Talk:Papilio

message: Papilio polymnestor parinda is mentioned in the happyend of The Treasure of Silver Lake film. :-) Remember? That butterfly is also called Blue Mormon. --Egg ✉ 21:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: *Systema: Naturae
**Superdomain: Biota
***Domain: Eucytota
****Kingdom: Metazoa
*****Subkingdom: Eumetazoa
******Branch: Bilateria
*******Grade: Protostomia
********Infrakingdom: Ecdysozoa
*********Superphylum: Panarthropoda
**********Phylum: Arthropoda
***********Subphylum: Hexapoda
************Class: Insecta
*************Subclass: Dicondylia
**************Infraclass: Pterygota
***************Legion: Neoptera
****************Sublegion: Endopterygota
*****************Cohort: Mecopterida
******************Superorder: Amphiesmenoptera
*******************Order: Lepidoptera
********************Suborder: Myoglossata
*********************Nanorder: Neolepidoptera
**********************Infraorder: Heteroneura
***********************Parvorder: Ditrysia
************************Section: Cossina
*************************Subsection: Bombycina
**************************Superfamily: Paplionoidea
***************************Series: Papilioniformes
****************************Family: Papilionidae
*****************************Subfamily: Papilioninae
******************************Tribe: Papilionini
*******************************Genus: Papilio —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.3.168.101 (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't Wikispecies. Richard001 (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Classification 

message: This page lists P. taiwanus and P. thaiwanus as two separate species, but 
* funet is the only source I can see that agrees
* judging from the matching omissions in the binomial authorities it looks like whoever wrote this article was simply copying the funet page,
* "Papilio thaiwanus" is currently a redirect to Papilio taiwanus anyway.
How sure are we we're really dealing with two different species here? Noym (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  P. taiwanus and P. thaiwanus 

message: I recently created articles for all of the Papilio species with missing articles. I doubt the list is actually complete, as it gets quite messy with so many synonyms involved. I only used Funet as my source, so It would probably be a good idea to go over the article again, with a different, reliable source in the future. Are there any other sources of the classification of Papilio species, that are reliable? 
For now at least, the Papilio species appear to be covered. Ypna (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species Covered 

message: Hi, Ypna! Link from Papilio chikae Nuyda, 1992 leads  to Papilio chikae Igarashi, 1965  in the paris species group. But Papilio chikae Igarashi, 1965 belongs to unnamed species group in the list of Papilio species. There is a misprint obviously  in the first case Hunu (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Hunu. Thanks for pointing this out. Since you seem to know what you're talking about, and since I haven't looked at Papilio taxonomy for years, feel free to make the necessary changes. Ypna (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ypna! OK I will try Hunu (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's could be only Papilio hermeli Nuyda, 1992 , but it's youngest synonym of Papilio chikae Hunu (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no or Papilio hermeli either  Papilio chikae in the list of  paris species group  Hunu (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, Dyanega. Please, read this discussion Hunu (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read it, and can't find a single online resource other than funet (or those lifting the data from Wikipedia) that even attempts to list all the world swallowtails into "species groups" - and funet does not cite any specific print sources to justify their placements. Personally, I'd delete all of the references to "species groups" entirely unless they can be linked to a print citation, and just use subgenera, since subgenera are defined objectively (e.g., "species groups" don't have authorships or dates). It looks like these "species groups" might just be a matter of personal opinion, and subject to change unpredictably. So far as I can see from available sources, chikae is definitely in the same subgenus as paris, and I don't think that is disputable - and I can't find any source other than funet itself to check what species group chikae belongs in. Again, funet gives no citations to justify placement; for all anyone like me can tell, those "species group" categorizations are the personal opinion of Markku Savela, and not published anywhere. Maybe they are published, but if so, then those publications really need to be consulted directly, and cited accordingly. Wikipedia relies upon reliable sources, after all. Dyanega (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not English native speaker, so I suppose it's better to discuss the problem with Ypna. Now Papilio species are listed alphabetically within groups according Markku Savela.. And there is Papilio chikae in unnamed group not in paris group there. Hunu (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Papilio]]''