Talk:Phengodidae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia's coverage of arthropods. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

"Glowworm" is the uncontroversial common name for this family, so it should be used instead of Phengodidae - I don't understand what possible rationale there could be for using the Latin here. Stan 02:52, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Glowworm may be uncontroversial as a common name, but it is not unique. I would be content with "glowworm beetle", as long as the note about the lampyridae is prominent enough, but glowworm by itself is too ambiguous. WormRunner | Talk 03:42, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm sitting here looking at American Beetles, and the entry just says "The glowworms" with no qualification, no "beetle" etc. We don't have to give "equal time" to multiple meanings if one is unequivocally predominant - we just use the commonest usage directly, and push the minor ones off to disambigs or wherever. I looked at this already when deciding what to do with the article (didn't it occur to you that maybe I did just such an evaluation? I always review name alternatives before doing a move), and non-phengodids as "glowworms" were the exception rather than the rule. Stan 04:08, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Rhagophthalmids

Crowson (1972) placed Rhagophthalmids in the Phengodidae, but they were removed in 1994 to their own family, by Wittmer & Ohba. O'Keefe incorrectly followed Crowson's classification, which is unfortunately perpetuated in the Tree of Life website (which also includes two misspellings of O'Keefe's). Therefore, the entry in the TOL is NOT an authoritative source.Dyanega 02:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)