Talk:Lepidoptera

message: A new phylogeny of the butterflies has been provided in the following paper : Espeland et al (2018) in Current Biology. I have initiated a discussion on WikiProject Lepidoptera as to how to include this in the Wikipedia articles concerning Lepidoptera. Please do contribute there. AshLin (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New phylogeny of the butterflies 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths) listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A discussion is taking place as to whether :Portal:Lepidoptera is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lepidoptera until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 09:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[:Portal:Lepidoptera]] for deletion 

message: The article states that Linnaeus coined the word Lepidoptera in 1735. The cite is to the Online Etymology Dictionary which supports the date but does not specify where Linnaeus used the word. In 1735 the first edition of his Systema Naturae was published. A scan is here but I haven't spotted the word Lepidoptera (I may have missed it). Using google, the earliest occurrence I've found is Linnaeus's Fauna Svecica published in 1746 - see here. Where did Linnaeus first publish the word Lepidoptera? - Aa77zz (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What you say seems correct. Engel & Kristensen (2013) say "Insect orders were consistently applied as early as the first edition (1735), recognizing four orders {Coleoptera, Angioptera [later Gymnaptera in the second edition (1740)], Hemiptera, and Aptera}, but by the time of the Fauna Svecica (1746) he had arrived at an arrangement of seven orders to which he held for the remainder of this life (see sidebar Linnean Insecta)". That fits with the original documents you link to, where we see butterflies and bees in Angioptera in the first edition and Lepidoptera in Fauna Svecica. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your helpful reply. I removed the 1735 date and cited Linnaeus's Fauna Svecica. I've avoided claiming that it was the first time that he had used the word (although I suspect it was). - Aa77zz (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where did Linnaeus first use the word Lepidoptera? 

message: we have a red link Gelechioidae. Google has 624 hits to Gelechioidae. I guess this is superfamily and hence the correct name is Gelechioidea. Massive typo in the web?--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gelechioidae? 

message: I've been trying to assemble a halfway sensible taxonomy of butterflies and moths from this and related Wikipedia pages and it has proven to be utterly impossible because of all the contradictions. Some pages say that Monotrysia are within Heteroneura; others say Heteroneura is within Monotrysia. The page on Coelolepida says that it consists of "Acanthoctesia and Lophocoronina", and also comprises "all non-eriocraniid Glossata", but other pages say that Glossata includes far more groups than just Acanthoctesia, Lophocoronina, and Dacnonypha-Eriocraniidae. Can someone who knows something please straighten all this BS out, or at least provide a reasonable roadmap? 98.234.13.133 (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy is a damned unholy mess