Talk:Ponerinae

message: *Ponerinae - see talk page, needs editing for layman. rhyax 06:41, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  From PNA/Biology 

message: There is a lot of information here that I think would be clearer if divided appropriately; such as putting the information on the Poneramorph Group in a seperate article.  And limiting this article to the current information of the Ponerinae sub-family.  I'm going to work some on this, please post suggestionsWynler 22:54:18, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
Moved most of the info to the more appropriate Poneromorph subfamilies article.--Wynler|Talk 19:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: The names are correct, but the number of genera is incorrect. There is not 28 extant, there is 46 or 47. The fossil count however is correct. Here is AntWeb even stating 46 genera. This category from Antwiki has 47 genera, seen here, but before you go and say "UNRELIABLE SOURCE", check the sources in all those that support they are apart of that genera, all 47 of them. I will be fixing this article as it is sending out inaccurate information. The antcat reference also does not directly link to the subfamily. Antcat however is a good reliable source, but it needs a different link representing all the generas. Burklemore1 (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the article per AntCat (47 extant + 12 fossil genera). We still need to create 18 new articles per Schmidt & Shattuck (2014) (they split Pachycondyla into 19 genera (see Talk:Pachycondyla) and erected a new ponerine genus, Iroponera). AntWiki is generally reliable, and they usually update their pages to reflect the most recent taxonomy faster than AntCat/AntWeb, but like you're saying, it is not a WP:RS source in the Wikipedia sense. jonkerz ♠talk 12:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll get onto that. I will add that I recently fixed a problem when I found out that Acanthomyops was actually a subgenus, and the species listed there were actually species of the genus Lasius. All articles have been redirected and tweaked. I was only using the category as some sort of support, but again AntWiki is very reliable when it comes to taxonomy, I think they have just about every species, genus, tribe, etc etc listed there (with a lot of sources). I realised a recent genera (Pseudoponera) I created on Wikipedia was one of the 19 split, so that is one done, as you know. If you go onto my talk page, I am listing all genera on a to do list and such, but it will probably take a bit until I have the full list. I used AntWiki as they have all the genera (that I know of, or they know of), and the fact Wikipedia articles on the genera aren't 100% covered, I tried elsewhere. AntCat and AntWeb were also used. Just wanted to put it out there, but again I'll get onto these new generas. Categorys seem very useful when you want lists. :P Burklemore1 (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can add synonyms in need of cleanup under "Cleanup synonyms or misspellings" on WP:ANTS/TODO (this is what I do when I'm short of time, heh). Also, feel free to move the list from your talk page to something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects/ant task force/todo/genera; that way, other editors could help out. jonkerz ♠talk 14:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will do that soon, will be a lot easier. I will do this once I return from school and all that, since I'm doing nothing afterwards. Burklemore1 (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Genera is wrong

message: Could somebody figure out the etymology of "ponerine" and "Ponerinae", and write it in the article? SwordAngel (talk) 09:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology