Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects

Requested move at Talk:Cyrtophleba#Requested move 9 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cyrtophleba#Requested move 9 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

COOL Hemiptera databases

The websites for COOL hemiptera databases have changed. They have been buggy or completely non-functional for months, but now they are functional again. I've updated the wikidata identifier items for the {{taxonbar}} for four of the databases:

• FLOW ID (P6096)} for Fulgoromorpha Lists On the Web (Q58011838)
• The White-files species ID (P6347)} for The White-files (Q60332065) (Aleyrodoidea)
• Psyl'list species ID (P6376)} for Psyl'list (Q60535830) (Psylloidea)
• COOL species ID (P6408)} for Cercopoidea Organised On Line (Q60690204)

However there are many citations where the url needs changing. Fortunately they have kept the same IDs (unlike the new species files). The new urls are of the form:

• https://flow.hemiptera-databases.org/XXXXXX?db=YYYYYY&page=explorer&lang=en&card=taxon&rank=species&id=$1 where XXXXXX is flow, whiteflies, psyllist or cool and YYYYYY is flow, aleurodes, psylles or cool.

There are a variety of old style urls, but the most common seems to be of this form:

• http://www.hemiptera-databases.com/psyllist?db=psylles&lang=en&card=taxon&rank=species&id=$1

The needed changes to the url are from http://www.hemiptera-databases.com to https://flow.hemiptera-databases.org and addition of &page=explorer. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Asiatic rhinoceros beetle#Requested move 28 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Asiatic rhinoceros beetle#Requested move 28 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Potential identification issue with photos from commanster.eu (cross-post from Commons)

See discussion at Commons. (While this isn't necessarily just a problem for insect photos, the misidentified photos I've found so far are all of insects.) Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Silphidae (large carrion beetles) is now a subfamily of Staphylinidae (rove beetles)

See for instance [1] and [2] (the latter is a ZooKeys article published today). This means that the following articles (among other things) will have to be renamed and updated:

• Silphidae → Silphinae
  • Nicrophorinae → Nicrophorini (Edit: Oh, my mistake, it's already named Nicrophorini but as the only tribe of the subfamily Nicrophorinae? Weird, but oh well. Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC) )
  • Silphinae → Silphini
    • Necrodini → Necrodina
    • Silphini → Silphina

Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Catalogue of Life recognises Nicrophorini < Silphinae < Staphylinidae, giving Staphbase as the source. The online version of Staphbase doesn't seem to be maintained but the editors are the authors of the new Zookeys article. CoL introduced a Staphbase classification in early 2022 with Nicrophorinae in Silphidae (see this deleted record; presumably based on the old Staphbase) and replaced it later that year. This seems a case where the source database uses CoL without its own online presence.

I've updated the Nicrophorini article to be on the tribe, explain the changed taxonomy, converted the taxobox to the automated system, updated the genera, and added a new Wikidata item for the tribe to the taxonbar.

The revised classification doesn't subdivisde Silphini into subtribes. In my opinion we need these changes:

• Silphidae → Silphinae
  • Nicrophorinae → Nicrophorini  Done
  • Silphinae → Silphini
    • Necrodini and Silphini to redirects.

If we convert the old Silphinae tribes to subtribes we'd need a new source. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jts1882 The Scientific Reports article I linked mentions downgrading the former tribes to subtribes Necrodina and Silphina, though it is curious that they are not used in the main sources for the new classification (Cai et al. (2022), Bouchard et al. (2024), etc.). Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by that Scientific Reports article (Růžička et al, 2023). In the introduction they say that as a consequence to the changes proposed by Cai et al, namely the downgrading of Nicrophorinae and Silphinae to tribes, the Necrodini and Silphini should be downgraded to subtribes. This is followed by a sentence saying "This classification is followed further in the text." The next paragraph says that "Silphina is paraphyletic with respect to Necrodina" (I assume this is using the downgraded classification). They then point out that Thayer and Newton[24] synonymised Necrodina with Silphini and that this was followed in the classification of Sikes[17,25], Růžička[14] and Newton[22]. Their own results confirm the paraphyly of Silphina with respect to Necrodina and they don't discuss it further. I don't think they retain the subtribes. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jts1882 ...I see what you mean, I didn't honestly read that far down into it. It was literally just the first source I found even mentioning downranking the former tribes to subtribes, which was maybe rather hasty of me. On second thoughts then, it seems best not to have those subtribes after all, yeah. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)