This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kevmin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hey, Kevmin. Belated thanks for correcting my error regarding the Republic fossils in the image captions at Draft:List of the Cenozoic life of Washington (state) and for catching a few other things I overlooked, like Myrmeciites being a form taxon. I'm kind of hesitant about some of the word order changes, though. The new version that lists the common name ahead of the binomials reads nicely, but I kind of still think that the captions should put the binomial name ahead of the common name since the list itself is organized around them. Would you be open to me switching the word order back in those cases? Abyssal (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I was going for more readable prose in the caption. and I think that the order works fine and reduces the broken feeling of the word structuring that was there originally.--Kevmin§00:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Alright. I'll start writing captions more long the lines of your recommendations. Please keep an eye on the page to see if you dislike any of the new captions or if there are any old ones that still have problems. Abyssal (talk) 01:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
We should get to those yes, for example I would go with "Fossilized skeleton found in Republic, of the Eocene sucker fish Amyzon aggregatum", since A. aggregatum is Eocene, with mention of being found in Republic being optional given that the majority of the images are not of actual Washington state fossils, but living specimens or from elsewhere.--Kevmin§13:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate your opinion on this matter, but would you care to link the relevant plant guidelines at the discussion? I've not seen them myself, so I'm curious. RGloucester — ☎02:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Kev - I was just wondering if (hopefully) you're operating a bot as I noticed how quickly you caught the vandal at Alligator Gar. If so, will you add American Paddlefish? It's probably coincidental, but there have been occasions when I nom an article for AfD, or Merge, etc., it tends to have a "you pissed me off" effect which triggers a chain reaction of vandalism to my GA/FA articles, or it could just be vandalism of a specific topic. Ping when you respond because I can easily get sidetracked and forget to trace my steps. Thanks - Atsme✍🏻📧15:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Atsme: It was a happy/sad coincidence that I caught it last night. I happened to be on a looking at my watch list when the vandalism happened. I dont actually have any bots haha. Sorry I cant be of more help.--Kevmin§18:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Kevmin. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Re: (Remove reference to "S. jelholense" as this species in placed in a podocarp genus now)
Do you have a reference for this, i.e. a citation?
I find per Stewart and Rothwell (1993/reprinted 2004), pages 423-424:
"Southern hemisphere examples are typically placed in the Podocarpaceae (e.g., McLoughlin, et al. 1995), a Gondwana family. Northern hemisphere material are placed in the Taxodiaceae, now subsumed into Cupressaceae (e.g., Bell 1956), a Laurasian family."
Much of the flora and fauna of Jehol is Laurasian.[1]
Hi Kevmin, I am improving the Hemerobiidae (brown lacewings) page, and I think the fossil section lacks order and info. I wonder if you can take a look and comment what can be improved in the talk page. Insects paleontology is overwhelming to me, as well as, I'm a newbie. Thanks in advance (LeónHormiga (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC))
I originally didn't think to notify you on this, but an AE case I just opened includes mention of the subject accusing you of tag-teaming over at Insect a few years ago, so it's probably better that you're aware at least. Not asking for comment there or anything, so this is just dotting the i's on notification.
On a related note, there are secondary sources with very minor mention of that study in question now, so if that was an area that interested you beyond just primary sourcing issues, I'll be looking into where some related insect diversity additions might fit in for the near future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your amazing work in many fields over many years.
Regarding etymologies of plant names, I have sometimes used texts like Roland Wilbur Brown's old book (1954) "Composition of Scientific Words" to explain the origin of botanists' names. It is true that sometimes I have tried to "read their minds". I have no doubt that when they gave names like Boronia biflora, or Thelymitra grandiflora, the "flora" meant 'flower' or 'flowers'. However, I can't "prove" that, so the derivation at the moment is "original research" and it is probably better to remove it altogether. It's worth noting that when he wrote the original description, Cheel wrote sed floribus solum duobus, which I think translates as "but only a couple of flowers". I will wait a while though before removing the naming part - you may have other ideas. Gderrin (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Acacia biflora
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Hughesdarren (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Paleohydrology
The next time you want to do a QPQ at DYK, you could try Paleohydrology. I wrote the article because the topic cropped up in another article I wrote, Lake Aguelmame Sidi Ali, and there seemed to be a gap in Wikipedia's scientific coverage. However, it was a topic on which I knew nothing, and the article would benefit from a knowledgeable eye. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, let'ts talk about this. The external image works for me. I suggest that if it does not appear on your computer, it may be a browser issue. At any rate, the picture is also shown in the cited article, if you care to read it. As for the exclusion of Burmese amber from the main article, I cannot see any reasoning. The cited article does not raise any question about its ineligibility as a "true" amber. As noted, the discovery of amber at depth in Myanmar less then 10 years ago is significant. I would remind you that if you do not agree with cited edits and additions such as I made, that Wikipedia is a democratic project. If you feel there is a need to revert a change such as I made, make a good argument. I feel my edits are justified, useful, and help keep the article up to date. I have not rolled back your latest reversion, but I trust that you will. Let's not drag this out. Verne Equinox (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge third anniversary
The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada is approaching its third-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and have no unsourced claims.
You may use the above button to submit entries, or bookmark this link for convenience. For more information, please see WP:CAN10K. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Rivularis
You have not shown yet where in Wolfe and Tanai (1987) we can find that rivularis would be the Latin word for "rill" or "brook". Wimpus (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Your point? your are tendentiously editing without at any point collaborating with other editors. you simply delete anything that is not acceptable to your personal tastes, with not net benefit to Wikipedia. You KNOW that rivularis ins clearly a derivation of the Latin rivulus, but taxonomic use offends you, so you delete it rather then add and appropriate reference.--Kevmin§18:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
My point? You seem to add information that is not mentioned by the source. So, that is clearly OR.
And I know that rivularis is an adjective, derived from the noun rivulus ("small brook, a rill, rivulet"). The translation of "rill" or "brook" for the adjective'rivularis is therefore incorrect. Or is Kevmin's interpretation of what rivularis would mean, worth mentioning? Wimpus (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
"you know", thats the problem, you refuse to add sources to all of your assertions you merely assert with the assumption that everybody should take you as fact. You also refuse to understand or learn that taxonomic usage of Latin and Greek words are not, I repeat, not consistent and will never be consistent with ancient Greek or Latin. Thus whining on and on about it does not correctly match ancient terminology is tendentious at best and obstruction more often then not. Wolfe &Tanai clearly indicate the source of the species name, Beaver Creek. Its clear that castorrivularis beaver Creek.--Kevmin§20:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
In case you do not know the difference between an adjective and a noun, please do not make any etymological edit. You seem to guess that "rivularis" is a noun meaning rill" or "brook", while it is evidently not. And, if you want to explain the full compound castorrivularis, you need a source for the full compound. Good luck, finding one! Wimpus (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Your entire post there is irrelevant to the fact that it is a taxonomic etymology so I will continue to edit based on what the taxanomic up sources say. You do not have the authority to say otherwise. Taxonomy is not language usage and does not follow the rules you insist. Name derivations do not work that way. So your red herring is noted.--Kevmin§20:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
But, your taxonomic source does not explicitly state that "rivularis" is "rill" or "brook". So, you are making that up? Maybe, you should read this explanation on -alis and -aris. And Stearn's Botanical Latin (1983, p. 500) states: "rivularis (adj. B): pertaining to brooklets". Stearn does not state that rivularis is a noun, so you seem to be clearly mistaken. Wimpus (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not mistaken. I just get annoyed when someone ruleslawyers as a means to promote a point they have absolutely no backing reference for. The link you posted now is irrelevent to taxonomic names. The link you used a couple posts ago states the connection you are now claiming doesnt exist. And the nomenclature entry for the species written by wolfe and Tanai states thst species name is a reference to the type locality on beaver Creek. Its all there.--Kevmin§
And again, you do not seem to understand the difference between a "noun" and an "adjective". "Child" for example is not the same as "childish". The reference to Stearn's Botanical Latin is relevant as it makes clear that rivularis is not a noun. And I do agree with your assessment: "And the nomenclature entry for the species written by wolfe and Tanai states thst species name is a reference to the type locality on beaver Creek.", but not with your assessment "rivularis", Latin for rill or brook" as that is not supported by your source and clearly OR. Wimpus (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
The difference is irrelevant, as the item you are kvetching about is a species name. Its not a word, its not subject to Latin grammar rules. This is the same straw man you resort to when you actually have no valid argument, but don't want to admit as such. The etymology given in the article is not OR ad continual removal by you will likely result in sanction of you, as you are already being called out by on multiple articles by multiple editors.--Kevmin§23:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
There is a difference between single words (written without a hyphen) and parts of compounds (written with a hyphen). Please study these differences first and do not confuse them. Wimpus (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Then ADD THE HYPHEN if it so important to you. But you are in VIOLATION of 3RR, a bannable offence.--Kevmin§00:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LizRead!Talk!17:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kevmin, on the same basis that you reverted my edit, you should also un-wl "sawflies" under 6.1 Symphyta. However, this is only the second time that these terms are wl witin the article. Hardly a case of WP:overlinking although perhaps one of WP:underlinking.
Classification is the sixth section and a substantial distance down from the lede. It is an important section that people may wish to jump straight to or which may be directly linked from another article. We shouldn't be forcing them to have to start reading an article from the first word, nor making them scroll back up to the top trying to find an example of a term that is wl.
As I've been going through fossil insect articles on wikipedia I've noticed that you've created a significant proportion of them, as well as the article on the Rovno amber. I have created an article on the Burmese amber, which I think we can agree is long overdue. I was wondering if you had any feedback and ideas for improvement. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Kevmin, do you have a roadmap of what you plan to add to the article? As your previous additions have all been very good and I want to avoid treading on each others toes with our additions. I definitely think that the history post 1875 and Invertebrate sections of the article obvously need serious expansion, as well as the addition of a Flora section, but otherwise I'm interested to know what you have planned. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia: I really don't have any specific road-map in mind at this point. Given the large nature of the paleobiota described from the amber, I ended up going with creating Paleobiota of Burmese amber to cover the detailed side and think the Burmese amber sections should be more of a highlights reel.--Kevmin§03:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
300 taxa were described from the amber last year alone, and the number of taxa described each year is likely to continue to grow. It'll get really tedious to update, many of the taxa have uncertain classifications that subsequently change in new papers and it will be extremely confusing after a while. Cataloging the species found in the burmese amber is probably best left to the anonymous IP user who does the 20XX in paleontology pages, or Andrew J Ross who has already done the comprehensive 2018 list and the 2019 supplement. I agree that the main burmese amber article should only show the highlights as over 1000 genera is simply too many to comprehensively cover, but what counts as a highlight? The currently created articles on Burmese amber taxa account for around 5% of the total (in terms of genera). I think coverage should mostly be at the family level. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of our difference of opinion on the Paleobiota article, you are making excellent progress and I'm impressed with your image uploads, particularly your breaking up of compilation paper figures into useable images. Since you seem to be much more efficient than me at doing this I thought I would link some more Open Access Scientific reports articles for you to upload figures from. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7][8], [9]
I always try to find good images when i can, since they add so much more to the articles. Ill take a look through the articles you have here, though the termites are sadly not so great images. I just took care of Astreptolabis laevis.--Kevmin§05:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Yea, very nice, but problem that I had in mind was not few articles to look good, but to fix outdated upper taxonomy for all several thousands Stylommatophora or all 37000 gastropods with outdated upper taxonomy indicated manually in the code, if to bother about removing lots of code that changes nothing in how article is displaying then it would take years of pure time to fix it and nobody would do it. What people should think when introducing it - is how to easily fix it in thousands articles later.--Igor Balashov (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Im curious why you feel the approx. 15 - 20 seconds needed to delete the unneeded higher taxonomy is an undo burden and that its should end up being other editors such as @Peter coxhead: to fix? I understand that there are a lot of boxes to fix, have you looked at the amount of boxes needed for extinct Colepterans alone?--Kevmin§19:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Because if to consider the number of pages that needed to be corrected even these 15-20 seconds are transforming in over 200 hours, but in fact it is more than 20 seconds. And that's why the number of outdated taxonomical pages there will be only growing. Anyway, good luck with that, I'm out of this.--Igor Balashov (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@Igor Balashov: you haven't answered the question Kevmin rightly asked: why should other editors have to spend their time cleaning up after you? It takes the same total time however it's done. You're just saying that because it looks ok to you, you'll leave it to someone else to finish the job. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Kevmin: thanks for sorting out those taxoboxes. I was going to do it first thing this morning, but I see you were ahead of me! Peter coxhead (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Moving a page
Hello is it possible to correct an error and rename Palaeontology in Lebanon >> Paleontology in Lebanon ? Thanks--Wdgm (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@Wdgm:Its always possible to move pages for corrections, however in this case there is no error. Palaeontology is the British English spelling and an accepted use so there is no move needed.--Kevmin§16:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I understand. The problem is that this article does not appear in the menu at the top right with similar articles such as Paleontology in Oregon, in Colorado etc. It is the same thing for the Pagewiews statistics or internal links :there is no article Paleontology in Lebanon. Is it possible do to do something ?--Wdgm (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
By "top right menue" are you meaning the search box, and if so are you searching for Paleo or Palaeo? The search box is only so intuitive. An easy fix is creating a redirect from the american spelling to the current spelling.--Kevmin§17:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Ive moved to the American Paleontology, since this was an oddball and the other articles didnt use the British spelling.--Kevmin§17:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that you removed three species of Lebania listed as described in 2019. However, a source was provided that they were indeed named in 2019, so what was your reason for that removal? Regards --37.30.55.88 (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
thank you for pointing that out, I didn't mean to remove them at all, and I have reverted that edit.--Kevmin§17:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the catch, I blame my dyslexia. I don't know how I copied info from the Echinodermata page for cystoids to the paracrinoids page, looked at it, and thought, "Yes, this is fine and 100% what I intended to do." Especially embarassing when I know the orders of paracrinoids are Comarocystitida and Platycystitida, at least until Lembreck publishes her thesis and destroys everything. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:543:180:B3B0:E0DE:5F30:4A9E:FC1 (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
71.236.92.93 (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Hi, I've added more info to the Paracrinoidea page. I am working on a bibliography of paracrinoids, so I've been happy to try to contribute more info.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Chris Troutman (talk)20:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Kevmin, this edit seems to have reverted to an IUCN 2.3 assessment for the species. I had recently updated this to the IUCN 3.1 assessment of 2020. Thanks Declangi (talk) 09:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
@Declangi: my apologies, I tried to make sure I retained the updated IUCN assessments as performed the move reversals. I will correct that one now.--Kevmin§15:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
No worries! I know you're doing a lot of reversals of moves to common names and thanks for that work. On Swietenia mahagoni, I just restored some other details like the updated reference. Thanks Declangi (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I saw the second section of IUCN updates that I had missed, thank you very much for retrieving them.--Kevmin§20:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sanpoil River, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kettle River and Anthropogenic.
Hi Kevmin, I happened to notice in Special:Contributions/Ddum5347 that this user has just made a large number of pages moves and requested "technical" moves of animal articles from scientific names to plain English names. I saw on their (now deleted) talk page that you and others had asked them not to do that. I'm not sure what's involved, other than that I currently have some concerns about what seems to be their lack of interest in consensus, so I thought I'd see if you wanted to take a look... --IamNotU (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cupressaceae, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sequoia and Callitropsis.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 in amphibian paleontology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anura.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Klondike Mountain Formation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Itea and Gordonia.
|extinct=yes only works in {{Speciesbox}}, but then, as shown to the left here, using Template:Taxonomy/Deinodryinus/? doesn't show the "?" in the abbreviated and full binomials.
See also how the taxobox is constructed at ? Nycticebus linglom. I think that with "nonstandard" binomials, such as those with "?" in them, using {{Automatic taxobox}} with overrides by |species_text= and |binomial_text= is the only way to achieve the effect required, unless you construct a separate taxonomy template for the species.
Fair enough, thank you both for the taxobox massaging and tweaking. Nonstandard nomenclatural construction with the boxes is not my strongest suit.--Kevmin§16:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
No worries, and thanks for the pointers. I note that the case with an uncertain rank is not documented though. Also, I may have mucked up a couple of revisions I did earlier in the week so will dig them out and correct. Still learning :) YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I guess we have to go with sources, but in general I would expect Amia?, regardless of the position of the ?, to mean that it's a valid genus name, but the placement in the genus is uncertain, whereas "Amia" would mean the genus name has not been validly published or is in some way taxonomically dubious. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
@YorkshireExpat: I note that the quotes don't seem to appear in either of the sources given, and appear to originate with the first creator of the article in 2011. So "?" could also have been used. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I get the sense that you think I might be, I don't know, difficult to work with. I'm pretty sure I'm not. And these lists aren't by any means carved in stone; FLs are a little different from FAs in that regard ... you might see people arguing tooth and nail to keep their preferred text in an FA, citing WP:FAOWN, but both the policy and the culture are different for FLs. I haven't personally heard before that Stearn is considered biased ... I've often heard him described as exactly the opposite ... but of course, coming from the time and culture he came from, he said a few things we now consider cringeworthy, and I've tried to be sensitive to that when I can. The main thing I want to say is: I'm pretty happy with my own choice to limit the sources for these lists ... tons of sources probably would have made FLC completely unworkable ... but neither I nor the FLC reviewers are likely to object if people from the wikiproject want to substitute other sources and do some editing ... within reason. At some point, if there's too much going on or too much disagreement, a trip to WP:FLRC might become necessary ... but that's not really my call, and I don't have strong feelings about it. - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Klondike Mountain Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morus.
I have now moved this into Queue 3. The article text mentions a single fossil and suggests that the leaf was not eaten by the moth larva, but cut out to make a pupal case. Would you object to me changing the hook to
@Cwmhiraeth: damage works as well, though feeding is more accurate. The first paragraph of the Heliozelidae entry on page 45 of Labandeira discusses the younger larvae feed in the leaf forming serpentine and then blotch mines before the final instar cuts leaf sections to form a cocoon.--Kevmin§14:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I think i see where the issue is, the early 2000s lumping of everything ever into Cerapachys was reversed in the mid 2010's, but the genu redirects hadn't been fixed, making it seem that the status of the subfamily article was outdated, but instead its the genera articles that need updating.--Kevmin§17:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
^Chang, M.; et al. (2003). The Jehol Fossils. Academic Press, Amsterdam. pp. 172, 173, 205. ISBN978-0-12-374173-8. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
Hello! Your submission of Pentacentron at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mike Peel (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
