Knowledge talk:WikiProject Arthropods/Archive 1

4820:- all of the existing text on the Praying mantis page would be merged into the Mantodea page. This is a prime example of why it often works out badly when WP articles on organisms use common names for the actual pages, rather than making the pages based on taxonomy. I prefer having the common names redirect to taxonomic pages, or given as disambig pages, when a single common name has multiple different possible meanings. The converse argument (and it has its own merits) is that the common names are often more stable than the scientific names. Nonetheless, in this case, I feel that it is too confusing, and there is too much redundant information. I'll go and put notes on the respective talk pages, to send interested parties here, in case anyone has strong objections or constructive alternative solutions to the problem, before I go ahead with the changes. I'd also like a little advice on how one goes about merging talk page content, since both Mantodea and Praying mantis have substantial numbers of entries there. 1194:

allows you to see ALL the individual pages in that category, while (for some reason unknown to me, but evidently a quirk of the search algorithm in Knowledge), you cannot do a "SEARCH" on a rank name in a taxobox and get every page that displays that rank. Just try the rank name "Apoidea", for instance: there should be many, many pages, but only 14 appear - it doesn't even include all of the pages which are in the Category:Apoidea group! To me, that alone suggests that this is a deeper, more fundamental problem in the way Knowledge's interface operates. It shouldn't be necessary to turn every rank in the entire hierarchy of life into a Category simply to ensure that people can find every page that corresponds to a given named rank. That *should* be something that the use of taxoboxes accomplishes, and that it does not is - at least for now - beyond our control.

1322:

Vespoidea) and Aculeate Hymenoptera ( with subcategories Ants and Bees ).All the articles should be divided as per one system only, no matter which one. I dont have the information, experience or wisdom to say authoritatively what is more appropriate for the Hymenoptera. I dont question the tool, except that it appears to have been incorrectly applied in the collective form with regard to Hymenoptera. This is due to the fact that deciding a category is usually done simpistically and arbitrarily by most writers, including myself, tired from writing the full article. They usually base it on a keyword or most-likely guess, rather than perusing the category heirarchy and making a detailed, informed decision with due diligence. This results in a mess in the categories which needs someone to come and clean up after.

525:

naiads, and Paurometaboly are those that share the same habitat in adult and nymph stages. Terestrial entomologists use the system stated above, where all insects with imcomplete metamorphosis are considered to be hemimetabolous and having nymphs. Both are right, and each is suited to each field of study. It would make sense that aquatic entomologists would use more terms to describe the difference between insects with incomplete metamophosis that have aquatic nymphs and terrestrial imagos and those that share the same habitat during nymphal stages because these are intuitive things to care about when you are knee deep in a river and trying to figure out what the fish are eating. I don't know what we can do with this information, but I am willing to try any sugestions. --

2624:

explanation, based on what one can observe; the wax layer is hygroscopic (absorbs moisture), and when it does so, it loses its reflectivity. Holding the beetle in your hand will greatly increase the humidity in the airspace near the beetle. This makes some sense as a desert adaptation; when humidity is low, the beetle reflects more sunlight, and when humidity is high, it reflects less. I've just never heard of the phenomenon, and can't confirm it myself. What you need to do is catch one, kill it, and experiment. If it's that sensitive, even breathing on it should have a noticeable effect. If it can be confirmed, it might even be something to publish, assuming no one has documented it before.

2800: 1343:). A category aims at creating lists of existing articles and grouping them together so that they are easier to find and navigate between. Accurate taxonomy is not required, as it is provided in each article, particularly in the taxoboxes. Categories do not follow a simple dichotomous structure, and several categorisation structures can cohabit. For this reason, you may have two ways of classifying Hymenoptera, and there is no problem with that (unless one system is outdated, for example). A bee can be in category "bees" and "Apoidea"; if both classification systems are valid that's totally OK. 1093:. Some were under the whole big hierarchy (Neoptera, Endopterygota, etc.), with others just under simple categories like "beetles". There is no requirement for Knowledge classification to follow scientific classification, and it definitely need not include every rank. The orders of insects are well-known and well-defined. Dividing the whole of the Insecta directly into orders seems to pose no problems to me. If others agree that this is the way to go, then the only remaining task would be to empty and delete the old over-technical categories. Obviously, both lice and bugs ( 1731: 3327:

similar species counts would probably be encountered. For this reason I find the notion that loads of entomologists refer to Bute as the "island of fleas" as rather questionable - if a citation is not forthcoming I would remove this reference although I think the list itself is rather interesting (although I would never object to a list of arthropods in absolutely any article so I am not speaking from a neutral perspective!). I will try to clean it up a bit and add a bit more info when I have the time.

3598: 1185:, including the taxoboxes - adjuncts such as Categories are secondary, and, for the most part, I've left them unchanged on pages I've edited unless they were genuinely inappropriate (I've tried to be a bit more selective about pages I've created myself, and only included taxonomy-based categories because it seemed like the way things were done). But given that nearly all the pages have taxoboxes, it looks like the whole use of categories to reflect the taxonomic hierarchy is largely redundant 77: 59: 512:(Third ed. 1996), only the terms Ametabolous, Hemimetabolous, and Holometabolous are used. There is no mention of Paurometabolous or Heterometabolous. Also, Nymph is used interchangeably between aquatic and non-aquatic hemimetabolous insects, and that the term Niad is sometimes used in older texts. I think I could take this information and enhance the Nymph arcticle as it is now. It is good that you at least include the old pauro/heterometaboly terms on the Hemimetabolism article. -- 2173:(from which a reader could always click on "Coleoptera" to find out about the relationships of the whole order). In general, I would only include the intermediate ranks where they are adjacent to the rank of the subject of the article, or where they are so well known that their ommission would be confusing (one user asked somewhere why "Crustacea" wasn't listed in a taxobox, since the animal was described as being a crustacean; I tend therefore to leave Crustacea in, in addition to 3389: 3431: 3580: 2607: 2599: 4444:

have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at

32: 3589: 87: 2403: 147: 3417: 2615: 4711:, mostly ones of economic importance, either as food or as pests. Only two species have made it to high-importance, both of huge importance to the development of biology. I'm not saying that the boll weevil couldn't be reclassified, but those were my reasons for rating it "mid". The ratings don't really mean much, anyway; they're designed to let us know if there are any highly-important articles that are severely lacking in quality, which 1181:, and at the risk of stirring things up, I've been brooding on the use of "Categories" ever since I joined up, so pardon me while I vent. I have noticed - and been pretty baffled by - the inconsistent and illogical use of categories thoughout the insect pages (not just the Hymenoptera). As I've mentioned to others who've chatted with me, my primary concern and desire to contribute to Knowledge relates to the quality and accuracy of page 3446: 1318:'Sphingidae' is better as a category name is a different question altogether. So guys, a single word/phrase using automated data structure in Knowledge exists, called category. Don't try to replace its purpose using a large, complex man-made structure, namely the taxobox, which has to be laboriously created for each article. Let the taxobox do its job of explaining taxonomy and providing value-addition in the form of hyper-linking. 3403: 2964: 2975: 4418: 2688:. So, the first question is "What's our goal?" - and we should go from there. As for making a category "Wasps", it would certainly be a lot more than just Vespidae. The term is used for all non-ant, non-bee, non-Symphytans. In that sense, we could effectively eliminate the "Hymenoptera" category altogether and just have four categories: sawflies, wasps, bees, and ants. Is that what we want? 2589:

It was so active that it escaped from our scooped hands many times. We took a number of shots. Over the course of our encounter, to our amazement it gradually turned black with a very thin white edging only. The local people told us that it would recover to the first pattern after 15 minutes or so. Need identification and details of the beetle's natural history and taxonomy please. Regards,

3666:

consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.

2197: 2286:, although still present in textbooks, has been discontinued since the 1980s, when it was demonstrated its non-monophyly (e.g. Boudreaux, 1979; Weygoldt, 1986). I strongly advise for the replacement of Merostomata (make it a redirect) by the correct Xiphosura + Eurypterida (and even Chasmataspida?) classes and for the reinstallment of a full Xiphosura entry. 1502:, we would need to mention also the antennae, mouthparts, and various other arthropod appendages. Maybe this would make the article too long. I have noticed however, that there is nothing on Knowledge about arthropod mouthparts! It's a scandal! ;) Something will have to be done about this eventually, be it in this article or in another one. 1302:

find all the pages that refer to a certain taxonomic group they are interested in, given that (1) the default Search misses many of them and (2) that most taxoboxes skip ranks, some of which might be the ranks a user is searching for? Having a category for each order would be helpful, but definitely not represent a true solution.

3649:. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at 4706:

that article, so I suppose I should justify it here. For the cotton industry, the boll weevil is tremendously important, but against the backdrop of all arthropods, its importance pales a little. This is a general feature of this project, that there are always going to be a vast number of articles on

3120:

I found this on google about Rhagonycha fulva: "Rhagonycha fulva is very similar to some larger Cantharis livida. Length of Rhagonycha fulva is 7–10 mm, one of Cantharis livida is 10–15 mm. Antennae of Rhagonycha fulva are black (except for the first segment), ones of Cantharis livida are red-yellow.

1221:

At any rate, this is a huge digression. Assuming for the moment that we're stuck with the existing system, I'd argue that the use of categories would best be restricted (obviously a judgment call) to cases where there are a large (but not unmanageable) number of pages whose commonality is NOT evident

1114:

Yes, I agree with this idea. Trying to categorize the insect orders cladistically, which is what the neoptera, etc. classification is doing, is too messy--there are too many levels of classification and it is too hard to find what one is looking for, or to browse through the different orders. Keeping

273:

different from that for arthropods. Most arthropods don't have common names (most probably haven't got scientific names yet, but that's another issue), and those common names that do exist are not regulated by any body. Ornithologists like to capitalise common names, for which there is no need and no

5021:

page. I think it would be useful, as keys can be hard to find or not available, and are a way of giving concise detail. They might seem too taxonomic for some, but could be a great resource for those wanting to go a bit deeper. I don’t know if this approach would infringe on other wiki projects such

4830:

I think your general approach is a good one. Note that where there is no "reasonably unique common name", the scientific name is perfectly acceptable: this may apply to many taxa of Mantodea. If, for example, "praying mantis" is sometimes used for the order, sometimes for a family, and sometimes for

4075:

I have been making a few edits to the main page of WP Arthropods, mainly some formatting (format of the table of contents, removal of unnecessary sections, added background color; please take it off if you think it's horrible and distracting), in the hope of rekindling some of the initial enthusiasm

3622:

is a rough draft of an anatomical diagram of a shrimp. I am looking for feedback on accuracy. I would like suggestions and criticism. What should I do to improve it, is there anything I should change, did I make any mistakes? I was planning on adding a little more detail such as hairlines along some

2701:

If it's acceptable to specialists, and it works for the laity, then yes, that's what we want. I'm not sure I'd have expected "ichneumon flies" to be under Category:Wasps, but maybe that's just my own misunderstanding. We can always put a short explanation on the category page. I'll wait a bit before

2683:

As you'll note from a much earlier message along these lines, I also find it confusing as to whether the existing categories are simply trying to reflect the phylogeny. Again, the only reason I think it may be worth sticking with the status quo is that the Wiki search engine does NOT find every page

2588:

Yesterday (13 Jun 06), at around 0830 hrs, at a dolomite mine near Chacha village, 20 odd kms from Pokaran on the Jodhpur-Jaisalmer road, my son Aashay saw a beetle scurrying very quickly on the ground. The beetle was white with part black markings. We chased it trying to catch the dodging creature.

1313:

Taxobox was primarily intended to present taxonomic information and hyperlinking. The function of gathering and listing together articles on a particular subject is not the job of taxobox articles, but that of categories. As an analogy, if used for this purpose, the taxobox would show a path but not

1301:

My comment about having 15 ranks and 15 categories was based on the first comment under this "Categories" heading, which sounded like an attempt to mirror the taxobox hierarchy using categories. If we agree that this is a bad idea, then my primary question still remains: what can we do so a user can

4477:

I've been wondering this. The talk pages were tagged automatically, so we needn't read too much into that: I don't think anyone told the robot to ignore articles tagged under subprojects. They probably needn't be tagged as such, although the importance of an article to lepidopterists need not match

4378:

Each of the images on that page is accompanied by a short text and a copyright statement. I suspect that the copyright statement applies to both the image and the text, making that picture is copyright "© 1989 Matthew Gilligan, Savannah State College, Savannah, GA". It would be wonderful to have an

3718:

Those images are low-res but i've high-res of them. I've only those 2 shots:( Thanks for the info, i'll upload their high-res to commons with species name. Just an info from amateur. I've take them in holiday in my village. According to elders, those species are new to region. But their numbers are

3124:

Are you sure the spider isn't either P. novicia or P. orientalis? According to the WP Pisaura entry mirabilis is confined to northern europe, and this was taken in the Julian Alps, Slovenia, which are fairly close to the mediteranean cost. Mirabilis looks rather more substantial than this one does,

2905:

hi, i changed the format of the quote on the Main page; the reason was that the line break was all messed up with opera 9. it's the same with firefox, i guess it's got something to do with font scaling. however, the box looked like i'm not the first one messing with the format ;) so, if you tell me

2063:

Alas, all the neuropterists I've talked to recognize the three-order system; the traditional one-order system is almost entirely phased out except in the college textbooks and such. I've redone all the Neuroptera pages, including the addition of all the missing families, and the present superfamily

1346:

I tend to agree with Stemonitis on the use of taxoboxes: giving detailled taxonomy is confusing and not all that useful since the information is available on another page (usually the page for the next taxonomic level above). Taxoboxes are a summary of taxonomy, and therefore their role is distinct

1317:

Take the example of Hawkmoths, there is no complete and reliable wikilist on world species of hawkmoths available. Even if there are, it would consist of hundreds of red links. Now, a category very concisely shows what articles exist on the subject of the category. Whether 'Hawk-moths' is better or

1287:

Category:Insects is now divided into categories for the orders (and not the in-betweeny ranks). I would suggest something similar for Hymenoptera, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to do it myself. While Knowledge needs to be scientific, accurate and up-to-date, it is still aimed at a non-scientific

1279:

Having dozens of tiny categories for each taxon, only contain a few taxa at the next rank, is also not helpful. If someone is reading about an ant, and wants to find out about other ants, then having to go through every step in the hierarchy (tribe, subfamily, etc.), all in scientific jargon (which

1205:

could be reworked so they act more like the Category function!! In other words, entry of a name, such as "superfamilia = Apoidea" into a taxobox rank should automatically create a "Category:Superfamilia:Apoidea" page which displays on it every page which has a taxobox that includes "superfamilia =

2528:

Hi, all. In the process of editing or making new insect pages, a common stumbling block I encounter is mouthpart terms. Right now, terms like "maxilla", "mandible" and "labium" all have pages for the vertebrate structures, but nothing for arthropods. Even "palpus" redirects to "pedipalp", which is

1947:

I think that we should settle for one classification so that the articles are consistant, we can include controversy and alternative classifications in the text. In the French Knowledge, Neuroptera, Megaloptera and Raphidiotera are separate orders. We have to decide which classification we want in

1193:

to the use of the taxoboxes - every page with 15 taxobox ranks would eventually have the same 15 rank names listed as categories. Doesn't having two parallel, redundant systems seem like a waste of everyone's energy? Realistically, the primary difference between them is that the "category" feature

1067:

An article should usually not be in both a category and its subcategory, e.g. Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software — except when the article defines a category as well as being in a higher category, e.g. Ohio is in both Category:U.S. states

4443:

proposal for an appreciation week to end on Knowledge Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who

3017:

Hi, I have quite a few (super-)macro photos of assorted anthropods I took sitting on my computer, which I would love to see put to good use. The only problem is I haven't really got a clue what any of them are. Is there anyone prepared to indentify them? If I post them on commons without anything

1254:

Mirrors my feeling that taxobox entries should be used for automated categorization. In general the system should be used to prevent editors from adding inconsistent information. If wikispecies is the central repository for species naming and classification, it would be even better for something

1217:

The only real trick I see in implementing either of the preceding options is whether the "subcategory" feature can be included (and hopefully automated) somehow. After all, there are many pages whose taxoboxes have an abbreviated list of ranks - but just because the page for the house fly doesn't

304:

not sure what you Crustacea/Chelicerata people think but this term is not widely accepted in Hexapods(generally covered by hemi/pauro/ametabolous). i'm not sure if it's used in the other subphyla, so just wondering if it's needed - is it now redundant? obviously if it's used in the other subphyla

5046:

As long as the keys are small, and not copyrighted material, this can certainly be useful and practical to include; problems are most likely to arise when either of these conditions are violated (a large key, or copyrighted material). If there are online keys, then a link to them is definitely a

5032:

Definitely useful. But most often one comes across keys that are specific to a geographic region and these might be only partly useful to folks from other biogeographic zones. But those who can use keys obviously will know that, so it is definitely not a problem. A more real problem is that many

3665:

are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please

3326:

Hi, thanks for the query. 59 species of flea have been recorded in the British Isles and I wouldn't imagine a count of 15 for an island the size of Bute is particularly exceptional. Fleas are universal commensals of wild mammals and birds and if Mr Lawson's sterling work were repeated elsewhere,

1321:

My original point is that half the subject articles of Hymenoptera are distributed among categories as per one way of classification, and other half as per another system of categorisation. Hymenopteran articles are categorised in two different ways - as Apocrita (with subcategories Apoidea and

1271:

Dyanega says (above): "it would be nearly identical to the use of the taxoboxes - every page with 15 taxobox ranks would eventually have the same 15 rank names listed as categories". This is not so; articles should not be included in both categories and children of those categories (with a few

524:

I disscussed this issue with my aquatic Entomology professor, and his response was that terrestrial and aquatic Entomologists use different names for the metaboly we are discussing. Aquatic Entomologists use the old system, where Hemimetaboly is those insects that have aquatic nymphs, known as

482:

I would like to dispute this actually, if that is alright with you all. Recently in my Aquatic Entomology course, Hemimetabolous (called here heterometabolous) and Paurometabolous organisms are discussed separately. I realise this is a relatively new development, but my professor is extremely

372:

Note that I was taught this in France, now I am studying in Canada, and some things are slightly different. I think that there should be an article for each, and a mention of the (possible) controversy should be made. I hope someone can clear this up once and for all, because I've always been

392:

I've checked this out a bit more with colleagues and most agree that both paurometabolous and heterometabolous have been merged into just "hemimetabolous". This is backed up by Stoffolano and Rosomer 1998 who say it has occured due to a lack of cohesive phylogenetic grouping between Odonata,

4991:

page did so from a source that was comparing both of the species found in Iowa, rather than discussing that one species by itself, or the genus as a whole, or the US as a whole. The ony way to deal with it was to make specific reference in the introduction that the following page text was a

2623:

It's a Tenebrionid, but I can't be certain of the subfamily. From what I can see in the photos, the white "markings" are, like in many desert Tenebs, not markings, but fine cuticular wax deposits. I'd never heard of the beetle being able to change the amount of wax on it, so I have a better

2429: 1275:

Furthermore, the automatic system mooted above would be imperfect ,since it is not always useful to have all ranks listed in every taxobox. It is generally agreed that the minor ranks are distracting in a taxobox when they are not directly relevant (like a subkingdom in an article about a

834:

I've already started cleaning up the awful mess in category 'Butterflies' based on these guidelines. Don't believe me about the 'Mess'? See 'Butterfly stubs' and ye shall believe! I've about five to six hundred stubs to add and we can't have them blocking access to users getting the right

4014:. It isn't perfect yet, but functional enough to allow grading of quality and importance. In particular, there is a bot (MathBot) that reviews all articles with a talk page template that offers a grading system, but I'm not sure how to apply this to our WikiProject, or if it's automatic. 4275:

Do we need a special section for that? Can't participants just add that kind of info after their name? We could add a sentence at the top of the participants section inviting people to add a line or two about their areas of expertise (if any). Or did you have a better idea in mind?

2074:

Megaloptera is recognised as a separate order in all modern literature that I have read. In both Merritt and Cummins 1996 and Hilsenhoff 1995, the neuroptera and megaloptera are presented as separate orders. I think a change in the taxonomy in these articles would be appropriate.

4328:

to deal with matters of veterinary medicine, a subject which currently has disproportionately low content in wikipedia. Any wikipedia editors who have an interest in working on content related to the subject are encouraged to indicate as much there. Thank you for your attention.

4954:, as examples where there are one or a few well-known species, but the page still manages to remain generalized, rather than getting bogged down by information on the well-known members of the group. A lot depends on whether the term "corn rootworm" does in fact refer to ALL 1832:

In an apocryphal story, a colleague once turned to the great British geneticist J. B. S. Haldane, and said, "Tell me, Mr. Haldane, knowing what you do about nature, what can you tell me about God?" Haldane thought for a while and replied, "He has an inordinate fondness for

1284:. If they want to work through the hierarchy, they can use the taxoboxes. The category system is ill-suited to preserving the dichotomous branching pattern of all life, but works well at grouping together similar entities, with "similar" defined in any way you might want. 1314:

a overview of the landscape which the category could do. This job of gathering and listing articles a category does and does it well no matter whether you have one article or many. It instantly reflects change too. So it helps us even in taxonomy related groupings. How?

4535:

paragraph seems a bit far fetched. Then again it might be correct as I don't really know anything about Ladybeatles. Could a knowledgeable person from this project please have a look? If it is correct the paragraph should have some sources to give it credibility.

3121:

End of shard is dark at Rhagonycha fulva. Cantharis livida is painted uniformly.", which suggests it wasn't a Cantharis as it was tiny, I'd say 7mm at the most, and it has the black tips to its wing cases, so I'll update the gallery, commons and WP with this info.

618:

The problem now is to find a suitable picture for the stub-template. I don't think we will be able to find a "general arthropod" picture small enough (and recognisable enough), so we'll probably have to settle for a more specific picture. I was thinking of using

229:

The project is in its relative infancy, but we are adding three to ten wikipages a week. The ButterflyIndia yahoo group and Tekdi Eco Portal have been contacted and people have not only promised us images, but, we are trying to synergise the three as follows :-

2150:

Taxoboxes should include all major ranks above the taxon described in the article, plus minor ranks that are important to understanding the classification of the taxon described in the article, or which are discussed in the article. Other minor ranks should be

745:

Firstly, I feel that we need to have our very own sections which are mentioned above. At first, you can take a 'cut and paste' and modify it by changing the examples. Then and then alone can our thoughts on these issues develop and interested people like

1994:

article puts them in 3 different orders... I wonder if that should be changed; it's just an overview, mainly for non-specialists, so maybe it's clearer without introducing the subtilities of suborders and various taxonomical debates. What do you think?

2282:, very useful for understanding the phylogeny of the group. Should we just ignore the fossil groups? Maybe we could create again a complete (non-redirect) page emphasizing that most members are extinct and containing a link to the Limulidae. Usage of 750:

get a canvas to work on. I stand by his ideas and need for own focus on Arthropods. We can't progress these aspects without our very own place to wiki-edit. I would do it if I had a good overview of arthropods but I don't, I'm on learning mode ihere.

3028:

Load them in WM commons with an appropriate message regarding their pending id and then place them in a gallery on a user page in WP. Place a message on WikiProject Arthropoda/Lepidoptera talk and mention the link so that they can be found. Regards,

4945:

pages. In each case, I have argued STRONGLY that if there are multiple species, and each has a page, then that is where the information on each species should be directed, and have performed large-scale edits to make it so. Use pages like these, or

4024:

I believe that this sytem will enable us to get a better overview of the articles covered by this WikiProject, and to target the articles that need improvement. If you encounter any problems, have comments or need any information please contact me.

3187:. I have two other photos of the spider if they would help (they're taken from further away though). If your book lists it as the only Pisaura in Slovenia though then it seems fairly likely at least that's what it is. Thanks for all your help. -- 437:

just that they are older terms and not widely used in an entomological sense alot (although as I say - i'm not sure about other arthopod subphyla) - anyway, discussing them in the hemimetabolism article should be a good way highlight their use.

3145:

Ah, I thought the pictures had been taken in the UK. I shall refocus my search. You are probably right about the spider but the possibilities for the beetles have suddenly increased severalfold! Same goes for the wood ants - I assumed it was

1189:. After all, if it were done so each order had its own category, and their subcategories were each suborders, and their subcategories were each superfamilies, each of which had subcategories which were families, etc., then it would be nearly 787:

project. It aims to record all known species with their taxonomical information, a photo (if possible) and vernacular names. No other information (ecology, distribution, etc.) is included. It's a simple census project. See for example the

2684:

that refers to a given taxon level, so if - for example - I actually want to know what all the pages are for Apocrita, a search on "Apocrita" won't do it, even if it appears in every one of the taxoboxes... but having a category Apocrita

2300:

I'm not familiar with the taxonomy of these creatures (what are we supposed to call them now that the term Merostomata has been disproved?), but I agree with your proposition. Fossil records should not be overlooked. We should keep the

2539:

Yes, this is a serious lack in arthropod-related articles. I would love to help, but unfortunately I won't be able to tackle something so vast before the month of August at the earliest. Good luck to anyone who decides to work on it!

2377:

for mooting the idea six weeks ago, an eternity in Wikitime! May you never rust! We shall now begin our work towards this end. Suggestions are ecstasically welcomed. Support and participation is worth a lifelong debt, would you say?

1149:

then? Should we propose this on the talk pages for those categories before going ahead and removing them? Also, I'm not sure how to remove a category, so if someone could do it or tell me how to that would be great. Have a nice day!

3182:

Ahh sorry I should have been clearer originally. Slovenia has quite a diverse range of habitats, from alpine to wetland to mediterranean/coastal. These were all (apart from the soldier beetle) taken within the alps, in summer, near

1218:

include the rank "zoosubdivisio = Schizophora" on it should NOT exclude it from showing up in the listing when someone asks "What are the pages in Category:Zoosubdivisio:Schizophora"? I suspect there must be a workaround for this.

1068:

and Category:Ohio. (A good way to understand this exception is that if an article exists, and then a category is created on the same subject as the article, it should not cause the article to be removed from any of its categories).

838:

I've tried to make the guidelines as logical, consistent and practical as possible. The guidelines are being linked on each really important category page, ie 'Butterflies' and each family category page, for users to understand.

4448:

where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.

2722:). On the searching issue, if the taxoboxes do all include Apocrita, then you can use the "What links here" link to find them all (and a bunch of other articles that mention Apocrita). It's not ideal, but it is a possibility. -- 1238:

them - "false positives", in essence). Maybe, at the VERY least, something could be done about the search algorithm issue, and the better it can be made to work, the less we'd need to rely on categories as opposed to taxoboxes.

1097:) are expoterygotes, but that doesn't need to be encoded in the categorisation, but should instead be in the articles. Knowledge is not Wikispecies, and the categories are merely meant to be aids to finding related articles. -- 3154:

species for Slovenia and I'm not sure how similar they all are. Btw I am looking at your Lepidoptera images at the moment - I think I'm having a bit more joy with them but I'll let you know on the Lepidoptera project page.

483:

knowledgeable about taxa, especially Plecoptera, and if this new classification was widely used he would most likely teach it. I was considering splitting the Nymphs article into separate Nymphs/Niads articles over this. --

5022:

as wikispecies, but the photos and extra biological information on these pages would also help in identifications. Also, if all the information for a taxon is held under the one roof, it is less likely to go out of date.--

729: 393:

Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera these subgrouping have been merged into just "hemimetabolous". i think we should at least mention these two older subgroupings within the hemimetabolous article - let me know your thoughts.

4218:...if you run across arthropod articles with how-to information related to gardening or agriculture. I'm working on a wikibook that includes this sort of informatioin, so anything that can be gleaned, I'll incorporate. 1206:

Apoidea". That at least would save everyone the effort of manually creating a "Category:Apoidea" and manually entering that string into dozens and dozens of pages so they will show up on the corresponding Category page.

761:

Fourthly, can you 'map' the arthropods in some interesting way so that we can enter the world of Arthropods through your wikipage, though, I know that's not a purpose of the page. Is there a good way already existing?

3747:

Hello again. Can you tell me what part of Turkey this is - I get the impression the country has a lot of endemic bush-crickets and this may help with specific id. As for the crab - not really my territory I'm afraid!

3172:

spider recorded for Slovenia (this doesn't mean it is this species but its a good pointer - I'm confident the genus is right) - it seems to be a pan-Palaearctic species rather than being confined to northern Europe.

1350:

Then of course there are lists, which are more or less similar to categories except that they include links to non-existant articles. Each system has its benefits and drawbacks, and that's why we need each one. The

1418:? I know that the terminology for crustaceans is different (coxa, basis, ischium, merus, carpus, propodus, dactylus), but I don't know about other groups, and I don't know what the homologies are between groups. -- 2924:

from Commons, taken in Germany. I don't think it is a European species at all so I assume it is a captive specimen (I am checking this with the photographer). In the meantime does anyone here recognize it? Thanks

828: 225:

Do leave your comments on any of our talk pages. I would be grateful if you would ask us to do the modifications suggested rather than do them yourself since we are talking of a canvas of over a thousand species.

3967:

I don't have much information about this subject, i found it in a fauna of North Turkey Karadeniz Region list. In above pdf link, i guess it's named as P. ibericum. tauricum but a take the photo in northern part

2392:

This was a large one from Bangalore in south India, a little more than an inch. Should probably be identifiable with David L. Pearson's work on Indian Cicindelidae. Unfortunately I have no access to that work :(

3491:'cos its really bristly. The second is Tabanidae for sure but I don't recognize the species. The third certainly looks like Ichneumonidae but nothing like I've seen. The fourth is almost certainly Pentatomidae, 2739:

I noticed the trilobite page links to cephalocarids, saying that cephalocarids may be the closest living relative of trilobites. Maybe we could include some information on why scientists think they are related?

1793:

to see if it gets much support. If you have an opinion, please consider dropping a note there. I personnaly think that it would be a good idea, the only barnstar there is at the moment for all of science is the

4810:). There is NO utility in having "praying mantis" as a stand-alone page, primarily because of this ambiguity. In fact, I'm tempted to make it a disambiguation page, letting a reader choose whether to go to the 4488:, where there's already a descendant Wikiproject tag on the page, but I wouldn't go out of my way to remove them. If someone fancies pointing the problem out to a robot or its owner, then that would be fine. -- 754:

Secondly, I am looking for guidelines to make a descendant project - a 'To Do' list or 'criteria' or even thoughts on the same in a separate para, sub-section, or, better still, a page of it's own would help.

3240:

Thanks. Is there a community of people prepared to identify flowers/plants somewhere, cos I have about 100 plant and flower photos sitting on my PC ready to be uploaded. WikiProject:Plants seems pretty dead.

631:

picture, but I didn't find one that might fit the requirements. If you happen to find a good picture rather characteristic of arthropods, and that would still be recognisable at a small size, please tell me.

1230:(as opposed to "flies" or "beetles", which are potentially ENORMOUS categories) and (2) right now, you CAN'T do a search for the family name Formicidae and find all the actual ant pages, even though the two 1742:. Does anyone have an idea what it is? I'd propose a beetle larva, but I can't be more precise. If you have any pictures of unidentified arthropods you can post them here in the hope that someone can help! 4637:. After reading up on the subject, it seems that some authors include them in the Reduviidae and some put them in a separate, though closely related, family. Which classification is the most up to date? 5033:

lay-editors just visit species pages and add wikify or cleanup tags because of the terminology used. For butterfly species article, for instance I tend to solve this by putting a header leading them to

773: 458:

article. Please check it out when you have the time. I also created redirects from "hemimetaboly", "heterometabolism", "paurometabolism", "heterometaboly" and "paurometaboly". Thanks for the advice.

652:

to have a picture, you know… It's probably more important to have it up and running than to worry about its precise appearance. The spider's probably out anyway, because it wouldn't be covered by

4739:

It's not entirely clear to me why that tag was ever added, and after all the improvements over the past day or two, I don't think it is at all appropriate any more. By all means ged rid of it. --

3623:

of the limbs and tail, and perhaps add color/shading/detail. Of course, I would also add lables as well. So comments would be appreciated. Thanks for your consideration. Please leave comments at

535:

probably just explaining the differences in terminology usage would suffice and that different terms are used in differing entomological specialties. thanks again for you contributions on this

4347:, the tongue-biting isopod. I've seen it all over the internet, but i know Knowledge has a very strict image policy. I couldn't find the image owner to be honest. I found the orginal image on 800:. It still needs a lot of work, so when you have time I encourage you (and anyone) to help out. There is to date no formal cooperation, it is simply a sister project of the Knowledge. Regards, 410:

Yes, I think that's best. Then we can just create a redirect from "paurometabolism" and "heterometabolism" to "hemimetabolism". So you say that pauro- and heterometabolism belong to the past?

2245: 286:

all crustaceans, all arachnid, all other insect orders, including species-rich orders such as flies and beetles) use lower case, and consistently so. I have therefore imported the text from

1576:

Maybe that would be the way to go about it. There is enough to write about each type of appendage to make an article (what with comparing the different adaptations, taxa, etc.), and as the

2628:

P.S. As for WikiProject Insecta, I guess I don't see how splitting off from the Arthropods project will help either resulting group. It doesn't look like we need it, at this point. Peace,

1948:

the taxoboxes. I am in favour of having the Megaloptera and Raphidiotera as suborders of the Neuroptera (as in the Neuroptera article) or separating them into 3 orders. What do you think?

493:

you contributions would be very welcome on this (i'm unfortunatly not a taxonomy specialist!). might be good if you could find some recent refs to support the pauro/hemimetabolous usage.

2257: 1481:, as are those of insects). In fact, arthropod appendages are all homologous (despite the different terms used for them), and even are a defining characteristic for the phylum (from the 3573:

last august i was on vacations on paris and i took some pictures on the natural history museum. yet i do not find the right article for these, maybe you know better where they belong:

3312:" in entomological circles, known for having many different species. I am somewhat dubious of this, having found no such references. Anyone familiar with this? Anyone who can go to 2250:

I'm more a user of this project than a participant, but I'd really like to see more photographs of caterpillars and other larvae posted along with the usual photographs of instars. --

1209:

Alternatively, add a new button to the SEARCH window or toolbox that limits the search string to finding matches EXCLUSIVELY in taxoboxes; and make sure, obviously, that it actually

4076:

for this project which seems to be dying out slowly. I have also made some more important changes, including the grading scheme mentionned above and moving the style suggestions to

1197:

If I had to make a suggestion as to the most efficient way to fix the problem, I'd say there are two options, but either would have to go way up the Knowledge administrative chain:

199:

It's interesting work you seem to be doing here. You should probably involve a few people here since this appears to another colossal wikitask. You need 'distributed wiki'ing. :)

4824: 552: 539: 516: 2747: 4265:

participants page that we can all put our relevant arthropod specialities into. would be a good reference to know who to ask for opinions/help on specific topics. comments??

4058: 1272:

exceptions), so this doesn't apply. Having listed an article in Category:Formica, it should on no account be listed in every other category all the way up to Category:Life.

2945: 2079: 4650: 3856:

Sebastian Klausa, Christoph D. Schubart, Dirk Brandis (2006). "Phylogeny, biogeography and a new taxonomy for the Gecarcinucoidea Rathbun, 1904 (Decapoda: Brachyura)".

1022:. I think that we should create a Paleoptera category, so that the hierarchy of insect categories is consistant. Each insect order category should in the end belong to 4835: 4333: 3783: 3752: 3723: 3713: 2734: 2567:

Well, I've gone and made a start. Someone had to. It's probably wrong in many ways, and we all know there's a lot of stuff missing. But it's a start. Join in the fun:

4540: 4406: 4383: 4178: 3503: 2143: 1440: 349:: incomplete metamorphosis, the larvae look very similar to the adults : they have compound eyes and wing stubs visible on the outside. This regroups the following : 4962:. If so, then there should not be separate Diabrotica and corn rootworm pages; ideally, the page should be the Diabrotica page (with a taxobox listing species), and 4311: 4298: 4205: 2743:

Also, I wanted to say thanks for all the hard work, you are all doing a great job on the Arthropod project. I am consistently impressed by the quality of Knowledge.

1982: 1866: 1602: 1563: 1533: 442: 420: 397: 383: 3371: 2849: 2832: 2017: 1970: 274:

significant tradition in invertebrates. I have gone through all arthropod groups in the last few months and standardised the capitalisation within each group; only

4743: 4492: 4471: 4145: 3972: 3942: 3816: 3804: 3740: 3331: 3289: 2118:

article also has subclass and infraclass. Do you think that we should give the maximum detail in each taxobox, or rather promote clarity and just show the basics?

1978:

sounds good - there has always been abit of a grey area around this. your suggestion sounds logical though. insects from these orders are really incredible......

1138: 1023: 957: 923: 893: 4707:

relatively unimportant taxa, just because of the huge diversity that exists. Only a tiny proportion of the articles on single species have been assessed as being

4506:

Hi, I was looking for a "New article announcement" section on your project page, but couldn't find one, so I'm posting this here. I wrote a new article about the

4379:

image, but I think we'll have to look elsewhere, unless you can find Matthew Gilligan and he is prepared to release his image under a less restrictive license. --

3653:, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding 2575: 2327: 2185: 2068: 1778: 1635: 1101: 721: 670: 4084: 4007: 3320: 2646:. Categorisation is there to help the user, not to mirror the phylogenetic tree (that would be for Wikispecies), so I would suggest the following subcategories: 2057: 1719: 1080: 4978: 4848: 4429: 3631: 3245: 3214: 3191: 3138: 2726: 2692: 2463:

That's the genus Calligrapha, in the Chrysomelinae. Very closely related to the type genus, Chrysomela. I'll bet you found it on some Solanaceous plant, right?

1306: 1292: 1123: 255: 4783: 4679: 4660: 3624: 3514: 2562: 2495: 1432:

leg. Arachnids, i believe use the same terminology, but i think centipedes/millipedes use different as locomotory appendages on these are often referred to as

4616:(genera include Arilus, Melanolestes, Psellipus, Rasahus, Reduvius, Rhiginia, Sinea, Triatoma, and Zelus), ambush bugs (genera include Apiomerus and Phymata) 4168: 2861:, but its markings match up with the large one. It strikes me as strange that those two are in different genera, but what do I know? Thanks for the help. -- 1377: 1234:

be synonymous (even if the search algorithm worked at 100% efficiency, there would still be other pages dealing with non-ants that have the name "Formicidae"

810: 5051: 5041: 5002: 4821: 4630:), and doesn't say anything about the other genera mentionned here. I brought this issue up on the talk page of the wheel bug article, but no one responded. 4157: 3667: 2865: 2239: 2099: 1559:

can see your point re: appendage vs. leg - article would be very long however....create subarticles for each appendage (leg, wings, mouthparts, antennae)??

1450: 1259: 1035: 942: 2533: 2382: 1330: 3210:

I've added a bee to that page that I forgot to put on it before. It's probably just a bumble bee but I would rather be told that than just put it there. --

1830:

Nice quote you posted on the page. think it really sums up the arthropod positions. Here's another for you although a little insect biased i'm afraid :)

529: 487: 158:

of past discussions on my talk page. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my

4518: 2677: 4370: 4164:. At the time, I didn't request deletion for the old categories, although I probably should have. Would anyone object if I list them for deletion now? -- 3510:

The last one is definitely a tachinid; the first one is not an Asilid, but some sort of Muscoid - imposible to tell for certain from the photo, however.

2877: 2818: 2294: 1789:

For those who aren't keeping a close eye on the biology portal, there has been a proposition for a biology barnstar. A vote is currently taking place at

1355:

has pondered over the use of categories a lot, and if we can't answer these questions among ourselves I'm sure that they will have some answers. Cheers,

3033: 1119:

does with the many orders of winged insects. One can reference a separate article on insect taxonomy/evolution to discuss the higher-level groupings. --

4594: 4453: 4077: 4047: 3650: 3361: 3260: 3235: 3205: 3177: 3159: 3108: 3096: 1790: 904: 4728:

Got it. However, since you don't feel it's lacking in quality anymore, could we remove the cleanup tag? Thanks, Novickas 17:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

4514:). Not being a biologist, I concentrated on its historical economic significance, so please feel free to add something to the Biology section. Thanks 4974:

or something similar (as is done on the honey bee page). As you note, trying to cram multiple species together creates more problems than it solves.

4927: 4325: 4130: 3670: 2929: 2632: 1764: 4065: 3692: 3225:

species have been recorded in Slovenia and I can guarantee lots of them look a lot like this: I can't be more specific. Btw the flower looks like a

2593: 2417: 2397: 2088:

I would also like to add that Wikispecies lists Neuroptera, Raphidioptera, and Megaloptera as three separate orders under Subdivision Endopterygota.

1838: 5011: 4269: 3897: 2518: 2229: 2212: 500: 477: 309: 2305:

article (not redirect it) but make it clear that the term is no longer used and give links to the new classification (Xiphosura and Eurypterida).

2886: 2105: 758:

Thirdly, do enlighten us about the relation, co-relation, or lack of it, between our Knowledge encyclopedic articles and the Wikispecies effort.

3022: 1654:. It'll be ready for release soon, and I will move it to its permanent location. I wasn't very sure about a number of things, among which were: 1222:

in the taxoboxes; a category like "pollinators" is good - a category like "Apocrita" is not. However, a category like "ants" or "bees" probably

687:. I used the picture you suggested. It might need some editing as it's not great at the moment, but it'll do until then. I was wondering if the 294: 4778: 4463:

Should pages falling under the lepidoptera wikiproject (or other subprojects) be tagged with the arthropod project banner as well? For example

2895: 1820: 468: 4869: 3285:

I'm English so it perhaps seems not quite so crazy to me :) I agree a disambig page might be preferable but the dablink does the job as well.

2458: 1844:

Nice one! Maybe we could open a quotes section (or subpage, the main page is getting a bit long)... Or just post them here, on the talk page.

642: 4523: 3295: 1872: 1422: 1340: 1062: 846: 4467:

is listed under both projects, though as lepidoptera is a descendant of this project, perhaps it should simply fall under the one category?

3055: 2467: 5026: 4719: 4319: 1414:? I would also like to know how widespread these terms are, taxonomically: are they used of arachnids, centipedes, millipedes, trilobites, 191: 4800:

page first, despite that fact that both of the terms have more specific meanings (the former, technically, is only a member of the family

4788:

I think it's time to do a massive re-organization of these pages and the various redirects and such that connect them all. Realistically,

4589: 4307:

yep encouraging people to add a line or two after their user name would work just as well. quite useful to know who can help with what.

3007: 2992: 1687: 4708: 4458: 3609: 2529:

inappropriate for insects. This looks like the most significant problem in arthropod anatomy at the moment. Does anyone feel up to this?

1172: 1055: 203: 4231:

template on it instead. I'm a wikibooks admin, and can import... if you want to remove that information in a hurry, list the article on

4061:

for a barnstar which would be available for use for this project. Please feel free to visit the page and make any comments you see fit.

5073: 5068: 3614: 3252:

Sorry for the delay in answering - I've been moving house and not been able to get on web. For plant queries your best bet is probably

2789: 2764: 2760: 2753: 1246: 266: 3481: 2370:, which is a much larger canvas), we have decided that 'in for a pound, in for a penny'! Or is it the other way round? (quizzically). 4895:, but has recently been expanded to cover all species of "corn rootworm". I am unsure which of the several possible options is best: 4698:

was a DYK yesterday, if you think that's appropriate to add to the main page here. Sincerely, Novickas 16:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

4694:

Could someone re-assess this article? Its importance is rated as "mid", which doesn't seem right from an economic perspective. Also,

4445: 2910: 1428:

Sounds like a good idea to me - think we should put both insecta and crustacea nomenclature in the one article as it will be called

5078: 4923:

As it is, the scope of the article, its taxobox and its title don't match, but I'd like advice on how best to solve the problem. --

4412: 4098: 3546: 3279: 2333: 4354: 4018: 3709:

but I'm not too sure. I'll have a dig - I can't beleive such a distinctive insect doesn't have some images on the web somewhere.

3646: 3039: 2523: 2514:(the red swamp crawfish) could really do with a photograph. Does anyone have one we could use, or know where we could get one? -- 4770:

weevil). Can someone please whip up a stub for the weevil genus to fix the redirect (+ disambiguation at the stub)? Thanks! (I

4656:

Phymatidae has not been in use for almost a decade now, so that one's easy. There is indeed only a single species of wheel bug.

4135: 3563: 2921: 5017:

I am wondering if placing taxonomic keys (by those who can be bothered) on the pages is supported? I placed an example on the

857: 4498: 1627:, and so on, which can then deal with the details of each type of appendage. I have placed a table of apparent homologies at 1436:(c.f. - larval podia in lepidoptera which normally have no significant segmental distinction). will check this out some more 842:

After categories, will prepare a draft policy for redirects, based on your already quite comprehensive' guidelines. Regards.

109: 17: 4104:

I would also like to bring to the attention of those of you who might not yet have noticed the creation of a new category:

2794: 154: 2121:

I personally think that we should give as much detail as possible in the taxobox; after all that's what a taxobox is for.

4366: 3092:

but I don't recognize the species. I'll have a scan through some images to try to get a match as it is very distinctive.

3770: 2637: 1268:

I sympathise with the sentiment, but I don't think taxoboxes and categories are at all related, and nor should they be.

3308:

article, a place in Scotland. Someone has contributed a section to the article labeling the island as the "Island of

3131:

Does anyone have any ideas about the ant? I'm guessing it's a wood ant but I don't really know what I'm talking about.

321:: complete metamorphosis; the larvae look totally different from the adult, no visible wings stubs, no compound eyes ( 3662: 3658: 2262: 2095:

Don't know why Megaloptera was still listed as a suborder - just changed that. Hopefully no one will change it back.

4478:

its importance to arthropod generalists (and similarly for spiders). I don't think there's any reason not to remove

1546:

Your right - they are all homologous, but I was just unsure of the terms used for each subphyla other than hexapods.

4575: 3988: 3654: 2583: 824:

I must say, that was fast. Almost all that I asked for just a few hours ago is already done! Let me do my bit too.

100: 64: 4703: 565:

I have gone through the usual process to propose a new stub, and there has been no objection to the creation of a

5083: 4695: 3776: 3012: 2387: 1631:

for comments and corrections. Once that's sorted, the article should almost write itself. Please check it out. --

2602:

Immediately after we encountered the beetle it began turning black. Double-click on the image for a better view.

2436:

Could someone tell me if this beetle is a Coccinellidae? I looks like it (overall shape) but lacks the spots...

290:, with changes to reflect the exceptional upper-case taxa mentioned above, and to make is arthropod-specific. -- 5034: 4998:

page where they belong. I'll try to align the various common names and redirects so they go where they should.

4338: 4070: 3048: 2191: 1725: 2906:

what the trouble was with the formatting, maybe we can find a solution that fits all browser brands. cheers --

4874: 2828:. I don't know much about American species but I'll have a quick look at some images to try to find a match. 4425:

FYI - I found a nice image on commons, but no article or reference in either stink or shield bug articles -

244:

Thought you'd like to know what part of wikilife you inadvertantly entered when you placed a cleanup tag on

4434: 3675: 1280:

is how it appears to the unititiated), would be really offputting. It's much better to have a more general

575:

template. This would be useful for all Arthropods that don't have a precise stub at the moment besides the

207: 39: 3275:

links to the sport, not to the insect or a disambiguation? Am I the only one who thinks that's crazy? --

3337: 2501: 704: 4987:

Okay, I looked it over, and cleaned it up; the problem is that whoever cut-and-pasted the text onto the

4087:. It tells all there is to know about the grading scheme, and lists the articles that have the template 4105: 2076: 1651: 1115:

the classication flat--just dividing into the traditional orders, with no branching--is basically what

579: 549: 526: 513: 484: 4831:

a single species, then having it as a disambiguation page is probably the only reasonable solution. --

3809:

I found a list about north Turkey's fauna, and only Potamon is Potamon tauricum. I only find this pic

4052: 3810: 3636: 3357:(not one I recognize I have to admit). Does anyone have any idea where the pic might be better used? 2915: 2871: 2169: 1825: 1661:

the language used (coleoptera, diptera vs. beetles, flies, or exoskeleton vs. body wall for example),

816: 696: 4083:

If you have any input whatsoever, I'd be glad for it. If you haven't already, please take a look at

2814:. I have two more views which I can upload if they're helpful. Any help is greatly appreciated! -- 1461:). All arthropod appendages are variations of the same theme, so this would seem appropriate anyway. 548:

Okay, I added that information. Someone should check if it is okay, or if it needs any ajustment. --

4893: 4282: 4256: 4189: 4114: 4031: 3890: 3465: 2773: 2546: 2479: 2442: 2311: 2127: 2041: 2001: 1954: 1850: 1804: 1784: 1748: 1703: 1671: 1586: 1517: 1361: 1156: 707:. It's what seems logical, but I was wondering if that would disrupt anything. Thanks for the help 700: 684: 609: 299: 260: 170: 3996:

I have finally created a grading scheme to classify all the arthropod articles using the template

1487:

Arthropods are characterised by the possession of a segmented body with appendages on each segment

508:

Unfortunatly, there is no research on ebsco that uses these terms. Looking in Merritt and Cummins

108:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

4362: 3556: 2423: 1795: 692: 680: 656: 569: 560: 3719:

so much, and enought to annoy while walking:) They couldn't jump good enough as grasshoppers. --

3430: 3018:

linking to them and with only a vague description will they be deleted straight away? Thanks, --

1511:

I'd gladly do this myself, but I have a lot of work at the moment (final exams, etc.). Regards,

835:

information. So could'nt wait for consensus. We can always execute out the modifications later.

5010: 4582: 4482: 4091: 4000: 2358:. Since it doesn't make much sense to restrict the new WikiProject to our regional context (ie 1665:

so if you have time I'd be greatful for a little check up. I'll post again once it's finished.

599: 4343:

Hi guys, i'm kind of a newbie to wikipedia and i wanted to add an image to your article about

4988: 4916: 4882: 4875: 4545: 4391: 4141: 4080:, even though I haven't yet decided if it's better to delete them from the main page or not. 4010:. I think everything you should need can be found there. I copied it from the system used by 3877: 2951: 2845:(known as the Large Milkweed Bug - could be significant!). I'm pretty sure this is your guy. 2799: 1385: 1142: 1027: 974: 927: 899: 688: 45: 4865:, particularly in relation to taxoboxes. Comments welcome here or on the wiki at that link. 3800:, north of Turkey. I found the crab just near a river, after rain. Thanks for your helps. -- 3487:

I think your insect knowledge matches mine pretty closely. The first one kind of feels like

2806:

Maybe someone here can help me identify this enigma. I took this picture in my backyard in

4775: 3733: 2670: 2643: 1457:

however. It sounds more biological, and it's a more widespread term for invertebrates (see

1410:). Would anybody object to these articles all being merged into a single article, probably 1407: 966: 962: 888: 865: 797: 589: 8: 4856: 4687: 4676: 4647: 4440: 4295: 4202: 4127: 4044: 3749: 3710: 3685: 3681: 3500: 3478: 3358: 3328: 3286: 3257: 3232: 3202: 3174: 3156: 3105: 3093: 2942: 2926: 2846: 2829: 2786: 2559: 2510: 2492: 2455: 2324: 2140: 2054: 2014: 1967: 1863: 1817: 1761: 1716: 1684: 1645: 1599: 1530: 1374: 1169: 1077: 1052: 908: 807: 718: 663: 639: 465: 417: 380: 183: 3416: 1390:

We currently have five separate articles for five different parts of the arthropod leg (

4866: 4753: 4450: 4358: 4330: 4308: 4266: 4175: 4153: 4062: 3388: 2890: 1979: 1835: 1628: 1560: 1470: 1437: 979: 947: 876: 869: 851: 536: 497: 474: 439: 394: 306: 4966:

should be a redirect TO it. If this still isn't enough, you can state at the top that

4532: 3924: 3534:

contrary to most other family pages. Perhaps some administrator could move it so that

3313: 2702:

doing anything, but your four-category scheme sounds good to me. Category:Hymenoptera

2610:

Now it has almost turned completely black.Double-click on the image for a better view.

2473:

Awesome, thanks a lot. Actually, it was on a wooden post, not a plant, unfortunately.

315:

This is what I was taught (I am a biology student graduating in a couple of months) :

4149: 3855: 3642: 3568: 3076: 2900: 2807: 1134: 1031: 952: 912: 884: 146: 92: 4915:

Split the article into individual species (effectively reverting all the changes to

4399: 3445: 2935:

The picture has been identified, the image name changed and added to the gallery at

2706:

stil exist, but would only contain the subcategories, and perhaps the four articles

2568: 1650:

I have started an article for the wing on one of my subpages. Please check it out :

918:

I think that it is just confusing to have these categories in the "insect" category

4816: 4806: 4537: 4507: 4500: 4161: 3865: 2937: 2752: 2254: 1399: 1146: 1039: 937: 880: 861: 793: 4245: 3382:

Hi everyone; I would be very grateful for some help in identifying a few insects:

1730: 282:

had a majority capitalised (and we may even want to change that). All the others (

4924: 4832: 4740: 4716: 4489: 4468: 4426: 4403: 4380: 4344: 4225: 4165: 3969: 3939: 3813: 3801: 3780: 3737: 3720: 3689: 3619: 3606: 3402: 3377: 3266: 2999: 2723: 2674: 2606: 2598: 2572: 2515: 2291: 2278:, a bold decision recently taken by one of us. After all, it is a whole class of 2182: 1775: 1632: 1419: 1403: 1395: 1289: 1098: 747: 708: 667: 662:. I also couldn't find a good millipede or centipede. Perhaps something based on 291: 4213: 4793: 4670: 4641: 4289: 4277: 4262: 4236: 4196: 4184: 4121: 4109: 4038: 4026: 3520: 3472: 3460: 3063: 2780: 2768: 2662: 2553: 2541: 2486: 2474: 2449: 2437: 2318: 2306: 2134: 2122: 2110:

How much detail do you think should we give in the taxoboxes? For example, the

2048: 2036: 2008: 1996: 1961: 1949: 1881:

article and various related taxa. There seems to be some confusion between the

1857: 1845: 1811: 1799: 1755: 1743: 1710: 1698: 1678: 1666: 1593: 1581: 1524: 1512: 1391: 1368: 1356: 1163: 1151: 1071: 1046: 801: 712: 633: 624: 459: 455: 411: 374: 346: 318: 177: 165: 160: 4578:, taxonomic rules have become stricter about adhering to the original form. 3869: 3597: 2997:

The one is indeed a Brentid, the other is a male of the cetoniine scarabaeid,

1339:

As mentionned above, categories, lists and taxoboxes have different purposes (

933:

I think that to be logical, the hierarchy of categories should be like this :

5062: 4938: 4909: 4767: 4525: 4011: 3699: 3628: 3422: 3349: 3339: 3184: 2957: 2744: 2656: 2650: 2343: 2201: 2164: 2154: 2024: 1902: 1890: 1620: 1454: 1411: 1352: 1281: 999: 983: 359:

Heterometabolism : the larvae and the adults live in different environments (

287: 215: 5037:

and knocking of these tags. Perhaps others have a better solution for this.

3367:

That photo is a katydid, and should be removed from the Myremecophilus page.

2614: 1893:

in the taxonomic levels; this is the classification given by each article :

5048: 5038: 5023: 4999: 4975: 4845: 4657: 4586: 4515: 4464: 3560: 3543: 3511: 3436: 3368: 3305: 3199: 3104:

is a possible for the leaf beetle also...or maybe something else entirely!

3004: 2989: 2862: 2838: 2815: 2689: 2629: 2530: 2464: 2414: 2394: 2339: 2338:

After initial reluctance, much thought and weighing the pros and cons, we (

2236: 2226: 2209: 2174: 2096: 2065: 1303: 1288:(or not necessarily scientific) audience, and we should not forget that. -- 1256: 1243: 1120: 1116: 1089:

OK, here's where I chime in again. The old categorisation of insects was a

1015: 1007: 211: 4844:

Just realized I didn't log in before posting the preceding - it's me. ;-)

4140:

A while ago, I replaced the old hierarchical category system for insects (

3047:

Great thanks for the pointer. Here are the three unidentified anthropods:

76: 58: 4712: 4688: 4439:

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of

3579: 3354: 3317: 3276: 3081: 3030: 2907: 2590: 2379: 2347: 2302: 2283: 2279: 2251: 2028: 1886: 1694: 1624: 1327: 1178: 843: 770: 766: 623:, but changing the background to white. I would have largely preferred a 332: 326: 279: 252: 219: 3588: 1070:" This seems to go along with what I propose for the insect categories. 4994: 4901: 4754: 4634: 4603: 4570:

has also seen widespread use after taxonomists decided that the double

3704: 3688:, but don't know their species name. Can anyone help on this? Thanks -- 3551: 3451: 2642:

It's been discussed before, but now I'd like to do something about it:

2402: 2222: 2178: 2160: 2159:

I agree that putting in every rank really isn't helpful. The fact that

2115: 2111: 1882: 1878: 1449:

I agree also, sounds like a good idea. I'd personally prefer the title

1019: 856:

I was looking through the arthropod categories to make a list of them (

789: 628: 353: 352:

Paurometabolism : both larvae and adults live in the same environment (

340: 336: 245: 4059:

Knowledge:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals#Wildlife Barnstar

2235:

I've gone ahead and created a page for this family, using this photo.

2114:

article just has (kingdom-phylum-)class-superorder-order, whereas the

86: 4934: 4762: 4623: 4613: 4596: 3408: 2978: 2881: 2825: 2275: 2271: 1616: 1577: 1482: 1478: 1458: 1255:

like transclusion to save everyone the burden of entering taxoboxes.

105: 4232: 4006:. For information on how to use the grading scheme, please refer to 2858: 2854: 620: 4947: 4811: 4801: 4797: 3539: 3527: 3496: 3488: 3253: 3242: 3227: 3211: 3188: 3135: 3052: 3019: 2218: 2035:

articles. New family articles should show the same classification.

2032: 1474: 1011: 4862: 3837:

I think your site must be wrong. I don't know how many species of

2963: 5018: 4951: 4640:

I would be grateful if someone could clarify the confusion here.

4606:

recently, and several things in the intro made me uncomfortable:

4160:) with a simpler system of having each order as a category under 3938:

is only found in the south of Turkey, so perhaps you're right. --

3394: 3272: 2811: 2428: 2366:

exclusively (and exclude, as an artificial division, the rest of

2167:

is relevant to the Coleoptera article, but not, for instance, to

1477:

appendages are homologous to those of other arthropods (they are

1133:

Ok, sounds like a good idea to me. Should we remove the category

1003: 360: 322: 275: 4766:

which erroneously was first described in that genus (which is a

3074:

which are similar in colour. I'm pretty confident the spider is

2974: 829:

Draft Guidelines for Categorisation of Articles on 'Butterflies'

4942: 4789: 4417: 4395: 3797: 3559:

Is some kind of bombardier beetle from India. Any further id ?

3535: 3531: 3521: 3301: 2715: 1991: 2759:

Could someone look at the article about the anti-tick product

2246:

Pictures of both larvae and instars for holometabolous species

1791:

Knowledge:Barnstar_and_award_proposals#Nature-related_Barnstar

4804:, the latter is used by many to refer solely to one species, 2196: 1770:

I would also guess at a beetle larva. My best guess would be

1045:

Tell me what you think should be done to these categories. --

922:

in the "neoptera" category (which is further divided between

4992:

comparison. The general rootworm comments were moved to the

4348: 3164:

Hi. I've just been checking Fauna Europaea again - it lists

1580:

article exists, it could be used to link them all together.

4402:

license, but labelled as "snagged", whatever that means. --

4326:

Knowledge:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Veterinary Medicine

3499:

rather than Tachinidae but a specific ID may be beyond me.

3309: 2719: 2669:

and have the few remaining articles just floating about in

1739: 780: 3316:

and have a look, I would much appreciate the perspective.

615:

category. There is a list of some 50 odd such articles ].

2767:". Does this really follow Knowledge guidelines? Thanks. 2711: 2707: 267:

Knowledge:WikiProject Birds#Bird names and article titles

3761:

I think this may well be a freshwater crab of the genus

234:

Knowledge - The reference or field identification guide.

4633:

Next, I thought that ambush bugs are their own family,

4085:

Knowledge:WikiProject Arthropods/Article Classification

4008:

Knowledge:WikiProject Arthropods/Article Classification

1326:, was the original point which still goes unanswered. 1213:

retrieve every page on which the search string appears.

510:

An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America

206:

which I am steward of. This a part of a larger effort,

4968:

This page refers to all species collectively known as

1226:

okay, because (1) it's a colloquial and familiar name

3702:, a male by the lack of ovipositor. I would guess at 864:, there are the subcategories for each insect order ( 4261:

might be a good idea to have a section/table on the

3841:

there are in Turkey, but it must be at least three.

3353:

page is not a myrmecophilid at all but some kind of

3347:

Can someone back me up in thinking the photo on the

860:), and I found the following inconsistency : in the 104:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 82: 38:This page does not require a rating on Knowledge's 4574:was unnecessary. Recently, though, according to 4078:Knowledge:WikiProject Arthropods/Style suggestions 2735:cephalocarids and their relationship to trilobites 2673:until we find we've got too many. Any comments? -- 4626:, it only mentions one species baring that name ( 210:. This 'project' is being developed basically by 5060: 2763:? I'm sceptical about some things, such as the " 1697:. There's still a lot that can be added though! 3117:Thanks, nice work, WP never ceases to amaze me. 3051:. Any IDs would be much appreciated. Thanks, -- 1619:(which already exists) can be used to point to 683:has been created, along with the corresponding 4796:should both be redirects that take one to the 4784:Mantid/Mantis/Mantidae/Mantodea/Praying Mantis 3765:; they are quite often observed out of water. 3062:Hi. The red beetle in the first six pics is a 2618:The dolomite quarry where we found the beetle. 2208:Wonder if someone can identify this further ? 373:slightly confused by the diverging sources. -- 4351:in case you want to see it. Any suggestions? 3736:) belongs to here. Again from same region. -- 3304:folk might read it. I've worked some on the 2956:Quite a spectacular looking species from the 1658:the structure of the article (headings, etc.) 1341:Knowledge:Categories, lists, and series boxes 1063:Knowledge:Categories, lists, and series boxes 3300:I thought I'd post here, because interested 1061:I found the following statement on the page 585:; namely every stub that doesn't fit into a 4622:However, if you take a look at the article 3459:All pictures were taken in France. Thanks, 887:, which in turn contains the subcategories 879:. This category contains the subcategories 204:List of Butterflies of India (Papilionidae) 4057:There is currently a barnstar proposal at 792:article. You may find more information on 4912:, mentioning each of the species in turn. 4905:, mentioning each of the species in turn. 4774:the weevil genus has only a few species) 4760:This presently redirects to the dinosaur 4446:User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week 4017:Articles needing assessment can be found 3896:CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( 3698:Wow! That is a corker:) It is definitely 3221:Yep "just a bumble bee". 30 (count 'em!) 3125:though I guess it could just be underfed. 1145:) and just have the insect orders in the 31: 29: 4416: 4099:Category:WikiProject Arthropods articles 3680:I took this ptotos in Turkey this year, 3231:to me but I'm not a great plant expert. 2973: 2962: 2798: 2613: 2605: 2597: 2427: 2401: 2195: 2181:, even though it's only a subphylum). -- 1774:, a cosmopolitan household commensal. -- 1729: 4221:IOW, don't just remove it, but put the 4097:by importance and by quality. See also 3845:occurs there (see link above), as does 3647:Knowledge:WikiProject Council/Directory 3495:is my guess. I reckon the fifth may be 3128:Good luck (and thanks) with the beetle! 2971:And this I believe is a Brentid weevil 2106:Taxonomic ranks detail in the taxoboxes 14: 5061: 4972:- for the Western corn rootworm, see ] 4933:Similar problems have occurred on the 4908:Have a large multi-species article at 4899:Have a large multi-species article at 4889:). The article used to be specific to 2884:, as it is poor by scientific terms - 1177:As a response to a comment to me from 240:ButterflyIndia - the discussion group. 237:Tekdi Eco Portal - The field notebook. 4881:In assessing articles, I came across 4400:Attribution Non-Commercial ShareAlike 1873:Taxonomic confusion in the Neuroptera 18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Arthropods 4562:is the correct name. Historically, 4320:Proposed Veterinary medicine project 4235:and it will be imported quickly. `-- 3858:Organisms, Diversity & Evolution 2857:it is, then. It looks a lot like a 192:An Indian Wiki effort on Lepidoptera 25: 4459:Subprojects and article assessments 4324:There is now a proposed project at 3930:may be / have been a subspecies of 3796:I take both photos in a village of 2225:. Don't know which species, though. 1877:My attention has been drawn to the 44:It is of interest to the following 23: 4602:I was reading through the article 4581:Please discuss this matter on the 3615:Shrimp diagram request for comment 3198:FE is a website - check it out at 2920:I have been requested to identify 1228:with relatively limited dimensions 24: 5095: 5074:NA-importance Arthropods articles 5069:Project-Class Arthropods articles 4595:Confusion in the taxonomy of the 2824:Hi. It looks like it is probably 98:This page is within the scope of 4861:Please be aware of the proposed 4413:Cannot find a Graphosoma article 3777:Image:Suesswasserkrebs Kreta.jpg 3596: 3587: 3578: 3444: 3429: 3415: 3401: 3387: 3256:who I always find very helpful. 2334:Proposed WikiProject Lepidoptera 2023:I made the modifications on the 305:then an article is needed..... 145: 118:Knowledge:WikiProject Arthropods 85: 75: 57: 30: 5079:WikiProject Arthropods articles 4696:Boll Weevil Eradication Program 4394:has, however, been uploaded to 2524:Anyone wanna tackle mouthparts? 2274:entry being only a redirect to 2270:I feel uncomfortable about the 998:The problem is with the orders 121:Template:WikiProject Arthropods 4136:Insect superordinal categories 3853:(don't be fooled by the name; 3564:13:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC) 3547:12:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 3542:and the history is retained ? 3515:16:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC) 3504:23:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3482:18:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3372:21:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC) 3362:12:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC) 2100:20:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 2080:16:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 1010:article) do not belong to the 553:01:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC) 540:22:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC) 530:21:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC) 517:15:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 501:06:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 488:05:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 473:no problem - page looks good! 13: 1: 4849:18:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 4836:18:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 4825:18:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 4779:04:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 4744:17:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 4720:17:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 4680:17:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 4661:21:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 4651:20:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 4590:00:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 4454:17:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC) 4430:17:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC) 4407:08:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC) 4384:07:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC) 4371:02:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC) 4312:19:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 4299:01:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 4270:20:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC) 4206:01:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 4179:19:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC) 4169:16:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC) 4131:02:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC) 4066:15:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC) 4048:23:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC) 3926:), which I don't understand, 3084:, I would guess the genus is 3049:User:Cfp\Unidentified Insects 827:So here goes, I've created a 711:, it is greatly appreciated. 703:from their present location, 269:. The situation for birds is 112:and see a list of open tasks. 4541:22:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 4519:03:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 4493:00:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC) 4472:00:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC) 4334:22:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC) 3973:15:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3943:15:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3817:15:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3805:14:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3784:14:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3772:, but so may other species ( 3753:14:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3741:13:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3724:12:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3714:12:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3693:11:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3671:23:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 3150:but Fauna Europaea lists 19 2795:Unidentified bug on milkweed 2350:) have decided to undertake 1038:, which are linked from the 208:List of Butterflies of India 7: 4612:includes assassin bugs and 3632:17:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC) 3610:10:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 3332:14:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 3321:15:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 3296:Help: An "Island of Fleas"? 3290:10:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 3280:08:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 3261:09:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC) 3246:19:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 3236:11:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 3215:10:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 2418:04:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 2288:Let me know what you think. 769:02:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 705:Category:Invertebrate stubs 454:OK, I did some work on the 265:I have removed the link to 10: 5100: 4566:was the original one, but 4398:, apparently under the CC 4106:Category:Arthropod anatomy 3769:occurs in parts of Turkey 3206:07:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC) 3192:16:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 3178:16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 3160:11:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 3139:11:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 3109:09:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 3097:09:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 3056:00:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC) 3034:04:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC) 3023:03:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC) 3008:23:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC) 2993:11:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC) 2638:Hymenoptera categorisation 1765:01:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 1738:I found this photo on the 1720:17:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC) 1688:18:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC) 1652:User:IronChris/Insect wing 1636:07:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 1603:04:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 1564:04:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 1534:21:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 1441:21:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 1423:07:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 1173:00:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 1124:11:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 1102:07:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 1081:21:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 1056:20:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 1006:, which (according to the 847:19:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 811:01:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 774:02:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 722:15:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 671:07:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 643:03:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 478:05:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 469:03:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 443:02:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 421:23:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 398:06:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 384:02:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 310:21:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC) 295:07:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC) 256:04:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC) 5052:18:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC) 5042:03:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC) 5027:02:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC) 5003:22:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC) 4979:17:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC) 4928:14:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC) 4870:17:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC) 4349:http://tolweb.org/Isopoda 3870:10.1016/j.ode.2005.09.006 3645:has recently updated the 3201:. I find it very useful. 2946:07:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC) 2930:09:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC) 2911:22:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC) 2896:03:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC) 2866:13:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC) 2850:13:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC) 2833:11:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC) 2819:13:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC) 2727:06:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 2693:16:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 2678:10:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 2633:17:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 2594:08:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 2576:16:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC) 2563:11:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 2354:as a daughter project of 2263:Merostomata and Xiphosura 2170:Coccinella septempunctata 1734:unidentified insect larva 1693:I have moved the page to 697:Category:Crustacean stubs 70: 52: 3989:Brand new grading scheme 3923:To judge by this paper ( 3557:Image:Bombardier_blr.jpg 3080:. The shiny beetle is a 3070:although there are some 2790:18:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 2748:05:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC) 2584:A colour-changing beetle 2534:17:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 2519:08:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 2496:13:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 2468:16:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 2459:12:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 2398:03:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 2383:18:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC) 2328:18:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC) 2295:11:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC) 2258:03:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 2240:17:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 2230:17:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC) 2213:12:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC) 2186:06:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC) 2144:22:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 2069:23:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC) 2058:22:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 1378:23:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 1353:WikiProject Tree of Life 1347:from that of categories. 1331:18:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 1307:16:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 1293:14:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 1260:10:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 1247:18:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC) 701:Category:Arthropod stubs 3314:Isle of Bute#Entomology 3013:Insect/Butterfly photos 2388:Tiger Beetle needing id 2352:WikiProject Lepidoptera 2018:15:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC) 1983:23:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC) 1971:18:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC) 1867:18:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC) 1839:23:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 1821:15:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 1779:12:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 1201:That the way a taxobox 831:. For comments please. 699:should be moved to the 693:Category:Arachnid stubs 5084:WikiProject Arthropods 5047:preferrable approach. 4512:Porphyrophora polonica 4422: 4339:About an image I found 4146:Category:Endopterygota 4071:About this WikiProject 3849:(your link), but also 3605:in any case thankyou - 2986: 2968: 2803: 2619: 2611: 2603: 2433: 2412:Cicindela aurofasciata 2407: 2406:Cicindela aurofasciata 2356:WikiProject Arthropods 2205: 2192:Leaf insect species Id 1735: 1726:Unidentified arthropod 1024:Category:Endopterygota 958:Category:Endopterygota 894:Category:Endopterygota 736:Criteria for Inclusion 101:WikiProject Arthropods 4989:Western corn rootworm 4917:western corn rootworm 4883:western corn rootworm 4876:Western corn rootworm 4550:I'm not sure whether 4420: 4357:comment was added by 4142:Category:Exopterygota 3625:Image talk:Shrimp.svg 2977: 2966: 2802: 2617: 2609: 2601: 2431: 2405: 2200:Leaf insect from the 2199: 2077:-BMW, Minor Copy-Edit 1733: 1028:Category:Exopterygota 975:Category:Exopterygota 900:Category:Exopterygota 790:Iphiclides podalirius 738:, and, other thoughts 689:Category:Insect stubs 550:-BMW, Minor Copy-Edit 527:-BMW, Minor Copy-Edit 514:-BMW, Minor Copy-Edit 485:-BMW, Minor Copy-Edit 4887:Diabrotica virgifera 4435:Knowledge Day Awards 3734:tr:Image:Resim14.jpg 3732:I guess this photo ( 3676:help on species name 3271:Were you aware that 2855:Oncopeltus fasciatus 2843:Oncopeltus fasciatus 2765:technological review 2671:Category:Hymenoptera 2644:Category:Hymenoptera 1408:Arthropod trochanter 967:Category:Hymenoptera 963:Category:Lepidoptera 889:Category:Cockroaches 866:Category:Hymenoptera 798:meta:Wikispecies FAQ 730:Our own sections on 664:Image:Protura-sp.gif 335:: no metamorphosis ( 4919:since mid-January). 4863:Species microformat 4669:Excellent. Thanks. 4421:Graphosoma lineatum 4214:Please let me know! 4158:Category:Apterygota 4012:WikiProject Spiders 3686:tr:Image:Resim8.jpg 3682:tr:Image:Resim8.jpg 3643:WikiProject Council 3040:Unidentifed insects 2511:Procambarus clarkii 2503:Procambarus clarkii 1500:arthropod appendage 1451:Arthropod appendage 1137:(and subcategories 1036:Category:Paleoptera 943:Category:Apterygota 909:Category:Orthoptera 783:: Wikispecies is a 621:this spider picture 124:Arthropods articles 4958:species, and ONLY 4423: 4154:Category:Pterygota 4108:. Happy editing! 3885:Unknown parameter 2987: 2969: 2859:Small Milkweed Bug 2804: 2620: 2612: 2604: 2434: 2408: 2360:Indian butterflies 2206: 1796:The E=MC² Barnstar 1736: 1629:Talk:Arthropod leg 980:Category:Hemiptera 948:Category:Pterygota 877:Category:Pterygota 870:Category:Hemiptera 40:content assessment 4709:of mid-importance 4583:article talk page 4553:Eciton burchellii 4374: 4183:Yup, no problem. 4150:Category:Neoptera 4053:Wildlife Barnstar 3902: 3637:Project directory 3493:Eurydema oleracea 3077:Pisaura mirabilis 2916:Butterfly picture 2893: 2878:improvement drive 2872:Improvement drive 2569:edit "mouthparts" 2217:That's the genus 1826:Quote suggestions 1740:Wikimedia commons 1032:Category:Neoptera 1030:(which belong to 953:Category:Neoptera 913:Category:Termites 817:Quickdraw McGraw! 779:A little note on 580:invertebrate-stub 189: 188: 161:current talk page 140: 139: 136: 135: 132: 131: 93:Arthropods portal 5091: 4817:Mantis religiosa 4807:Mantis religiosa 4628:Arilus cristatus 4568:Eciton burchelli 4559:Eciton burchelli 4528:article correct? 4508:Polish cochineal 4501:Polish cochineal 4487: 4481: 4352: 4287: 4257:Participant info 4248: 4241: 4230: 4224: 4194: 4162:Category:Insects 4119: 4096: 4090: 4036: 4005: 3999: 3901: 3894: 3888: 3883: 3881: 3873: 3854: 3651:User:B2T2/Portal 3600: 3591: 3582: 3470: 3448: 3433: 3419: 3405: 3391: 3068:Rhagonycha fulva 2938:Parthenos sylvia 2894: 2889: 2778: 2551: 2484: 2447: 2316: 2132: 2046: 2006: 1959: 1855: 1809: 1785:Biology barnstar 1753: 1708: 1676: 1591: 1522: 1498:Under the title 1400:Arthropod tarsus 1366: 1161: 1147:Category:Insects 1040:Category:Insects 938:Category:Insects 905:Category:Mantids 862:Category:Insects 794:meta:Wikispecies 661: 655: 614: 608: 604: 598: 594: 588: 584: 578: 574: 568: 300:Heterometabolism 261:Names and titles 196:Dear IronChris, 175: 163: 149: 142: 141: 126: 125: 122: 119: 116: 95: 90: 89: 79: 72: 71: 61: 54: 53: 35: 34: 33: 26: 5099: 5098: 5094: 5093: 5092: 5090: 5089: 5088: 5059: 5058: 5015: 4879: 4859: 4786: 4776:Dysmorodrepanis 4758: 4702:It was me that 4692: 4600: 4548: 4530: 4504: 4485: 4479: 4461: 4437: 4415: 4353:—The preceding 4345:Cymothoa exigua 4341: 4322: 4283: 4259: 4250: 4246: 4237: 4228: 4222: 4216: 4190: 4138: 4115: 4094: 4088: 4073: 4055: 4032: 4003: 3997: 3991: 3895: 3886: 3884: 3875: 3874: 3678: 3639: 3617: 3601: 3592: 3583: 3571: 3554: 3525: 3466: 3455: 3449: 3440: 3434: 3425: 3420: 3411: 3406: 3397: 3392: 3380: 3345: 3298: 3269: 3042: 3015: 3000:Narycius opalus 2983:Orychodes indus 2954: 2918: 2903: 2885: 2874: 2797: 2774: 2757: 2737: 2653:for Formicidae, 2640: 2586: 2547: 2526: 2506: 2480: 2443: 2426: 2424:Other beetle ID 2390: 2336: 2312: 2265: 2248: 2194: 2163:belongs in the 2128: 2108: 2042: 2002: 1955: 1936:: superorder = 1923:: superorder = 1900:: superorder = 1875: 1851: 1828: 1805: 1787: 1749: 1728: 1704: 1672: 1648: 1587: 1518: 1404:Arthropod tibia 1396:Arthropod femur 1388: 1362: 1157: 854: 819: 748:User:Stemonitis 740: 659: 653: 612: 610:crustacean-stub 606: 602: 596: 592: 586: 582: 576: 572: 566: 563: 561:Arthropods stub 302: 263: 194: 171: 159: 123: 120: 117: 114: 113: 91: 84: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5097: 5087: 5086: 5081: 5076: 5071: 5057: 5056: 5055: 5054: 5014: 5012:Taxonomic keys 5009: 5008: 5007: 5006: 5005: 4982: 4981: 4970:corn rootworms 4921: 4920: 4913: 4906: 4878: 4873: 4858: 4855: 4854: 4853: 4852: 4851: 4839: 4838: 4822:138.23.134.119 4794:Praying mantis 4785: 4782: 4757: 4752: 4751: 4750: 4749: 4748: 4747: 4746: 4732: 4731: 4730: 4729: 4723: 4722: 4691: 4686: 4685: 4684: 4683: 4682: 4664: 4663: 4620: 4619: 4599: 4593: 4547: 4544: 4529: 4522: 4503: 4497: 4496: 4495: 4460: 4457: 4436: 4433: 4414: 4411: 4410: 4409: 4387: 4386: 4340: 4337: 4321: 4318: 4317: 4316: 4315: 4314: 4302: 4301: 4258: 4255: 4253: 4244: 4215: 4212: 4211: 4210: 4209: 4208: 4137: 4134: 4072: 4069: 4054: 4051: 3990: 3987: 3986: 3985: 3984: 3983: 3982: 3981: 3980: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3976: 3975: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3950: 3949: 3948: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3912: 3911: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3906: 3905: 3904: 3903: 3864:(3): 199–217. 3826: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3756: 3755: 3750:Richard Barlow 3744: 3743: 3729: 3728: 3727: 3726: 3711:Richard Barlow 3677: 3674: 3638: 3635: 3616: 3613: 3603: 3602: 3595: 3593: 3586: 3584: 3577: 3570: 3567: 3553: 3550: 3524: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3507: 3506: 3501:Richard Barlow 3457: 3456: 3450: 3443: 3441: 3435: 3428: 3426: 3421: 3414: 3412: 3407: 3400: 3398: 3393: 3386: 3379: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3359:Richard Barlow 3344: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3329:Richard Barlow 3297: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3287:Richard Barlow 3268: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3258:Richard Barlow 3250: 3249: 3248: 3233:Richard Barlow 3219: 3218: 3217: 3203:Richard Barlow 3196: 3195: 3194: 3175:Richard Barlow 3162: 3157:Richard Barlow 3143: 3142: 3141: 3132: 3129: 3126: 3122: 3118: 3112: 3111: 3106:Richard Barlow 3099: 3094:Richard Barlow 3064:soldier beetle 3060: 3059: 3058: 3041: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3014: 3011: 2953: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2943:Richard Barlow 2927:Richard Barlow 2917: 2914: 2902: 2899: 2873: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2852: 2847:Richard Barlow 2835: 2830:Richard Barlow 2796: 2793: 2756: 2751: 2736: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2696: 2695: 2667: 2666: 2663:Category:Wasps 2660: 2659:for Apiformes, 2654: 2639: 2636: 2626: 2625: 2585: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2525: 2522: 2505: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2432:Coccinellidae? 2425: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2389: 2386: 2335: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2264: 2261: 2247: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2193: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2157: 2107: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2083: 2082: 2064:organization. 2061: 2060: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1945: 1944: 1931: 1918: 1910:, suborders = 1874: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1827: 1824: 1786: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1727: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1663: 1662: 1659: 1647: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1444: 1443: 1392:Arthropod coxa 1387: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1348: 1344: 1334: 1333: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1296: 1295: 1285: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1215: 1214: 1207: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1084: 1083: 996: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 987: 972: 971: 970: 945: 853: 850: 818: 815: 814: 813: 785:taxonomic only 739: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 674: 673: 657:arthropod-stub 625:horseshoe crab 570:arthropod-stub 562: 559: 558: 557: 556: 555: 543: 542: 522: 521: 520: 519: 495: 494: 456:hemimetabolism 452: 451: 450: 449: 448: 447: 446: 445: 428: 427: 426: 425: 424: 423: 403: 402: 401: 400: 387: 386: 369: 368: 367: 366: 365: 364: 357: 347:Hemimetabolism 344: 330: 319:Holometabolism 301: 298: 262: 259: 242: 241: 238: 235: 193: 190: 187: 186: 150: 138: 137: 134: 133: 130: 129: 127: 110:the discussion 97: 96: 80: 68: 67: 62: 50: 49: 43: 36: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5096: 5085: 5082: 5080: 5077: 5075: 5072: 5070: 5067: 5066: 5064: 5053: 5050: 5045: 5044: 5043: 5040: 5036: 5031: 5030: 5029: 5028: 5025: 5020: 5013: 5004: 5001: 4997: 4996: 4990: 4986: 4985: 4984: 4983: 4980: 4977: 4973: 4971: 4965: 4964:corn rootworm 4961: 4957: 4953: 4949: 4944: 4940: 4939:cicada killer 4936: 4932: 4931: 4930: 4929: 4926: 4918: 4914: 4911: 4910:corn rootworm 4907: 4904: 4903: 4898: 4897: 4896: 4894: 4892: 4888: 4884: 4877: 4872: 4871: 4868: 4864: 4850: 4847: 4843: 4842: 4841: 4840: 4837: 4834: 4829: 4828: 4827: 4826: 4823: 4819: 4818: 4813: 4809: 4808: 4803: 4799: 4795: 4791: 4781: 4780: 4777: 4773: 4769: 4765: 4764: 4756: 4745: 4742: 4738: 4737: 4736: 4735: 4734: 4733: 4727: 4726: 4725: 4724: 4721: 4718: 4714: 4710: 4705: 4701: 4700: 4699: 4697: 4690: 4681: 4678: 4674: 4673: 4668: 4667: 4666: 4665: 4662: 4659: 4655: 4654: 4653: 4652: 4649: 4645: 4644: 4638: 4636: 4631: 4629: 4625: 4617: 4615: 4609: 4608: 4607: 4605: 4598: 4592: 4591: 4588: 4584: 4579: 4577: 4573: 4569: 4565: 4564:E. burchellii 4561: 4560: 4555: 4554: 4546:Correct name? 4543: 4542: 4539: 4534: 4527: 4526:Coccinellidae 4521: 4520: 4517: 4513: 4509: 4502: 4499:New article: 4494: 4491: 4484: 4483:ArthropodTalk 4476: 4475: 4474: 4473: 4470: 4466: 4456: 4455: 4452: 4451:Badbilltucker 4447: 4442: 4432: 4431: 4428: 4419: 4408: 4405: 4401: 4397: 4393: 4389: 4388: 4385: 4382: 4377: 4376: 4375: 4372: 4368: 4364: 4360: 4359:Birdmaster300 4356: 4350: 4346: 4336: 4335: 4332: 4331:Badbilltucker 4327: 4313: 4310: 4309:Goldfinger820 4306: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4300: 4297: 4293: 4292: 4288: 4286: 4281: 4280: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4271: 4268: 4267:Goldfinger820 4264: 4254: 4251: 4249: 4242: 4240: 4234: 4227: 4219: 4207: 4204: 4200: 4199: 4195: 4193: 4188: 4187: 4182: 4181: 4180: 4177: 4176:Goldfinger820 4173: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4167: 4163: 4159: 4155: 4151: 4147: 4143: 4133: 4132: 4129: 4125: 4124: 4120: 4118: 4113: 4112: 4107: 4102: 4100: 4093: 4092:ArthropodTalk 4086: 4081: 4079: 4068: 4067: 4064: 4063:Badbilltucker 4060: 4050: 4049: 4046: 4042: 4041: 4037: 4035: 4030: 4029: 4022: 4020: 4015: 4013: 4009: 4002: 4001:ArthropodTalk 3994: 3974: 3971: 3966: 3965: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3944: 3941: 3937: 3933: 3929: 3925: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3917: 3916: 3915: 3914: 3913: 3899: 3892: 3879: 3871: 3867: 3863: 3859: 3852: 3848: 3844: 3840: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3818: 3815: 3811: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3803: 3799: 3795: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3785: 3782: 3778: 3775: 3771: 3768: 3764: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3754: 3751: 3746: 3745: 3742: 3739: 3735: 3731: 3730: 3725: 3722: 3717: 3716: 3715: 3712: 3708: 3706: 3701: 3700:Tettigoniidae 3697: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3691: 3687: 3683: 3673: 3672: 3669: 3664: 3663:collaboration 3660: 3656: 3652: 3648: 3644: 3634: 3633: 3630: 3626: 3621: 3612: 3611: 3608: 3599: 3594: 3590: 3585: 3581: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3566: 3565: 3562: 3558: 3549: 3548: 3545: 3541: 3538:redirects to 3537: 3533: 3530:redirects to 3529: 3523: 3516: 3513: 3509: 3508: 3505: 3502: 3498: 3494: 3490: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3480: 3476: 3475: 3471: 3469: 3464: 3463: 3453: 3447: 3442: 3438: 3432: 3427: 3424: 3423:Ichneumonidae 3418: 3413: 3410: 3404: 3399: 3396: 3390: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3373: 3370: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3360: 3356: 3352: 3351: 3350:Myrmecophilus 3342: 3341: 3340:Myrmecophilus 3333: 3330: 3325: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3319: 3315: 3311: 3307: 3303: 3291: 3288: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3278: 3274: 3262: 3259: 3255: 3251: 3247: 3244: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3234: 3230: 3229: 3224: 3220: 3216: 3213: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3204: 3200: 3197: 3193: 3190: 3186: 3185:Kranjska Gora 3181: 3180: 3179: 3176: 3171: 3167: 3163: 3161: 3158: 3153: 3149: 3144: 3140: 3137: 3133: 3130: 3127: 3123: 3119: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3110: 3107: 3103: 3100: 3098: 3095: 3091: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3078: 3073: 3072:Cantharis spp 3069: 3065: 3061: 3057: 3054: 3050: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3035: 3032: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3021: 3010: 3009: 3006: 3002: 3001: 2995: 2994: 2991: 2984: 2980: 2976: 2972: 2965: 2961: 2959: 2958:Western Ghats 2952:A Scarabeid ? 2947: 2944: 2940: 2939: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2928: 2923: 2913: 2912: 2909: 2898: 2897: 2892: 2888: 2883: 2880:? I nominate 2879: 2876:How about an 2867: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2853: 2851: 2848: 2844: 2840: 2836: 2834: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2817: 2813: 2809: 2801: 2792: 2791: 2788: 2784: 2783: 2779: 2777: 2772: 2771: 2766: 2762: 2755: 2750: 2749: 2746: 2741: 2728: 2725: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2694: 2691: 2687: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2676: 2672: 2665:for Vespidae, 2664: 2661: 2658: 2657:Category:Bees 2655: 2652: 2651:Category:Ants 2649: 2648: 2647: 2645: 2635: 2634: 2631: 2622: 2621: 2616: 2608: 2600: 2596: 2595: 2592: 2577: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2561: 2557: 2556: 2552: 2550: 2545: 2544: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2532: 2521: 2520: 2517: 2513: 2512: 2504: 2497: 2494: 2490: 2489: 2485: 2483: 2478: 2477: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2466: 2461: 2460: 2457: 2453: 2452: 2448: 2446: 2441: 2440: 2430: 2419: 2416: 2413: 2410: 2409: 2404: 2400: 2399: 2396: 2385: 2384: 2381: 2376: 2371: 2369: 2365: 2364:Papilionoidea 2361: 2357: 2353: 2349: 2345: 2341: 2329: 2326: 2322: 2321: 2317: 2315: 2310: 2309: 2304: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2260: 2259: 2256: 2253: 2241: 2238: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2215: 2214: 2211: 2203: 2202:Western Ghats 2198: 2187: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2171: 2166: 2165:Endopterygota 2162: 2158: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2142: 2138: 2137: 2133: 2131: 2126: 2125: 2119: 2117: 2113: 2101: 2098: 2094: 2093: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2081: 2078: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2067: 2059: 2056: 2052: 2051: 2047: 2045: 2040: 2039: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2025:Raphidioptera 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2016: 2012: 2011: 2007: 2005: 2000: 1999: 1993: 1984: 1981: 1980:Goldfinger820 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1969: 1965: 1964: 1960: 1958: 1953: 1952: 1943: 1942:Raphidioptera 1939: 1935: 1934:Raphidioptera 1932: 1930: 1926: 1925:Endopterygota 1922: 1919: 1917: 1916:Raphidioptera 1913: 1909: 1905: 1904: 1903:Endopterygota 1899: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1892: 1891:Raphidioptera 1888: 1884: 1880: 1868: 1865: 1861: 1860: 1856: 1854: 1849: 1848: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1837: 1836:Goldfinger820 1834: 1823: 1822: 1819: 1815: 1814: 1810: 1808: 1803: 1802: 1797: 1792: 1780: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1763: 1759: 1758: 1754: 1752: 1747: 1746: 1741: 1732: 1721: 1718: 1714: 1713: 1709: 1707: 1702: 1701: 1696: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1686: 1682: 1681: 1677: 1675: 1670: 1669: 1660: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1653: 1637: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1622: 1621:arthropod leg 1618: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1604: 1601: 1597: 1596: 1592: 1590: 1585: 1584: 1579: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1565: 1562: 1561:Goldfinger820 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1535: 1532: 1528: 1527: 1523: 1521: 1516: 1515: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1501: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1471:Goldfinger820 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1460: 1456: 1455:Arthropod leg 1452: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1442: 1439: 1438:Goldfinger820 1435: 1431: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1412:Arthropod leg 1409: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1386:Arthropod leg 1379: 1376: 1372: 1371: 1367: 1365: 1360: 1359: 1354: 1349: 1345: 1342: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1332: 1329: 1325: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1305: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1294: 1291: 1286: 1283: 1282:Category:Ants 1278: 1274: 1270: 1267: 1266: 1261: 1258: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1245: 1240: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1219: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1195: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1175: 1174: 1171: 1167: 1166: 1162: 1160: 1155: 1154: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1139:Endopterygota 1136: 1125: 1122: 1118: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1103: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1082: 1079: 1075: 1074: 1069: 1064: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1054: 1050: 1049: 1043: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1014:, but to the 1013: 1009: 1005: 1001: 1000:Ephemeroptera 985: 984:Category:Lice 981: 978: 977: 976: 973: 968: 964: 961: 960: 959: 956: 955: 954: 951: 950: 949: 946: 944: 941: 940: 939: 936: 935: 934: 931: 929: 925: 924:Endopterygota 921: 916: 914: 910: 906: 902: 901: 896: 895: 890: 886: 882: 878: 875: 871: 867: 863: 859: 849: 848: 845: 840: 836: 832: 830: 825: 822: 812: 809: 805: 804: 799: 795: 791: 786: 782: 778: 777: 776: 775: 772: 768: 763: 759: 756: 752: 749: 743: 737: 733: 723: 720: 716: 715: 710: 706: 702: 698: 694: 690: 686: 682: 678: 677: 676: 675: 672: 669: 665: 658: 651: 647: 646: 645: 644: 641: 637: 636: 630: 626: 622: 616: 611: 601: 600:arachnid-stub 591: 581: 571: 554: 551: 547: 546: 545: 544: 541: 538: 537:Goldfinger820 534: 533: 532: 531: 528: 518: 515: 511: 507: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 499: 498:Goldfinger820 492: 491: 490: 489: 486: 480: 479: 476: 475:Goldfinger820 471: 470: 467: 463: 462: 457: 444: 441: 440:Goldfinger820 436: 435: 434: 433: 432: 431: 430: 429: 422: 419: 415: 414: 409: 408: 407: 406: 405: 404: 399: 396: 395:Goldfinger820 391: 390: 389: 388: 385: 382: 378: 377: 371: 370: 362: 358: 355: 351: 350: 348: 345: 342: 338: 334: 331: 328: 324: 320: 317: 316: 314: 313: 312: 311: 308: 307:Goldfinger820 297: 296: 293: 289: 285: 281: 277: 272: 268: 258: 257: 254: 249: 247: 239: 236: 233: 232: 231: 227: 223: 221: 217: 216:User:VirenVaz 213: 209: 205: 202:Do visit the 200: 197: 185: 181: 180: 176: 174: 169: 168: 162: 157: 156: 151: 148: 144: 143: 128: 111: 107: 103: 102: 94: 88: 83: 81: 78: 74: 73: 69: 66: 63: 60: 56: 55: 51: 47: 41: 37: 28: 27: 19: 5016: 4993: 4969: 4967: 4963: 4959: 4955: 4922: 4900: 4891:D. virgifera 4890: 4886: 4880: 4867:Andy Mabbett 4860: 4815: 4805: 4787: 4771: 4761: 4759: 4693: 4671: 4642: 4639: 4632: 4627: 4621: 4611: 4601: 4585:. Thanks! + 4580: 4571: 4567: 4563: 4558: 4557: 4552: 4551: 4549: 4531: 4511: 4505: 4465:codling moth 4462: 4438: 4424: 4342: 4323: 4290: 4284: 4278: 4260: 4252: 4238: 4220: 4217: 4197: 4191: 4185: 4174:no worries 4139: 4122: 4116: 4110: 4103: 4082: 4074: 4056: 4039: 4033: 4027: 4023: 4016: 3995: 3992: 3935: 3931: 3927: 3878:cite journal 3861: 3857: 3850: 3846: 3842: 3838: 3773: 3766: 3762: 3703: 3679: 3640: 3618: 3604: 3572: 3555: 3526: 3492: 3473: 3467: 3461: 3458: 3437:Pentatomidae 3381: 3348: 3346: 3338: 3306:Isle of Bute 3299: 3270: 3226: 3222: 3169: 3168:as the only 3166:P. mirabilis 3165: 3151: 3148:Formica rufa 3147: 3101: 3089: 3085: 3075: 3071: 3067: 3016: 2998: 2996: 2988: 2985:Karsch, 1875 2982: 2970: 2955: 2936: 2922:this picture 2919: 2904: 2875: 2842: 2839:this picture 2805: 2781: 2775: 2769: 2758: 2742: 2738: 2703: 2685: 2668: 2641: 2627: 2587: 2554: 2548: 2542: 2527: 2509: 2508:The article 2507: 2502: 2487: 2481: 2475: 2462: 2450: 2444: 2438: 2435: 2411: 2391: 2374: 2372: 2367: 2363: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2337: 2319: 2313: 2307: 2287: 2267: 2266: 2249: 2216: 2207: 2175:Malacostraca 2168: 2149: 2135: 2129: 2123: 2120: 2109: 2062: 2049: 2043: 2037: 2009: 2003: 1997: 1989: 1962: 1956: 1950: 1946: 1941: 1937: 1933: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1901: 1897: 1876: 1858: 1852: 1846: 1831: 1829: 1812: 1806: 1800: 1788: 1771: 1756: 1750: 1744: 1737: 1711: 1705: 1699: 1679: 1673: 1667: 1664: 1649: 1594: 1588: 1582: 1525: 1519: 1513: 1499: 1486: 1433: 1429: 1415: 1389: 1369: 1363: 1357: 1323: 1242:Peace, all, 1241: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1220: 1216: 1210: 1202: 1196: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1176: 1164: 1158: 1152: 1143:Exopterygota 1132: 1094: 1090: 1072: 1066: 1047: 1044: 1016:paraphyletic 1008:Exopterygota 997: 932: 928:Exopterygota 919: 917: 898: 892: 873: 855: 841: 837: 833: 826: 823: 821:Dear Chris, 820: 802: 784: 764: 760: 757: 753: 744: 742:Dear Chris, 741: 735: 731: 713: 649: 634: 617: 564: 523: 509: 496: 481: 472: 460: 453: 412: 375: 303: 283: 270: 264: 250: 243: 228: 224: 212:User:Shyamal 201: 198: 195: 178: 172: 166: 153: 99: 46:WikiProjects 4857:Microformat 4814:page or to 4768:curculionid 4713:boll weevil 4689:Boll weevil 4576:this source 4538:John Dalton 4441:Esperanza's 3993:Hello all, 3936:P. potamios 3932:P. ibericum 3928:P. tauricum 3851:P. ibericum 3847:P. tauricum 3843:P. potamios 3767:P. potamios 3659:peer review 3641:Hello. The 3355:grasshopper 3090:Gastrophysa 3082:leaf beetle 3066:, probably 2967:Scarabeid ? 2368:Lepidoptera 2303:Merostomata 2284:Merostomata 2280:Chelicerata 2029:Megaloptera 1929:Megaloptera 1921:Megaloptera 1912:Megaloptera 1887:Megaloptera 1695:insect wing 1646:Insect wing 1625:insect wing 1485:article : " 1179:User:AshLin 781:Wikispecies 648:They don't 590:insect-stub 333:Ametabolism 327:Lepidoptera 280:Lepidoptera 220:User:AshLin 152:This is an 5063:Categories 5035:a glossary 4995:Diabrotica 4960:Diabrotica 4956:Diabrotica 4925:Stemonitis 4902:Diabrotica 4833:Stemonitis 4755:Mononychus 4741:Stemonitis 4717:Stemonitis 4715:is not. -- 4635:Phymatidae 4614:wheel bugs 4604:Reduviidae 4490:Stemonitis 4469:Richard001 4427:Leonard G. 4404:Stemonitis 4392:same image 4381:Stemonitis 4166:Stemonitis 3970:Ugur Basak 3940:Stemonitis 3814:Ugur Basak 3802:Ugur Basak 3781:Stemonitis 3738:Ugur Basak 3721:Ugur Basak 3705:Ephippiger 3690:Ugur Basak 3655:assessment 3607:LadyofHats 3452:Tachinidae 3102:Chrysolina 3086:Chrysomela 2724:Stemonitis 2675:Stemonitis 2573:Stemonitis 2516:Stemonitis 2292:Vae victis 2223:Phylliidae 2183:Stemonitis 2179:Arthropoda 2161:Coleoptera 2116:Coleoptera 2112:Neuroptera 1940:, order = 1938:Neuroptera 1927:, order = 1908:Neuroptera 1906:, order = 1898:Neuroptera 1883:Neuroptera 1879:Neuroptera 1798:. Cheers! 1776:Stemonitis 1633:Stemonitis 1420:Stemonitis 1290:Stemonitis 1099:Stemonitis 1020:Paleoptera 852:Categories 709:Stemonitis 668:Stemonitis 629:pycnogonid 354:Orthoptera 341:Apterygota 337:Collembola 292:Stemonitis 246:Iphiclides 115:Arthropods 106:arthropods 65:Arthropods 4935:honey bee 4763:Mononykus 4672:IronChris 4643:IronChris 4624:wheel bug 4597:Hemiptera 4239:SB_Johnny 3889:ignored ( 3569:need help 3409:Tabanidae 2979:Brentidae 2901:top quote 2882:centipede 2826:Lygaeidae 2375:IronChris 2276:Limulidae 2272:Xiphosura 2268:Dear all: 1833:beetles." 1772:Dermestes 1617:Appendage 1615:I agree. 1578:appendage 1483:arthropod 1479:uniramous 1459:appendage 1430:Arthropod 1203:functions 1191:identical 1073:IronChris 1048:IronChris 803:IronChris 765:Regards, 732:Structure 714:IronChris 635:IronChris 461:IronChris 413:IronChris 376:IronChris 4948:elephant 4812:Mantodea 4802:Mantidae 4798:Mantodea 4704:assessed 4367:contribs 4355:unsigned 4233:b:WB:RFI 3887:|quotes= 3629:Andrew c 3540:Vespidae 3528:Vespidae 3497:Muscidae 3489:Asilidae 3254:User:MPF 3228:Scabiosa 2837:I found 2808:Sarasota 2761:Damminix 2754:Damminix 2362:) or to 2290:Cheers. 2219:Phyllium 2151:omitted. 2033:Sialidae 1475:myriapod 1276:family). 1135:Neoptera 1117:BugGuide 1012:Neoptera 885:Neoptera 872:, etc.) 685:category 679:Ok, the 251:Regards, 218:and me ( 5049:Dyanega 5039:Shyamal 5024:Lauriec 5019:gribble 5000:Dyanega 4976:Dyanega 4952:swallow 4846:Dyanega 4658:Dyanega 4524:Is the 4516:Kpalion 4263:WP:ARTH 3839:Potamon 3763:Potamon 3561:Shyamal 3544:Shyamal 3512:Dyanega 3395:Diptera 3378:More ID 3369:Dyanega 3273:cricket 3267:Cricket 3170:Pisaura 3152:Formica 3005:Dyanega 2990:Shyamal 2863:Starwiz 2816:Starwiz 2812:Florida 2690:Dyanega 2630:Dyanega 2531:Dyanega 2465:Dyanega 2415:Shyamal 2395:Shyamal 2373:Thanks 2340:Shyamal 2237:Dyanega 2227:Dyanega 2210:Shyamal 2097:Dyanega 2066:Dyanega 1304:Dyanega 1257:Shyamal 1244:Dyanega 1183:content 1121:Cotinis 1004:Odonata 881:Odonata 361:Odonata 323:Diptera 276:Odonata 155:archive 4943:hornet 4941:, and 4790:Mantid 4677:(talk) 4648:(talk) 4396:Flickr 4296:(talk) 4226:how-to 4203:(talk) 4128:(talk) 4045:(talk) 3934:, and 3798:Eflani 3661:, and 3536:Vespid 3532:Vespid 3522:Vespid 3479:(talk) 3318:Isoxyl 3302:insect 3277:Aranae 3223:Bombus 3031:AshLin 2908:Sarefo 2891:(talk) 2787:(talk) 2716:sawfly 2591:AshLin 2560:(talk) 2493:(talk) 2456:(talk) 2380:AshLin 2348:AshLin 2325:(talk) 2255:(talk) 2252:arkuat 2155:WP:TOL 2141:(talk) 2055:(talk) 2015:(talk) 1992:insect 1968:(talk) 1864:(talk) 1818:(talk) 1762:(talk) 1717:(talk) 1685:(talk) 1600:(talk) 1531:(talk) 1375:(talk) 1328:AshLin 1232:should 1187:anyway 1170:(talk) 1078:(talk) 1053:(talk) 1034:) and 1018:group 986:, etc. 969:, etc. 911:, and 844:AshLin 808:(talk) 771:AshLin 767:AshLin 719:(talk) 640:(talk) 466:(talk) 418:(talk) 381:(talk) 288:WP:TOL 253:AshLin 184:(talk) 42:scale. 4772:think 4247:books 3779:). -- 3439:nymph 3343:photo 3310:Fleas 2704:would 2344:Viren 2221:, in 1453:over 1434:podia 16:< 4792:and 4587:A.Ou 4533:This 4390:The 4363:talk 4291:hris 4279:Iron 4198:hris 4186:Iron 4123:hris 4111:Iron 4040:hris 4028:Iron 4019:here 3898:link 3891:help 3812:. -- 3684:and 3668:B2T2 3620:This 3474:hris 3462:Iron 2887:Jack 2782:hris 2770:Iron 2745:Gary 2720:wasp 2718:and 2686:does 2571:. -- 2555:hris 2543:Iron 2488:hris 2476:Iron 2451:hris 2439:Iron 2346:and 2320:hris 2308:Iron 2177:and 2136:hris 2124:Iron 2050:hris 2038:Iron 2031:and 2010:hris 1998:Iron 1990:The 1963:hris 1951:Iron 1889:and 1859:hris 1847:Iron 1813:hris 1801:Iron 1757:hris 1745:Iron 1712:hris 1700:Iron 1680:hris 1668:Iron 1595:hris 1583:Iron 1526:hris 1514:Iron 1416:etc. 1370:hris 1358:Iron 1324:That 1211:does 1165:hris 1153:Iron 1141:and 1095:s.s. 1091:mess 1002:and 926:and 883:and 858:here 796:and 734:and 695:and 681:stub 666:? -- 650:need 284:i.e. 278:and 271:very 179:hris 167:Iron 4950:or 4675:| 4646:| 4556:or 4294:| 4201:| 4126:| 4043:| 3866:doi 3774:cf. 3627:.-- 3477:| 3243:cfp 3212:cfp 3189:cfp 3136:cfp 3088:or 3053:cfp 3020:cfp 2841:of 2785:| 2712:ant 2708:bee 2558:| 2491:| 2454:| 2323:| 2139:| 2053:| 2013:| 1966:| 1862:| 1816:| 1760:| 1715:| 1683:| 1598:| 1529:| 1489:"). 1373:| 1168:| 1076:| 1065:: " 1051:| 930:). 920:and 874:and 806:| 717:| 638:| 627:or 605:or 464:| 416:| 379:| 222:). 182:| 5065:: 4937:, 4610:" 4486:}} 4480:{{ 4369:) 4365:• 4243:|| 4229:}} 4223:{{ 4156:, 4152:, 4148:, 4144:, 4101:. 4095:}} 4089:{{ 4021:. 4004:}} 3998:{{ 3968:-- 3882:: 3880:}} 3876:{{ 3860:. 3707:sp 3657:, 3552:ID 3241:-- 3134:-- 3003:. 2981:? 2960:. 2941:. 2810:, 2714:, 2710:, 2342:, 2153:- 2075:-- 2027:, 1914:+ 1885:, 1623:, 1473:, 1406:, 1402:, 1398:, 1394:, 1236:on 1224:is 1042:. 1026:, 982:, 965:, 915:. 907:, 903:, 897:, 891:, 868:, 691:, 660:}} 654:{{ 632:-- 613:}} 607:{{ 603:}} 597:{{ 595:, 593:}} 587:{{ 583:}} 577:{{ 573:}} 567:{{ 339:, 329:). 325:, 248:. 214:, 164:. 4885:( 4618:" 4572:i 4510:( 4373:. 4361:( 4285:C 4192:C 4117:C 4034:C 3900:) 3893:) 3872:. 3868:: 3862:6 3468:C 3454:? 2776:C 2549:C 2482:C 2445:C 2314:C 2204:. 2130:C 2044:C 2004:C 1957:C 1853:C 1807:C 1751:C 1706:C 1674:C 1589:C 1520:C 1364:C 1159:C 363:) 356:) 343:) 173:C 48::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:WikiProject Arthropods/Archive 1 - Knowledge

Index