Floury Baker cicada

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 09:27:45 (UTC)

Reason

I had enough time setting up for this to achieve optimal quality. The details compare favourably to our only featured adult cicada. The only three images of this species on Commons were uploaded this year, and I think this is the best.

Articles in which this image appears

Abricta curvicosta

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

99of9

• Support as nominator --99of9 (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very well executed. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good image. Sharp enough when viewed at a reasonable size. --jjron (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Just had a quick read through the article and note that it says "Adult floury bakers always perch facing downwards". OK, so in this image the cicada is clearly not facing downwards - is this an aberration, not an adult, or has the photo been flipped? Just wondering how this impacts EV. --jjron (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or has somebody make a fake edit? Clegs (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Good spot. I don't have a good answer to this except to say it just was. In fact, after getting a few good shots, I read the wiki article, and went back to the cicada to turn it face downward, but it very deliberately spun back around. There's definitely no photo manipulation (you can tell from the direction the "offshoot" bumps on the stem are pointing). It's clearly also an adult. So... ? --99of9 (talk) 12:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought the same thing about the stem; it clearly looked to be facing the right way. Now it's hard to tell if that sentence in the article is actually referenced, as the nearest ref is at the end of the para, and unfortunately it's to a book so we can't check it easily. Hmmm, could be an error perhaps... --jjron (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, this page confirms the downwards facing thing, but it does just look to be more like a personal blog site than anything scientific; so keep looking. --jjron (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The other question I guess is how certain are you of the species ID? --jjron (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Take a look at the Flickr pics. Some face up, some face down. The ID also seems consistent with these and the brisbane-insect pics. Maybe it's not-very-adult because it has so much "flour"? (If someone wants to redo the ID, back view is the same individual.) --99of9 (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • How was it ID'd in the first place? Do you think it is worth talking to an entomologist? JJ Harrison (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is a very common species in Sydney. I was taught the common name of this and about six others as a kid. They all look very different. This UQ site is confirmation in my books: the wing venation matches, as does the overall appearance. The most related genus is out of range in Sydney, has quite a different appearance, and is supposed to sit upside-down too. Note they say "normally sit upside-down" (my emphasis). --99of9 (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've edited the article to reflect the "normally" used by this source. --99of9 (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good shot. Support, unless jjron's concern proves to be true. Clegs (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice - but as per Clegs, my support is conditional on the downwards facing thing not being an absolute characteristic --Fir0002 12:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns adequately addressed? Makeemlighter (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely convinced we've got solid refs either way. The source 99of9 has used says "Representatives of both genera share the unusual habit of sitting upside down on trees" at the top of the page, then "Adults normally sit upside down..." further down the page, which is a bit vague and semi-contradictory. Would like to get a solid ref that confirmed the 'not always' bit, or conversely an expert confirmation of the species (in which case we'd have the proof of the pudding ...). Don't guess anyone's got access to Moulds, M. S. (1990). Australian Cicadas. New South Wales University Press, Kensington as referenced by the above site, to see what that source actually says? On the other hand, don't want to hold this up indefinitely, although there's other conditional votes. --jjron (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced either. It is entirely plausible that the specimen was a one-off mutant, as it seems no second specimen could be found to confirm the observation. Any claim that we could make about it would amount to original research unless backed up with a good source. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me point you to some specific photos to show that it's not a one off mutant: [1] [2] (yes, that is OR, but hopefully convincing to stop talking about mutants). Regarding encyclopedic material, please note that my edit to the page was not OR, it was sourced "normally sit upside-down". I don't think this source is self-contradictory, because it is note-worthy that other cicadas don't normally sit upside-down, so indeed "these genera share an unusual habit of sitting upside-down" (even if only much of the time). --99of9 (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Since you lot are so suspicious, I've now got Moulds sitting in front of me. The photographs (plate 5-1 and plate 15-4a) obviously show that this is the correct species. In the species description (pp 119-120), the behaviour section reads "Adults tend to be solitary. Like other Abricta species they normally sit on limbs facing downwards. Their flight is rapid and agile." On the genus description (p 118) it says "Unlike most other cicadas, adults always face downwards when at rest." So it seems that Moulds himself was the source of the contradiction. --99of9 (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm satisfied. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Me to. Put 'er up. Clegs (talk) 10:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Floury Baker cicada side.JPG --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]