby. Accassidy 19:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


You advised me that ITIS is not reliable source, and at that time I said that to me appears all in order, ie. regarding fish. I did not disregard your advice, but I did not took it fully, just checked data more deeply. I was wrong, and now, I can verify your statement as well, find some mistakes in their database, regarding fish species. Thank you for your warning, and sorry that I did not accept your advice fully. Regards --Lasta 10:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)



You of course have to write:
#REDIRECT [[Acontia (Acontia)]]
as the only line in the Spragueia page.

Then, at Acontia (Acontia) page you can link to the proper site [not side...]

Mariusm 17:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to be certain: is Acontia (Acontia) a synonym of Spragueia or Spragueia a synonym of Acontia (Acontia) ? Mariusm 17:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


See here. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Links on Diaethria[edit]

I'm just curious as to why you removed the NCBI and Commons links. What should I have done instead? Rocket000 03:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


Put it in Larentiinae incertae sedis for now. There would seem to be an atricle on it coming out shortly in Spixiana
Stho002 21:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Zhdanko, 2004[edit]

Peter, I now have a copy of Zhdanko, 2004, revision of Palaearctic Polyommatini. I note that his list of genera and subgenera is different from the way you originally laid out some pages. For example, he includes only Sublysandra and Meleageria as subgenera of Polyommatus, while keeping Lysandra, Agrodiaetus and various others as good genera. Would you be happy for me to rearrange these taxa strictly in accordance with Zhdanko, or do you have a reason for creating them differently? Thanks. Alan. Accassidy 23:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at the Wiemers paper and he deals with Agrodiaetus only as a subgenus but he does not justify this or any other use of the higher taxa. As the page Polyommatini includes Zhdanko (2004) as a principal reference, it would seem odd for us not then to follow his supra-specific taxa for the Palaearctic genera. I will work to finish as much as I can of the Asian Polyommatini first, but then I will return to this issue. Alan. Accassidy 23:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


Peter, I have just discovered that Chrysozephyrus (which I am pretty sure is the correct spelling) has been created as Chrysozephirus [sic]. Before I go further with reverting all the Templates and subordinate pages to the y spelling, could you please confirm which you think is correct of these two options? Thanks, Alan. Accassidy 23:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


Peter: only BOOK titles go in italics. Titles of journal articles DO NOT (except for latin names in the title). Only the name of the journal is in italics. Thanks Stho002 22:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I am having difficulty understanding you, Peter, so just look at how I fixed your references on Cryptolestes. This is how it should be.Stho002 23:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


Hello Peter,

I was not aware that the site was unreliable. Could you tell me why you think it is not reliable? I'm happy to stop using it if you think so, but it seemed fairly reliable to me. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Where is Cassidy these days?[edit]

Alan hasn't been around lately. Do you know if he is coming back? I hope so. Stho002 07:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Peter, Sorry but there must be a misunderstanding. I have not been travelling recently, just very busy with other priority work. I will try to finish the last couiple of Jamides species shortly, then move on to a different genus. Perhaps an easier one!! I will be taking pictures in the Italian mountains in June!! Alan. Accassidy 17:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Lepidoptera II[edit]

Thanks for all your work with Lepidoptera. I'm trying to update this area on Commons and get it in sync with Wikispecies, however, I noticed only some areas aren't up to date here. I mainly have been using as a starting point (it's the best referenced and I haven't found an error yet, compared to ITIS or those other sites which are worse than using Wikipedia as a reference :). The problem is I don't know if some areas here are purposely using older sources because they are more stable or if no one has gotten around to it yet. I would love to help work on this, but I don't want to start including references you don't want used here. So can you point me in the right direction as far as the classification is concerned. Is there any online (hopefully free) source I may use? Thanks. Rocket000 22:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, please see Dicranurinae, Stauropinae, and Heterocampinae. You said they were synonyms yet left them as part of the tree. (Sorry if I messed something up, but I didn't know what name we were using.) Rocket000 20:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Notodontidae[edit]

Ok, thanks. I am interested in working from that reliable side you mentioned, however you don't have your email activated here. Please email me first so we can correspond that way if you wish (or active your email so I can email you). Also, when you respond on wiki, do you mind posting on my talk page instead of my user page? That way I get that orange bar to let me know. Thanks! Rocket000 12:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

See Aristocosma and tell me if I'm doing everything right. Rocket000 14:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Rocket000 17:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it important to always link author's names even when they are already linked once on the page? Rocket000 17:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. I thought it was more important to get the genus level done first, but I don't mind doing the species to complete the genus. Rocket000 18:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Error on[edit]

Well, I found my first error on this site. For Battalia they list the author as "Koak", but I believe it's Koçak. See I don't know if you're in contact with the site's maintainer but you might want to let him know. Rocket000 21:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment Requested[edit]

Wider opinions and comments are requested on the village pumphere regarding a proposed change in formatting of the taxonavigation section. Please read the and comment.--Kevmin 00:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


Peter, if the reference you quote deals only with Afrotropical taxa, then I am at a loss how it can deal with Tribes and Genera that are in some cases exclusively Oriental. But if the reference is mis-titled and includes a review of Oriental taxa, then I would be pleased to look at it. Is that document available electronically? if so, where. Alan Accassidy 16:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Peter, I've found this link [1] that leads to a spreadsheet based supposedly on Williams list. This includes, as Tribes of Lycaeninae, Amblypodiita, Oxylidita, Iolaita, Hypolycaenita, but this seems based on the relatively small African fauna. This confuses me a lot, not only by the Tribe name endings being inconsistent (a little lower down the list we have Aphnaeini and Lycaenini as Tribes), but through by the apparent absence of Theclinae or Theclini as we currently use them on WS. How does Williams explain this? Alan Accassidy 16:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Peter, I have looked at the main pages of Williams website, and I have a copy of Lamas book. I am trying to subscribe to Williams to get more detailed information, but am having technical trouble registering. I have put a note on the discussion page [2] of Theclinae. Could you look at this please, and give me your thoughts? Thanks, Alan Accassidy 09:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


Peter, sorry but I have no contact details for him. Nor do I have any knowledge of the Notodontidae!! So this time I cannot help. Alan. Accassidy 12:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Riodininae[edit]

I noticed that after I edited... you made one and edited the other too without combining them. :) Rocket000 10:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


I think this tribe needs some review. Many of the listed genera are currently placed elsewhere. I don't have the sources to fix it myself. I would appreciate it if you can take a look at it. Thanks! Rocket000 21:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Classification conflict[edit]

We have both Dirini and Dirina. What should we go with? The newer classification (TOLweb) or the more established one (funet, en.wp, etc.)? Both are used by current literature so I wouldn't say the latter is out-dated. Rocket000 06:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. My main combination for Nymphalidae that seems to work good is: Lamas (2004), Williams (2008), and Wahlberg (via funet/NSG/TOLweb, whichever is the most updated). It's just when these sources conflict, then I never know what to go with. Rocket000 12:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


A good question. I cannot be sure without reading the publication, but it would be safest to put the others into subgenus incertae sedis, except perhaps for the type species of the genus, which obviously is in Phyllodesma (Phyllodesma). Stho002 20:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: information[edit]

Hello Peter, no, I'm not sick, I was just feeling there is too much anarchy around here, so I decided to take a break. I'm glad to see you're still pushing on with the butterflies. Maybe some day I'll be back, who knows...

Mariusm 12:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Help on templates[edit]

I think we updated the interface. After you go to the "search results" page, on the bottom it says "Create the page "Template:XYZ" on this wiki!". Click on that link and you can create it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

First, let's clear up some undisputed facts. Lycaon was upset that Stephen's edits were counted even when he's editing under IP during the request for administrator. Then Lycaon was harassing Stephen in virtually any way possible, such as talking to other administrators in non-English language, emailing Stephen with contents that I don't want to post up here, and unblocks himself (strictly forbidden). I also saw that Mariusm left a message in your talk page saying there's too much anarchy in here and want to take a break. I'm not disputing that point because Mariusm said it himself. Now, moving onto things that I can only guess. Alan Accassidy might have left, but you never know what's the reason behind it. Of course, it could be deal to anarchy again, but it could be the fact that he's busy in real life (as I was lately due to midterm exams) or he could be in vacation since it's summer. This contribution is Alan's last one before went off, and I don't see any disagreement raised by Stephen that prompted Alan to leave. If you go to Alan's contribution, way at the bottom, you can see that sometimes he "disappeared" for a few days and then came back. I believe you can always send him an email and ask him the reason behind it (by using the email user feature on Alan's userpage). OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
And for your information, had Stephen left during the clash between him and Lycaon, we wouldn't be able to tap into the resources of ZooKeys and use their images freely here. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


Peter, I have fixed up Heteroserolis - N. Bruce was wrong about the type being fixed by subsequent designation: it is original designation because the name is only available from Brandt (1991) Stho002 08:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Institute of Biology and Soil Science[edit]

Make it up. IBSS isn't on Holotype list yet, so use that... Stho002 21:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Zootaxa 2214[edit]

There seems to be a problem with the site at present, but you can still look at the Lepidoptera list by taxa, and it goes from 2208 to 2218, so no 2214. Stho002 08:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Gracillaridae[edit]

Peter, as far as I can tell at present, the spelling should be Gracillaridae, but it doesn't really matter provided that one spelling redirects to the other. Stho002 09:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The root (type genus) is Gracillaria, thus the family name should remove the a and add idae, making Gracillari-idae (double i). Please check de Prins & de Prins, 2005 and the derived website database at [3]. HKmoths 04:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


Hello, Peter

I'm glad to see you're still active here. As for your question: because all the museums are in a single page, even if a certain museum is not on the list, you can't see it unless you enter the page and search there. Maybe it would be a good idea to construct a unique page for each museum, and put there some additional information (for example location, description &c.) But this needs a lot of work. I've seen some museums that do have a page of their own (see BMNH). Why don't you propose this at the village pump? Another possibility is to make a page for the museum and redirect from there to the holotype page (see AMNH).

Mariusm 07:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

linking to references[edit]

Peter, please use DOI links where available, e.g. see Candalidini. Thanks, Stho002 23:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Cowania (Cheritrini)[edit]

Are you sure this is correct generic name? I found this. Ark (talk page) 19:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You've tagged Cowania to delete. I mean Cowania is correct name (or synonym) as title of page, not Cowania (Cheritrini). Ark (talk page) 10:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, understood :) Done. Ark (talk page) 10:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Parajapygidae[edit]

Sorry - I have changed it to English. Stho002 22:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


Do you believe in God? Intelligant esign 08:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


You nominated a couple of pages related to Plebejus (Vacciniina) for deletion. What is the reason for that? If the taxonomy has changed, it'd be best to redirect the pages to the new name. Ucucha (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. Ucucha (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ik heb een aantal Papilio-soorten van doorverwijzingen voorzien. Zou u voortaan pagina's van titel kunnen wijzigen in plaats van nieuwe pagina's aan te maken? Dat kan met het knopje "Move" rechtsboven op iedere pagina. Bij "To new title" voegt u de titel in die u wilt hebben. Als u dan op "Move page" klikt, wordt de titel van de pagina automatisch gewijzigd en er blijft een doorverwijzing achter. Ucucha (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Nee, dat is niet nodig. Ik heb het voorgedaan bij P. ascalaphus. Ucucha (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Ik heb nu alle links op Papilio (Menelaides) gecorrigeerd. Een aantal zijn nu tijdelijk rood, maar als u gewoon doorgaat met het wijzigen van de titels, worden die vanzelf weer blauw. Hier kunt u de oude lijst zien. Ucucha (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


hello there, im kinda new here and i need help

Lakevin 18:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


Peter, can you please update Eriopygini with all the new taxa from the latest ZooKeys publication? Thanks Stho002 01:27, 20 December 2009 (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.