- 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.
There is some kind of a problem with the page Eucosmini. It does not display any templates the way it should. I do not know why, all the other Tortricidae pages work fine. Sorry. Koumz (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- It looks like the problem fixed itself. Koumz (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I have now updated all the rest of Lepidoptera families so that they are like the ones you asked me to update before. Koumz (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello Peter, I am adding information on Oriental species and subspecies of Deudorigini. I see that Deudorix on Wikispecies has been split into two subgenera as proposed by Williams in Afrotropical Butterflies. This is a bit of a problem as not everybody goes along with Williams in this respect. Williams also suggests, effectively, that all Deudorix (Virachola) are African and all Deudorix (Deudorix) are Oriental. The latter may be true, I do not have a problem there. However, there are a number of Oriental species that current authors put in Virachola and which do not fit with the strictly African interpretation of Deudorix (Virachola). Furthermore, the Type Species of Virachola is Deudorix perse Hewitson, 1863, from Sri Lanka. This species is not included in Williams' 29 species of Deudorix (Virachola) all of which are African.
I propose removing the controversial subgenera and reverting to two separate genera: Deudorix and Virachola within the Deudorigini. The former will be Oriental while the latter will contain both African and some Oriental species, such as perse, smilis, subguttata, kessuma and masamichii which occur in the East.
Do you have a strong objection to this proposal? If you do, I will leave it as it is, and separate the African and Oriental taxa within Deudorix (Virachola). Regards, Alan Accassidy (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Peter, you are right about Poritia phama Lectotype. I have Takanami paper here too. See the additional changes I have made.
Thanks. Alan Accassidy (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Peter, you created a page called Celastrina neglectamajor with a reference to Opler & Krizak, 1984. Neglecta-major was actually a name coined by Tutt in 1908 as a form of Celastrina argiolus ladon, which has its own page here. I am not familiar with the paper by Opler & Krizak. If you have seen a copy, is it possible to give me a link to it, or email me a photocopy? I would be interested to see how they have elevated this to species status, in contradiction of what was published by Eliot & Kawazoe in 1983. Thanks, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I just want to ask your opinion on the usage of Template:zfg in Taxonavigation. See also one of admin opinion on User_talk:Stho002#Zfg_formatting_for_Taxonavigation. Thanks.--Ultima.ramza (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
You included igolotiana Murayama & Okamura from Philippines under Creon cleobis. Treadaway & Schroeder, 2012, revised Philippines checklist, has entries for Tajuria igolotiana at species rank, and two other subspecies T. i. fumiae and T. i. nonoyi. As this is the most recent information, I propose to remove igolotiana from Creon and move it to Tajuria. Do you have any strong reason to retain igolotiana in Creon? Cheers, Alan Accassidy (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- See also discussion at the end of this paper on Tajuria discalis Accassidy (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Type locality and holotype are indeed important when known. I always include these headings and will continue to do so. Regards. Alan Accassidy (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Peter, if you make threats like that again, without first trying to talk to me about any problem you might have, then YOU WILL BE BLOCKED! Now, what's the problem? Stho002 (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
See my talk page ... Stho002 (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Peter, the older species listed in some places under Shirozuozephyrus were previously in Chrysozephyrus, which is part of the Theclini. I suggest you include Shirozuozephyrus there. Best wishes, Alan Accassidy (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks also for amending the entry for R. persephone to make it more accurate. My assumptions from the Japanese website were clearly unjustified! Alan. Accassidy (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2012 (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.