Lepidoptera Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of butterflies and moths on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LepidopteraWikipedia:WikiProject LepidopteraTemplate:WikiProject LepidopteraLepidoptera articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

WikiProject Lepidoptera was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 16 April 2012.

Archives

Policy Archive Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Jts1882: As an aside, was this dealt with or does it still need addressing? Some of it has been fixed, but yeah, there's a fair bit of various outdated Noctuoid classifications lingering, especially on the less visible pages like lists of [family] genera, lists of moths of [country], and so on. I still come across the occasional mention of a "family Arctiidae" and that's been outdated for longer than most of us have been editing Wikipedia.

It's a wider problem, really. I'm currently in the process of updating the Pterophoridae, which seem to largely not have been updated since 2010-2012, with exception of the occasional addition of a single genus or species to one list or another. Alucitidae is in a similar state (with the genus list actually explicitly cited to the 2010 version of Wikispecies. sigh). You already noted the Rhopalocera issue above.

Prior to my previous break, I did some updating on the massive Eupithecia genus, but didn't get around to wrapping it up (need to get back on that at one point or another), and I never got around to wrapping up my efforts on the Hesperiidae, either, so I'll need to check if anyone else got around to it. Can't quite remember if I ran through all the Apatelodidae to bring them in line with Kitching et al 2018, but even if so, I know there were other parts of the Bombycoidea treated in the same paper that I didn't get around to. (Someone else might have, but...at minimum, it needs checking)

Geometrinae saw Plotkin & Kawahara's 2020 review of the revisions within Geometrinae since 2007, but I doubt that's been fully updated on-wiki, either. Gelechioidea has been quite unstable the past two decades and probably warrants a check to see if it's remotely up to date, as well. Taking a quick glance at our Tineoidea article, I don't see the 2015 revision by Regier et al cited, so that one's suspect too. List of Tortricidae genera claims to be "up to date to 2008". The list goes on and on. AddWittyNameHere 08:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the structure in the taxonomy templates. Noctuoidea currenly has six families, as in the van Nieukerken et al (2011) classification, which is consistent with Zahiri et al (2011). The families have the following content using the automated taxonomy system:

• Erebidae: 20 subfamilies and 10 unassigned genera [Zahiri et al (2012) have 18 subfamilies]
• Euteliidae: one subfamily with all genera using the automated taxoboxes assigned it
• Noctuidae: 27 subfamilies and 21 unassigned genera
• Nolidae: 8 subfamilies and 3 unassigned genera [There are also 8 subfamilies in Zahiri et al (2013) but only six match]
• Notodontidae: 11 subfamilies and 9 unassigned genera
• Oenosandridae: 2 genera and no subfamilies

Some of the subfamily templates may no longer be use.

A problem is determining where to put the genera as Lepindex is out of date, as you pointed out with in edits to the project page yesterday. You suggest using Global Lepidoptera Index but the linked pagechecklistbank.org only shows a screenful so I can't get Noctuoidea subdivisions. Am I missing how to do this or should we use CoL Lepidoptera? However, CoL gives no subfamilies for Nolidae, while the Zahiri classification uses eight and goes down to subtribes.[edit: not sure what happened there] While the Zahiri classification seems the best to follow, we really should have a secondary source using it. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a collapsed list, clicking on the arrows in front of a taxon de-collapses it showing its child taxa, each of which can then again be de-collapsed to show child taxa.

But yeah, I wouldn't necessarily recommend using the GLI over all other databases, just over LepIndex in that if one's looking specifically for an index of names (and authors of those names) of Lepidoptera, this one comes closest. It's a good resource if one has a specific name to plug in & check on placement, status, authors and so on. The browsing user interface, on the other hand, is far from ideal, and while it's actively being updated and maintained (a major plus over LepIndex), it's not quite up to date yet (there's a reason the version string starts with a 0, I'd say) and remains a "use with some caution".

But yes, if one wants a catalogue rather than an index, CoL Lepidoptera is the better bet by far. (Though, as with all general Lepidoptera databases (and some of those specific to one or two families), I've seen times when it wasn't quite up-to-date. It's a lot better about it than most, though.)

Let's just say we're certainly not alone in finding it difficult to maintain an up-to-date taxonomy of the Lepidoptera, and the lack of existence of a central, maintained database prior to the rapid-speed major revisions of the past two decades really, really hasn't helped there. It's basically trying to move the furniture in a room around while there's still a heap of stuff to sort out on every surface and even the floor, and every time you pull a bookcase from the wall, you discover yet more stuff that has slipped behind it. (Which doesn't excuse how badly behind some of our articles are, mind.) AddWittyNameHere 16:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all! Someone sent me a funny screenshot of Calinaga buddha because the common name is, apparently, the freak and I was looking for a source to confirm this. Couldn't find much (I posted as such on the talk page) and I was wondering if anyone from this WP could help with improving the sources and overall article - it's not my métier and I haven't had much luck. Please ping me if there's anything I can help with or if this gets any traction! Best, Kazamzam (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed while poking through a maintenance queue that most of the Sphingidae family seems to have been hurt by the closure of cate-sphingidae.org in 2016. I can (gradually) piece together links to the replacement sphingidae.myspecies.info if that is the best solution. Since 1200 species or so is not exactly a small change, better to get feedback sooner than later. Any suggestions or objections? Yendorian (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yendorian: Looks like cate-sphingidae.org never really got off the ground, beyond being a pilot scheme. I struggled to find content on archive.org, other than the taxon name and authority, and the framework for other content. One archived page I did find for Manduca sexta shares some content with the page on sphingidae.myspecies.info so it is clearly the successor site (by the same author) and an appropriate replacement. It won't be an easy task as the old site used taxon names in the url while the new one requires an ID number. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming. I will start chipping away at the stale references. Yendorian (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yendorian, I would recommend restoring those links. Nearly all of them can be found on archive.today. Scorpions1325 (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to retain the old CATE Sphingidae citations if they have been replaced by citations for the successor site at myspecies.info. The new pages include the same information and more (e.g. for Xylophanes rothschildi compare the archived CATE Sphingidae page with the myspecies.info pages). That said,it's not clear if the new site has been updated since 2014, so keeping both does no harm (as who knows the fate of the newer site), but I don't think restoring the old links that have already been removed is needed. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this explanation on Lintneria lugens:

I know we talked about this, but the person who cited this source copied almost verbatim from them. The old links are useful in determining whether the plagiarized content is public domain or not.

This is a good point, which I'm hoping can be fixed by adding a general CATE reference to the new inline citations. We'll see what @Scorpions1325: thinks. Yendorian (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about restoring the old citations completely. It appears that the vast majority of CATE links are still there. So far, I have come across less than 5 pages cited to the new source. Scorpions1325 (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I moved around 70 60 pages with names beginning 'A-L', so this will not be a small change either way. The intersection of dead links with species names should give a sense of the remaining scope. I understand now why we need a CATE reference somewhere on the page, or even an inline citation to copied text, but not why updated links are a problem. If the primary (or only) reference on each page is a dead link, updates to the successor site like these become much harder to find. Yendorian (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with also keeping updated links. I have come across a few, but I think I attributed most of them already. Scorpions1325 (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will add archived CATE links back to the remaining 65 55 pages before migrating anything new. Yendorian (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scorpions1325, would you mind explaining why you reverted Manduca tucumana? I thought we had agreed on a citation format and would like to figure this out before it spreads to the other 100+ pages with updated links. Your current edit seems to ignore consensus on URL formatting and excludes updates that only appear in myspecies.info. What am I still missing that is bringing you back to these pages? Did you need both links explicitly cited in the article body for some reason? Yendorian (talk) 11:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I tried copying and pasting the citation back into the newer version, but I couldn't for some reason. I forgot about it when I moved on to the next pages. Scorpions1325 (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added it back to the article, but I had to auto-generate the citation Scorpions1325 (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. I probably over-reacted, since the occasional lapsed citation isn't very noticeable. You did have a good reason for the last set of reversions though, so I wanted to make sure my edits weren't causing further problems. I will stick to the current layout for now and see what happens. Yendorian (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpions1325 The old links are still in history, so making a second pass might be a little excessive. Since I took an extended break in the middle, there is still time to do the remainder differently if we want to.

Many of the pages are small stubs sourced primarily from CATE, so having a live version available is significant. The literature tab shows that the myspecies.info pages are still getting at least some attention. I have been careful to check citations against the new pages to make sure nothing breaks. For example, Hyles livornicoides had a long-standing attribution error and Hyles apocyni gained a genomics paper. The result of all of this should be a straightforward improvement over the CATE links, unless I am missing something. Yendorian (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lepidoptera that feed on Aster that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. AryKun (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read the GA-class article Pine processionary that was a "good read". Looking around I noticed the lack of consistency concerning naming when there are articles like Pine processionary and Oak processionary, then Thaumetopoea pinivora (Eastern pine processionary). It seems there should be some consistency or guidance concerning article naming.

There are articles using "moth", such as the Luna moth, parenthetical (moth) such as Imara (moth) or Corybantes (moth) , or nothing like Hista. Maybe if the article formats criteria had some suggestions concerning concision and consistency it might help. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are two separate issues here. Article titles are based on the name most commonly used in written or spoken English language (WP:COMMONNAME). If there is a widely used vernacular name then this will usually be the article title. However, sometimes a vernacular name is not the most common name, e.g. in cases where different vernacular names are used in different parts of the range of a species, or for obscure species which only get discussed in the scientific literature, in which case the scientific name is the common name in the Wikipedia sense. In your example, is Eastern pine processionary a common name in this sense? My guess is it might be a recent species split, which might mean Pine processionary needs changing. What do the sources say?

The second issue is the use of "(moth)" as a disambiguation term. In those examples the genus name has other uses so the title needs to be modified to an unambiguous name. Imara is a disambiguation page (for the first and last names of people, a geographical place and for the moth genus) and Corybantes redirects to Korybantes (a topic Greek mythology). On the other hand, Hista is only used for the genus so doesn't need disambiguation. Luna moth is the common name for the species. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I raised an issue at Talk:Bletagona#Taxonomy because the various databases that list Bletagona are in a 3-way split for which tribe to place it in. What's the taxonomy this project prefs to follow? - UtherSRG (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that has ever been settled. The project page says "http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/gbn/ may eventually be the primary database to lookup", but that's been there since (at least) 2010.

I don't have much trust in Biolib or EOL. LepIndex/NHM hasn't been updated since 2012. Lepidoptera on GBIF and COL are apparently based on an updated version of LepIndex, but I'm not sure if that dataset is accessible on it's own website anywhere (overall, I don't have much trust in COL either, but maybe it's good for Lepidoptera). There's a note about the dataset on COL that says that some families are not being actively maintained in that dataset, but are maintained in other databases (but Nymphalidae is not on of those).

iNat and NCBI are my go-to general databases for seeing infrafamilial classifications (I mostly look at them for plants, have never used them for Lepidoptera). iNat is usually quite up-to-date, but is not transparent about the sources of their infrafamilial classifications. iNat curators are well aware of the lack of comprehensive databases for Lepidoptera. I consider iNat to be user generated content (or close to it), and would never cite them directly, but do find it useful to compare their classification with what I might find elsewhere. NCBI often (at least for plants) cites scientific studies that their infrafamilial classifications are based upon, but doesn't do so in this case. Plantdrew (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The description of the Global Lepidoptera Index is properly formatted at checklistbank.org. Nymphalidae is neither one of the families they are working on nor one delegated to another checklist. However, the table of names shows only 0.3% of the Nymphalidae records have been mmodified since import of the original Lepindex import. Lepindex had tribe Elymniini and CoL follows that.

A resource for Nymphalidae is www.nymphalidae.net, which places Bletogona in Melanitini. Unlike the other sources, it only lists a single species.

Note the genus name in Bletogona with an O (not A). All sources agree on that, so I've moved the page. I haven't corrected the taxobox, pending a decision on which tribe to use. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I expected the response to be as clear as mud. Y'all didn't disappoint. XD I suppose the best we can do is place it in the subfamily, and then discuss how different references place it in different tribes. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should follow nymphalidae.net and place Bletogona in tribe Melanitini. The CoL says it follows the Global Lepidoptera Index and places it in Elymniini (GLI record last updated in 2004). This is consistent with a contemporary classification by Niklas Wahlberg, which placed it in subtribe Mycalesina of tribe Elymniini (Wahberg et al 2003 doi:10.1016/S1055-7903(03)00052-6; archived classification) and restricts Melanitini to four genera. Around the same time, a checklist by Vane-Wright & de Jong (2003, pdf) placed Bletogona in Melanitini, as does a recent paper (Pyrcz et al, 2020; doi:10.26049/ASP78-2-2020-01) which discusses the morphology of Bletogona and other genera in Melanitini. Wahlberg in nymphalidae.net also includes Bletogona in Melanitini and lists Pyrcz et al (2020) among his citations . As Wahlberg was author of an older classification placing it in Elymniini and now places it in Melanitini, I think we can take that as acceptance of the newer classification in Melanitini instead of Elymniini. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough. I'll use the 2003 and 2020 refs to update the taxonomy and text. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]