Talk:Heliconius erato

message: Hi! This page is great and very informative. All that I did was remove the subcategories under the Life cycle page to all fit under the subcategory of Life cycle. I think the subcategories listed there originally (Egg, Larva, Pupa and Imago) can all logically fit under the heading of Life cycle, the subcategories felt unnecessary to me. I noticed that the information under the enemies category is not cited. Perhaps this is widely known information that doesn't really have one specific source, in that case you should say 'it is widely known that...', otherwise a citation would be helpful. Overall, great job, there was very little to edit here.KmarcusBC (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Behavioral Ecology peer review KmarcusBC

message: The picture featured in this article is a actually a H. hermathena with a mutation from it's most common state, this can be seen when comparing it with both H. erato and H. hermathena as the first has no white stripe asIt is a result of one mutation in a regulatory gene and can be seen in the second species.
Is the image still wrong? In case it is, I'm changing it, there are some good ones on commons. Leonardo (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species Correction 

message: Hello! This article was written very well. The information was clear, concise, and very broad in its coverage. I made a couple grammatical changes to the article - mainly altering sentence structure and finishing incomplete sentences in order to help add more clarity to the topic. Additionally, I added a couple links to Wikipedia articles to different terms throughout the article. I would suggest maybe adding subsections to the "Life Cycle" section to make it easier to find information, since the section is already quite long (over 300 words). Also, if possible, I would suggest including more information on the specific geographic range of the butterfly and perhaps migration patterns. Overall, great work! Pranita.kaginele (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behavioral Ecology Student - WikiProject Peer Review 

message: *P. granadilla and P. plectostemma do not appear to be species, and it is not clear what the items in the lists below those "species" are. Are they subspecies, subgenera, what, and how should they be formatted?
*Where it says "very discrete", discrete has lots of meanings. Is that like camouflaged?
*Should "dingus" be "dignus"?
*Should hydara be on lists for both the eastern and western clades?
*Should "venus" be "venustus"?
*It doesn't seem right where it says "Females mate with only one male at a time and can reproduce throughout life", does that mean a female can have multiple broods over her life with multiple males?
*I can't find a connection between witch hazel and phenylcarbylamine on line.
*Where it says "It emanates from two external protrusions on the abdomen of the female, which are adjacent to yellow glands that are thought to store the pheromone", does that mean that the antiaphrodisiac comes from the male and is then stored in a gland in the female?
Just some questions after copy editing the article. Thanks and keep up the good work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  06:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions following copy edits 

message: General:
I made some general grammatical and structural edits to the paragraph to make it more reader-friendly.
I don't quite understand this sentence: "Distributing Heliconius species to find specific host plants leads to to a lower chance of herbivore damage and thus helps protect Passiflora plants". I would consider revising. The sentences after this also seem somewhat choppy, and should be revised to flow better.
The following sentence should also be revised to increase clarity: "Passiflora nectar is known to maintain aggressive behaviors" - I do not quite understand how nectar can maintain aggressive behaviors?
Structure:
Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?
'''''
Yes, the section is organized well with a logical progression of ideas. The sentence structure should be revised to increase the clarity of these ideas to make them more reader-friendly.
Coverage:
Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?
'''''
While nothing is off topic, I believe the paragraph can be separated into 2 sub sections, highlighting the interactions between coevolution, and that of the other insects.
Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?
'''''
None that I can discern. More sources can be incorporated to provide a more comprehensive overview of the co-evolution mechanism. Lots of research has been done on hybrid Heliconius species, maybe this might be of interest to be incorporated in?  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Heliconius+erato+evolution 
Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
'''''
No, the article is factual and does not present any conclusions to persuade a reader.
Sources:
Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?
'''''
Yes! All of the sources are from reliable, published sources.
Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.
'''''
Some statements are only backed by 1 source, and would benefit from having another source to verify the claims.
Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references?
'''''
None that I could discern
Gghanem8 (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review - Co-evolution between Heliconius erato and host plants