Talk:Gonimbrasia belina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia's coverage of Butterflies and Moths. 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.

Contents 1 Rewrite 2 the bugbear of referencing 3 Peer review 4 Substinence vs subsistence vs sustenance 5 Referencing 6 Pics 7 Ugly 8 Caterpillar vs butterfly 9 The true word 10 Proposed page move

[edit] Rewrite

After rewriting and expanding the article, I'd like to peer review it to give it some additional substance before nominating it as a featured article.

Ssteedman 11:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the bugbear of referencing

Hi, I've added some info on how to prepare mopane worms. Of course, I can't reference this as it's not the sort of thing anyone ever writes about... It's not even original research, just everyday stuff I know from living in Botswana and liking mopane worms. Please don't get hung up on referencing in such circumstances: we don't insist on referencing every last statement about, say, the US or Germany.

I'm saying this because articles written largely from academic sources do seem to attract reffing comments about anything from more prosaic sources. Stuff can be academic for the Highly Connected World, but mundane, unwritten-about, common knowledge in the rest of the universe...JackyR 15:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

Things to work on:

1. Names: get better info on names and name of mopane tree in Sets. (JR will do)
2. Better info on cooking. Done
3. Find names of other economically important insects (prob crickets), and lk. Might not be food insects (eg silk worm) so unless anyone interested I won't pursue this.

JackyR 15:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Substinence vs subsistence vs sustenance

Changed non-word substinence to subsistence, same with link to entry on subsistence farming. Not sure if link text was intended to be sustenance ... (johndburger John 19:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Referencing

Afraid that's where I can't help. Everything I know about phane is either common knowledge among people who eat, collect, cook them, or I learned from this article... I'm still trying to get info from friends about the names in different langs - again, we would need a Setswana (and Ndebele, and...) dictionary to ref this. Try your local RSA library? JackyR 00:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, try asking toms@nfi.co.za, the co-writer of one of the reffed sites [1]. In fact, ask him to review the whole article. If you're squeamish about approaching him, let me know and I'll do it (but you seem to be co-ordinating, so it's probably better if you do it).

And I'll try to look out a cookbook, called something like Cooking in Botswana. It's at least 10 yrs old, and probably rather more. Probably published by Botswana Book Centre: again, do you have access to a copyright library or even a good academic one? I don't know if Wits allow non-Uni folk in, but if you phone and ask the librarian about a specific title/topic, they might be helpful. JackyR 00:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Mentions of varying usefulnesses can be found at [2], [3] and [4] (about Zambia - a substantial ref; refers to phane as muyaya.). JackyR 01:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And [5]. Yeah, I'm trying to get these in as well, but only so much a girl can do :-) JackyR 19:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pics

Stuart, just a heads-up that you may need to dig out your source of permission for that pic from Arne Larson. I don't know much about this, but I've often seen discussions where folk have posted emails of permission from a photographer. You're probably far more knowledgeable on this than me, but WP:COPY may be helpful... Cheers, JackyR 18:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You raise a good point! I think I'll get onto that. Also found some good books to use under a new heading, Further Reading.

Stuart Steedman 08:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ugly

It's terribly ugly having the "Names" at the top, but I can't think where else to put them. If you can, or can lay this out better, please do... Still slogging at this. Will do more anon. JackyR 00:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caterpillar vs butterfly

Hi, I've been talking to User:Olei, mostly at WikiCommons about this article. He's coming at the article from a scientific point of view, and strongly suggests we should put it under Emperor moth (but there's already an article there, about Pavonia pavonia). This seems to be practice for lepidoptera articles and might affect the FA bid. I'm not convinced it's the right solution, however, as the caterpillar is so much more significant to humans than the butterfly that (by the sounds of the literature) most people wouldn't recognise the butterfly if it landed on them. Also, as Olei says, he is coming from a European perspective: "Emperor moth" is a British name that is almost never used - most Brits never see a mopane moth/caterpillar, and Africans (of any colour) refer to it by local names even when speaking English -as I'm sure you know! (Personally I've always called it phane or macimbi, depending where I was.) JackyR 16:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, ignore the bit about emperor moths. I've just had an enlightening email from the specialist to whom Olei referred me, the relevant parts of which I shall include with his permission (awaited). JackyR 16:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the Mopane Worm article definitely needs to be seperate from its adult counterpart; I think the point being made in this article focuses around the socio-economic impact of the caterpillar (the industry, foodsource etc.), as the actual Emporor Moth is largely unknown by even locals (bearing in mind that as local legend would have it, the worms go underground 'to die', when in fact they do this to undergo metamorphosis.) Regarding the FA bid, it looks as if we may need to resubmit, although the article is looking stellar because of your help, Jacky, so I think we'll find a rebid to be succesful if this one isn't! Stuart Steedman 04:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The true word

This is the very helpful email from Dr Nässig, an authority on Saturniidae.

Generic names are used in science to group several species, which appear to be more closely related to each other than to other species, into one genus, which ideally should be defined by the synapomorphies shared by the species included, but not shared by any other species outside the genus. That's the theory. Some authors prefer larger genera (Imbrasia) with many species, others smaller ones (Gonimbrasia), containing fewer species; and classical systematics are mostly based on typological classification. That's the practical side. Depending on the worker's opinion, the species belina is sometimes combined with Imbrasia, sometimes with Gonimbrasia. As there is not yet a generally accepted phylogenetic system for African Bunaeini, there is no "true and correct" opinion so far about the generic position of belina.

The generic name "Pavonia" is not to be used at all anyway, because it is a Nomen oblitum which must not be used. The correct generic combination for the Palaearctic species pavonia (as well as for the species pavoniella, spini, and cephalariae) is Saturnia, subgenus Eudia. This is at present accepted by all those working seriously and scientifically on these moths.

In general, vernacular names are nothing but a great mess! There are no rules for them; every author creates his own names. So, please, do not mess up African and European species under the same messy vernacular names, but always list them by their *scientific names* as first entry!

Vernacular names of most insects are generally not very helpful; the more so, when people try to create new names for species in countries in a language which is not naturally spoken there! (The fact in the background is that there are probably millions of insect species, most of them still undescribed, and it is hard enough to create and define well-done scientific names for them -- because these scientific names have a well-organized Code defining the rules to deal with them. It makes no sense to additionally create vernacular names, for which there are no rules, and where everyone makes just what he/she likes to. Everyone working seriously with insects uses the scientific names as soon as it gets down to the species-rich groups -- and Lepidoptera are such! That's somewhat different from mammals and birds, because there are many fewer species and a much higher percentage of laymen dealing with them, so they have correspondingly rules for vernacular names in some local languages.)

-- Dr. Wolfgang A. Nässig, Entomologie II, Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg

(email to User:JackyR, 3 April 2006)

[edit] Proposed page move

I propose moving this page to Gonimbrasia belina, with a redirect from mopane worm, obviously. This is per Dr Naessig's comments above, and also because in fact this creature has more than one name in English, all names being loan words from languages local to the beastie. Comments? JackyR 14:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, assuming that this Latin name applies to the worm, and not exclusively the butterfly Stuart Steedman 08:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh absolutely. It's the species, not the stage of development. Oh dear, does this mean I have to pull my finger out and actually do it? ;-) JackyR 12:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)