# Talk:External morphology of Lepidoptera

The article Lepidoptera to have a summary in a section. Already has one, in fact I'm borrowing text from a section 'Characteristics' from there.
This article to have a lead akin to that of Lepidoptera # Characteristics. Each section of this article on an aspect, such as  'head' or 'antenna', to be reasonably complete.
Additional materials from each of these sections to be placed in generic articles on them for further expansion. For example, additional material on scales in excess of a broad overview to go to Scale (Lepidoptera).
AshLin (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Being used by User:AshLin to determine the current state of the article. (Progress as on 24 Nov 2009.)
0. Lead: Draft lead. Provides a reasonable overview of Lepidoptera morphology but will need work on it to meet the implications of the title. 
1. External morphology: Draft. Like the lead, it needs work after all other text in its subsections are in. Needs mention of form and shape.
2. Head: 

2.1 Antennae : Most relevant facts included. Needs detailed literature check. Needs microphotographs & a diagram showing parts.
2.2 Eyes : Some facts in, needs more work.
2.3 Palpi : Appears complete.
2.4 Mouth parts : Some facts added, needs more Lepidoptera-specific stuff.
3. Thorax (incl Leg). Incomplete. Needs expansion & diagrams.
4. Abdomen. Needs expansion & diagrams.
5. Wings. Still not comprehensive or complete.

5.1 Shape : Seems reasonably complete.
5.2 Venation : Incomplete.
5.3 Wing coupling : Fairly complete.
6. Scales. Fairly well covered. Still has gaps. Needs microstructure images or diagrams.

6.1 Structure
6.2 Colour
6.3 Function
6.4 Gallery
7. Genitalia: Broad overview, needs literature check, more Lepidoptera-specific material, Needs diagrams, images etc.
8. Secondary sexual characters. Incomplete.
9. Morphology of early stages of life. Stub/starts.
10. Eggs. Incomplete. More images, text needed.
11. Caterpillar. Incomplete. More images, text needed.
12. Chrysalis or Pupa. Incomplete. More images, text needed.
13. Footnotes. Last clean-up on 24 Sep 09.
14. See also.
15. References. Last clean-up on 24 Sep 09.
Add your comments below this line.

Some Comments

Amazed by the extent to which it has grown.
Thanks. Thats a great compliment coming from you. AshLin (talk)
Not sure why "external morphology" is mentioned - the term morphology in this case seems to preclude anatomy.
The difficulty of dealing with the subject at three levels in one article - external morphology, anatomy and physiology. Was thinking of including anatomy and physiology together. What do you suggest - morph & physio, OR, external morph + (anatomy+physio)?Now going to combine internal and external morphology. AshLin (talk)
The self-referential lead is not recommended Wikipedia:SELFREF.
Okay, removed self-refs. AshLin (talk)
The structure could be divided at the top level by the life stages.
Scientifically correct but difficult for a reader to assimilate all at one time. Thought of summarising morphology for larva and pupa in their respective parts. AshLin (talk)
Shyamal (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I propose that the part of this article that deals with life-cycles be generalized and merged with Holometabolism.  The parts on the specifics of Lepidopterans should be merged with Lepidoptera.  The holometabolism page is too short as it is.  Having a page like this is like explaining how a restaurant works on a How McDonald's works page.--FUNKAMATIC   ~talk 21:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Bugboy52.4 | =-=  21:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, you can generalize and add to Holometabolism, without removing from the Lep morphology. This way, both Lep specialists and people interested in Insects in general have a great source. Ruigeroeland (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I disagree to the merger and agree with Ruigeroeland. There is enough variation in each order of insects to require specific articles for their morphology. Holometabolism should deal primarily with the metamorphosis aspects only and, like insect morphology, needs to be developed independently on its own strength. My second point, its premature to merge. Nowhere do we have a proper morphology article for insects. I would suggest, that interested editors do up the insect morphology, holometabolism and organ-specific articles to at least near-GA status before we decide to disturb the development of present articles. That is, merger and duplication be considered, once this genre of articles in Wikipedia starts meeting user requirements of knowledge, which IMHO has not yet been achieved. AshLin (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Put me down with AshLin and Ruigeroeland. Feel free to expand the article on holometabolism, as it could use some help - but do not detract from the specifics of the Lepidoptera section - especially given that this is where most "normal" people first encounter holometaboly in the natural world. Aderksen (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Keeping various discussions & no consensus in this regard. I'm removing the merger tags. AshLin (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Stemonitis,
I helped develop an article "Lepidoptera morphology" for Wikipedia. Its much better now. Whatever I could get from my online sources I have tried to add. I can't put my finger on it but I think, not being a biologist, I have probably omitted something important in the sections. May I request a quick overview from you and some specific pointers to help bring up the article to be at least complete in coverage. Other issues could be taken up later at GA time, but any comments are welcome. AshLin (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've had a quick look (and made a few small, nitpicking changes along the way). It seems to me that the article is fairly comprehensive in its scope, but that the title doesn't entirely reflect that scope. At the moment, it's more like "External anatomy of Lepidoptera". Internal anatomy is only mentioned where it is relevant to the external stuff (muscles for moving the wings, etc.). Maybe the internal anatomy of leps is not appreciably different from other insects — I wouldn't know — if so, that should be stated. There is also little discussion of overall form, which might be expected of a general "morphology" article. Even under a narrower title, I would expect a statement along the lines that "Butterflies and moths vary in size from Microlepidoptera only a few millimetres long, to conspicuous animals with a wingspan of many inches, such as the Monarch butterfly and Atlas moth" (off the top of my head). Similarly for larvae, ranging from tiny leaf miners (are there any parasites or other smaller larvae?) to larvae big enough to eat (Witchetty grubs, etc.). I would recommend either changing the title to better reflect the contents, or expanding the scope of the article to cover everything implied by the current title. I can make suggestions about formatting and so on, too (consistent capitalisation, checking for ambiguous or redirected links, etc.), but it's more important to get the content right first, I think. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! That really was what I was looking for. With your and Shyamal's suggestions, I have a direction to make this what would arguably be the best introduction online to Lepidoptera mophology. AshLin (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

External morphology of Lepidoptera (earlier Lepidoptera morphology is developing well. We need images of claspers - in fact of the male and female's sexual organs. Since we already have male & female sexual anatomy drawings we are looking for images of rear end of the butterflies. The claspers should be clearly visible, for encyclopaediac value and the female's parts too. Something like seen here : http://www.butterflyfunfacts.com/handpairbutterflymonarch.php.
We also need a hawkmoth pupa so that we can label the parts clearly. Something like this. 
Can anyone get such images for the article please? AshLin (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

See reply on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lepidoptera#Image_request_-_claspers_.26_pupa. Megan|talkcontribs 19:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Megan. AshLin (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
You're very welcome. Megan|talkcontribs 18:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I now have a few good photos of a Hyalophora cecropia pupa (I opened the cocoon to determine the sex). Would they be a good model for labeling? I will upload the photos in the morning. Megan|talkcontribs 00:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course you should upload them. Cecropia moth has no pupal photos online so thee is definite EV. Can only comment on suitability once I have a look at the photos. Thanks for pursuing this issue further. AshLin (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Here they are. :) Megan|talkcontribs 16:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Very nice. I hope you added the photos to Cecropia! Thanks. Let me see what I can do with them. They look very nice. Thanks, AshLin (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I'm glad I could help. I only added one photo to the Cecropia article, for I didn't want to crowd the gallery with all of my photos. Cheers, Megan|talkcontribs 12:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

An offline Lepidopterist, Peter Smetacek of Bhimtal, India was kind enough to provide a detailed copy-edit as well as to suggest improvements in the text of this article. My thanks to him on behalf of the Wikipedia editors who have contributed to this article and all the readers of this article. AshLin (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The head, thorax and abdomen or pygidium of arthropods are  tagmata - but in spiders and other chelicerates the head and thorax are combined. Each tagma is composed of segments. Arthropods have at most one pair of appendages per segment.  The segments of the abdomen are usually easily seen, although it has usually no appendages - but the spinnerets of spiders are modified appendages. The thorax often often looks like a unitary construction, but the legs show that it is make of segments. The head also often looks like a unitary construction, but its paired appendages with various uses show that the head is make of segments - except trilobites had no appendages on the head. --Philcha (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, made the change. Will do a more detailed cp eds later. AshLin (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Some caterpillars which are aquatic (and I only know of the china-mark moths - such as Elophila nymphaeata) have gill like structures on their abdominal segments as they get larger - presumably tracheal extensions or outgrowths. This doesn't seem to have a mention here but might be of interest for completeness.  Velella  Velella Talk   20:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have a reference, we could add it. If you can get hold of nny mentioned in Dave Hubble's page will do.AshLin (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:External morphology of Lepidoptera/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Stemonitis (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Declaration: I am a minor contributor to the article, and have previously been asked to make suggestions about its content. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Detailed comments will follow shortly. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


### First pass
Well, it's a sizeable article, and my initial impressions are very positive. I've only managed to read half of it in detail, but I thought I'd leave you comments on that now, so that you had something to be getting on with. In no particular order, then:

There are a number of links to disambiguation pages (see link in box above): Caudate, Cocoon, Costa, Cremaster, Dentate, Echolocation, Frenulum, Homology, Retinaculum, Tagma (from tagmata). Done AshLin (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I would recommend using |upright| in images which are portrait, so that they are the same overall size as the landscape images.  Done. Some images given the upright argument. Please indicate if any others need to be given this argument. To me, as of now, the issue seems to be brought under control. AshLin (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that looks fine to me now. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 Done AshLin (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I would be tempted to replace the image galleries with {{multiple image}}, which allows you to add a header explaining the encyclopaedic point of the images (e.g. "Variation in head morphology"). I think the overall number of images could probably be reduced, too. For example, when demonstrating the great variation in wing form, a single row would probably be enough, because the reader will have seen plenty of other images of typical Lepidoptera throughout the article. In that case, I would suggest the images of Pterophoridae, Syntomeida epilais, Palumbina guerinii and Hemaris diffinis; the remaining images are of less unusual leps.
Seeing that encyclopedias and books sometimes provide a gallery of images giving many examples or modifications, I'm a little reluctant to reduce the number of images, especially since Wikipedia has the capability of hosting many more images in an article than an article on the same topic in a book or journal. I'd rather provide more than less of course remembering that each and every image should have encyclopedic value. However, I'll reduce some images. The Lycaenid tail would probably be better suited elsewhere where the role of morphological characters help the survival of the insects. Still pending as a point.  Done  Nothing more to reduce on my accord.  AshLin (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The etymology in the lead appears to have been slightly mangled. The source actually gives "lepis", not "lepteron", and I would suggest linking to λεπίς / λεπίδος (i.e. {{lang|el|[[:wikt:λεπίς|λεπίς]]}}). In fact, use the etymology from the section "Scales", which appears to be correct. Done AshLin (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The lead also includes unfamiliar terms such as "obtect" and "adecticous". These need either to be explained there and then, or left out until they are discussed in detail later. Even in the section on "General body plan", where they re-appear, these terms are not explained at all. Done AshLin (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC).  Done AshLin (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC).
Lists comprising sentence fragments, such as "Distinguishing taxonomic features", should not have full stops at the end. In each case, check if the list could be converted into prose. It may not be possible, but if it is, the manual of style prefers the prose alternative.
The source has these features listed in prose. They were converted to a list while rewriting to avoid plagiarism. Please check source cited as a reference. AshLin (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
There are some instances where a reference is given in both "Harvard style", and using <ref> tags (e.g. "within the lumen of some scales (Poladian et al., 2008).[37]"). I can't see any reason to retain the Harvard-style references.  Done AshLin (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC).
We are told that the "fore-legs in the Papilionoidea exhibit reduction of various forms", but only one form of reduction is mentioned. Either re-word the sentence or provide further examples. Done AshLin (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll be back to read the second half before too long. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


### Second pass
Here goes:

The various instances of ref. [23] only cite pages 39–40, so move that information from {{rp}} to {{cite}}. Likewise, [24] is only cited once, so move pages to {{cite}}. For all others, where possible, move {{rp}} to {{cite}}.
Reduced to minimum necessary.  Done AshLin (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Scales: Colour – I assume that "(Argyros etal 2001)" is ref. [38].
Since I am quoting Argyrops et al, would it be correct to remove the inline attribution? AshLin (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
An inline citation will suffice; it doesn't need an additional, "Harvard-style" reference. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 Done AshLin (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Make sure dashes follow WP:MOSDASH – don't use hyphens in place of n-dashes ("the most complex photonic scale architectures known – regular three-dimensional periodic lattices", "androconia (singular – androconium)"). This also applies to page numbers, whether in {{rp}} or elsewhere.
Done my best. Willing to learn more. Please recheck. AshLin (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks OK to me now. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 Done AshLin (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Scales: Function – I would link "warning" to aposematism, and re-phrase "communicate their aposematism (toxicity or inedibility)" to "communicate their toxicity or inedibility", since aposematism strictly refers to the warning, not the toxicity.
It now reads: ...which are distasteful to predators help [[aposematism|communicate]] their toxicity or inedibility, thus preventing a predator from preying on it.. Will this do? AshLin (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Good solution. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 Done AshLin (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Scales: Androconia – link sexual selection.  Done AshLin (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Abdomen: "The Noctuoidea also have tympana, located on the underside of the metathorax." I think I would re-phrase this "..., but in their case they are located ...", to clarify that these tympana are not on the abdomen.  Done AshLin (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Should "Genitalia" be a subheading of "Abdomen"?  Done AshLin (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Genitalia: gloss "ductus bursae"
I did not understand. Please explain more clearly. AshLin (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. Explain what ductus bursae is/are, in general terms. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 Done. AshLin (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
link spermatheca.  Done AshLin (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Could "Morphology of early stages of life" be shortened to "Development"?  Done. AshLin (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
"... a dormant developmental stage called a pupa". Is it really dormant, or just sessile? I always thought of the metamorphosis as rather metabolically active.  Done AshLin (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps shorten the Caterpillar and Pupa sections: for summary style, they seem quite long.
 Done. Moved material on sawfly and pupal mating to Caterpillar and Pupa respectively as they could be considered not directly concerned with topic. Most people would look at caterpillar of they had a problem of identification, so though it is morphological in nature, it won't be missed in this article.AshLin (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
"Some leaf-mining microlepidoptera lack segmented thoracic legs." doesn't seem to fit in the proleg paragraph and repeats information from the previous paragraph. It could probably be removed.  Done AshLin (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Having discussed the differences between sawfly larvae and lepidopteran larvae, it might be nice to include at least one illustration of a sawfly larva. (I remember it taking me ages to identify the larva of Abia sericea once, because I had assumed it was a lep.) If you need to remove an image from the gallery to make space without running to an extra row, you could remove "Caterpiller of Common Aspen Leafminer Phyllocnistis populiella, Family", which would save you from having to fix that caption.
Already present - see fourth image in section "Caterpillar". :-) AshLin (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes. It isn't obvious that that image is connected to that paragraph. Perhaps you could add "(see image on right)" or something, after "... the larvae of sawflies". --Stemonitis (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 Done but wonder if wp:self applies. AshLin (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Moved sawfly material to Caterpillar to reduce section length vide point above. AshLin (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
"... with the family Sphingidae considered to be the most evolved." This phrasing is very old-fashioned. While we might call Sphingidae the "most derived" these days, the source appears to be an old one, and the author probably had something else in mind. It might be best to remove the phrase entirely if no more recent reference is available.  Done AshLin (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Shorten "Morphological characters in defense and predation" to "Defence and predation"?  Done AshLin (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
See also – The image of antennal forms seems out of place. I would prefer to see links to portals here: {{Portal|Insects|Arthropods}}, not least because once this passes GA, it will be listed on both of those as a selected article.
 Done. I used to place old, relevant, good-looking images for decorative purposes at the article end. I have since discontinued this practice. AshLin (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Once all these little things have been taken care of, I'll proof-read the whole article and see if anything else crops up, although I'm not expecting to find much.


### Third pass
OK, so it's taking me longer than I expected, and I'm finding more little problems than I expected. Sorry about that. I've been going through in more detail, and I've got as far as the end of the "Head" section. I'll deal with the rest soon, but again, I'll give you my comments so far, rather than keep you hanging on. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The article begins "Lepidoptera morphology...". This should probably read "The external morphology of butterflies and moths..." or something similar, in line with the current title. Done AshLin (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
"The head is capsular with appendages." The meaning isn't clear to me here.  Done AshLin (talk) 11:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
"In some butterfly genera such as Libythea and Taractrothera the knob is hollowed underneath." This is the first mention of a knob, so it needs to be explained.  Done by rearranging. AshLin (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
"Like most insects, Lepidoptera antennae also have Johnston's organ which senses any stretching between the pedicel and the rest of the antenna." To what end?  Done. Removed the sentence. Not relevant to Lepidoptera. AshLin (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
"de-focussed" vs "fully focussed". What is the significance of this distinction? I also think that "de-focussed" suggests taking a focussed image and then blurring it, whereas "unfocussed" would suggest it was never focussed in the first place.  Done Edited to "unfocussed". This is a fact picked up which differentiates ocelli in the imagines from those in larvae. AshLin (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
"The palpi are ... upward pointed, ... curving up in front of the face. Typically [they are] erect (curved upwards). ... [They] may be 'erect' (curved up in front of the face) ..." This section seems quite repetitive. It could probably be reduced to a couple of carefully worded sentences. Done AshLin (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
"Palpi consist of [three joints]." This is pedantic, but surely the palpi consist of segments, which are connected by the joints.  Done
Maxillary palpi should probably be dealt with under "Mouthparts".  Done AshLin (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
"Others, such as the basal family Micropterigidae..." Link basal?  Done. AshLin (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
"The proboscis contains muscles for operating." Operating what?  Done. Removed sentence. AshLin (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
"Suction takes place due to..." This awkward wording should be replaced by "Suction is achieved by..." or "Suction is effected through...", or something similar.  Done AshLin (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
"There is a scaling relationship between body mass of Lepidoptera and length of proboscis." I take it this means that body size and proboscis length are (positively) correlated. Is this either surprising or relevant?  Done. Expanded with example and reference. AshLin (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
No issues about the time taken or number of improvement points detected. It is a large article on a fairly complicated subject and being an engineer rather than a biologist, I'm sure to miss a number of finer nuances. The motivation to persevere is that this will be a fairly unique free resource on lepidopteran morphology when its done. AshLin (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


### Fourth pass
"... popularly but incorrectly referred to as 'veins'" needs a reference for the claim of incorrectness; it is a striking claim given that you later refer to venation.
Could not locate context outside the original 1932 reference. So deleted the phrase "popularly but incorrectly". Found the reason, added info. Changed the ref.  Done AshLin (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Venation: needs references; there appear to be some concealed in HTML comments. Done AshLin (talk) 06:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Scales: λεπίδος derives from lepis (gen. lepidos). Is this correct? If λεπίδος is the genitive of λεπίς, then it does not exactly "derive from" λεπίς, and does not need to be repeated.
I really don't know how to tackle this as I don't understand what genitive means and what to do if it is a genitive. AshLin (talk) 06:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The genitive is a different case form from the nominative, but is part of the same word. English has lost most of its case endings (cf. who / whom / whose), but other languages retain them. You would need to check back with the original source, to see how it describes the etymology; the online ref. doesn't mention λεπίδος deriving from lepis, so that can only have come from Scoble.--Stemonitis (talk) 08:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
No, could not locate the Scoble ref in the few pages visible so removed that reference. Checked up the Wiktionary linked entries, the Etymology online page and the dictionary.com page from where I had found the etymology link, I have amended the reference. Reworded. Please check.  Done AshLin (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Scales: "Downey & Allyn (1975)" - perhaps add an inline citation to their actual publication.  Done AshLin (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Structure: "macrochaetes" - this is the first time this term appears: should it be "macrotrichia"? No, macrochaetes are correct, Have linked macrochaete.  Done AshLin (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Genitalia: "The females of some moths have a scent-emitting organ located at the tip of the abdomen." This seems disconnected from the previous paragraph or two. I assume there is some connection with the genitalia.
The lack of good books to refer hinders me. Imms (9/ed, 1963) makes no mention of abdominal scent glands. Chapman (online) refers to abdominal scent organs in aphids but does not mention them in Lepidoptera but these have no connection to genitalia. Scoble & Capinera now hide the concerned pages which were earlier visible. Genitalia sections make no mention of scent glands. So what do we do? AshLin (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Since there is no direct connection with the genitalia, I would probably move the information on scent glands to the general abdomen section, or attach it to the following paragraph, about male secondary sexual characteristics. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
So moved.  Done AshLin (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Pupa: The etymology ("χρυσός") should be in the text, not (just) in a figure caption.  Done AshLin (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Defence: "Other caterpillars emit bad smells to ward off predators." This seems incongruous, and probably only repeats material later in the paragraph.  Done Deleted the sentence. AshLin (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that's all. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, just noticed this page at the moment. Will respond over the next three-four days. Thanks for your patience. AshLin (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Their seems to be a lot of redundant citations in the lead. The information in the lead should, for the most part repeat the information of the article, rather than introduce new information. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-=  03:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC).  Done AshLin (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Will work on reducing this vide WP:LEADCITE.  There is no new information, lead summarises article. Will recheck this aspect. AshLin (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Their seems to be a lot of bullet point list, was that an aesthetic choice? Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-=  03:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 Done. Reduced two lists of three points each to prose. Remaining are required to be maintained as lists imho. These lists were mostly bulleted because where I was copying them from they were in prose. Converting points in prose form to a bulletted list is a legitimate form of rewriting to avoid copyvio concerns. Where many points are in bulleted form, converting to prose makes it lessaccessible, understandable and often makes it difficult to make out how many points/facts are present. AshLin (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Their are also a lot of galleries, and images that seem redundant, For example their are two diagrams of the butterfly under External Morphology. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-=  03:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 Done. Reduced one image of morphology. Disagree regarding images too many. The galleries are required to display some of the most prominent of very large varieties of morphological features. All insect encyclopaedias have huge image sections. See pages pg 565, 570, 579, 584 of Reshe & Carde. AshLin (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. Having internet problems hence unable to do much more than email and a reply. Will address the issues you outlined once my connectivity returns. AshLin (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Is the review nearing a conclusion? Looks like things have slowed down. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

See here. I haven't forgotten. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

 This article now appears to me to fulfil the GA criteria, and I am happy to pass it. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed review. I'm sure it has helped improve the article greatly. I also would like to thank all contributors to this article for helping it develop into what it is today. Happy days! AshLin (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is little overwhelming for a middle to elementary school student who wants information on the anatomy of the butterfly.  Can I simplify this already good article without it losing its greatness?

  Bfpage |leave a message  20:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
@Bfpage: You might be interested in creating a simplified page for Simple English Wikipedia, which would then appear as a link to the left, just like other language Wiki articles. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)