Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal:Biology
 Biology Portal

"Don't accept the chauvinistic tradition that labels our era the age of mammals. This is the age of arthropods. They outnumber us by any criterion – by species, by individuals, by prospects for evolutionary continuation."
Stephen Jay Gould, 1988

The aim of this WikiProject is to set out broad suggestions about how to organize data in the articles relating to insects, arachnids, crustaceans and other arthropods. We also hope to encourage the development of important stubs and articles following these suggestions. In general, these are only suggestions, and you shouldn't feel obligated to follow them.

[edit] Parentage

This WikiProject is an offshoot of WikiProject Tree of Life

WikiProject Science
WikiProject Biology
WikiProject Tree of Life
WikiProject Arthropods

[edit] Descendant Wikiprojects

This WikiProject aims to support the creation and development of Wikipedia articles on Lepidoptera. This descendant WikiProject arose from the endeavour on Indian butterflies which will continue to function as an informal project, but under WikiProject Lepidoptera.
Aims to support the creation and development of articles on phasmids (stick & leaf insects). An effort will be made to keep on top of the rapidly changing taxonomy and include notes on their care in captivity.
The aim is to make the spider section of Wikipedia so attractive to visitors that it will a) become a useful reference for many, and b) attract people to contribute to it.

[edit] Participants

Please consider adding a few words about your areas of expertise/interest (if any) after your username.

[edit] Overview of the classification of arthropods

For more information on classification, see arthropod classification, crustacean, arachnid classification, insect classification, Myriapoda and trilobite.

[edit] Structure

Arthropod articles can be on any level that makes sense in context. Most will be about particular taxa. For example:

Other levels of taxonomy may be added if necessary : subclass, infraclass, suborder, infraorder, superfamily, subfamily, etc.

In many cases, it makes sense to combine several taxonomic levels in a single article. For example, the genus Limulus contains only one species, Limulus polyphemus, so the one article covers both levels.

Conversely, sometimes it is better to cover only a part of a taxon: mite deals with four different (but related) families and ignores the other families in the order Acarina.

Some large families, such as the Papilionidae, will need to be broken down at some stage because of the number of species. For this, lists of species by subfamily may be created. In some cases, geography, logistics, familiarity with fauna, and convenience may require a study to be restricted to a region or political boundary. Spider taxonomy and List of butterflies of India (Papilionidae) are good examples of attempts to achieve this.

It may be useful to start with a high-level article, such as a family article, and then split off genus and/or species articles as the material builds.

If possible, create links to articles on the levels immediately higher and lower. An article on a genus such as Bombus should link back to the family Apidae and order Hymenoptera, and down to species articles where they exist. Considering the vast number of species in some genera (or genera in some families, etc.), this may not always be possible, but should be tried as often as possible.

[edit] Criteria for inclusion

At what level is it worth having a separate Wikipedia article for a particular arthropod? Any level you like. If we write individual articles for all one million-odd described species, we will be at it for a long time! The simplest (and probably best) rule is to have no rule: if you have the time and energy to write up some particularly obscure subspecies that most people have never even heard of, go to it!

As a general guideline though, combine several species or subspecies into a single article when there isn't enough text to make more than short, unsatisfying stubs otherwise. If the article grows large enough to deserve splitting, that can always be done later.

Also, it preferable to start at a higher taxonomic level and work our way down to particular species than the reverse.

What about extinct arthropods? At the very least, we should include arthropods that have become extinct within historical times: within the last 5000 years or so. Most extinct arthropods will be much older however, but there seems to be no obvious reason to exclude any of them: there is already a nice page for trilobite; if an expert on fossil arthropods comes along and wants to contribute more, all the better.

[edit] Names and titles

In cases where common names are well-known and reasonably unique, they should be used for article titles. Scientific names should be used otherwise. Note the following guidelines in using scientific names:

  • Names of genera are always italicized and capitalized— Drosophila, Homarus, Limulus.
  • Specific epithets are always italicized and preceded by the name of the genus or an abbreviation of it— Limulus polyphemus or L. polyphemus, but never plain polyphemus, since such identifiers need not be unique (e.g. Gopherus polyphemus, Antheraea polyphemus). They are never capitalized.
  • Names of higher taxa are capitalized but not italicized— Limulidae, Orthoptera, Crustacea.

In the orders Odonata and Lepidoptera, common names may be capitalised; other common names should be in lower case.

In cases where a group only contains a single subgroup, the two should not be separated. If there is no common name, the article should generally go under the scientific name that is most often used when discussing the group, or under the scientific name of lowest rank if there is no clear preference. However, for a genus that contains a single species, the genus name should be used since it is included in the binomial. For instance the order Amphionidacea, which has the single species Amphionides reynaudii, is discussed at Amphionides.

Not all species need have separate articles. The simplest (and probably best) rule is to have no rule: if you have the time and energy to write up some particularly obscure subspecies that most people have never even heard of, go for it! As a general guideline, though, it's best to combine separate species into a single entry whenever it seems likely that there won't be enough text to make more than a short, unsatisfying stub otherwise. If the entry grows large enough to deserve splitting, that can always be done later.

A useful heuristic is to create articles in a "downwards" order, that is, family articles first, then genera, then species. If you find that information is getting thin, or the family/genus is really small, just leave the species info inline in the family or genus article, don't try to force it down any further.

[edit] Taxonomy and references

This is likely to be the single most difficult part of the project. Not only does arthropod taxonomy vary significantly from one authority to another, but it is in a state of constant change. There is no single authority to rely on; no one list can claim to be the list.

[edit] General references

Online:

  • http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Arthropoda - Tree of Life website. This is slightly outdated already (it is not updated on a regular basis), and somewhat idiosyncratic at times, as a single person is often responsible for a given portion of the tree. The most problematic feature is that it uses a rankless classification - taxon names that do not have a place in the Linnaean hierarchy are regularly used in the TOL, because ranks are not assigned, and the only requirement is monophyly. In other words, taxon names appears in the TOL which have no counterpart of equivalent rank (e.g., "Macrolepidoptera" or "Aculeata"). This can make it very difficult to convert the TOL names into Wikipedia pages! If you can find a more recent, authoritative classification for a single order, this might sometimes be a better approach than trusting a generalized site such as this, and definitely better than trusting any popular sources, such as field guides or even college-level textbooks.

Secondary references:

Print:

  • Charles A. Triplehorn, Norman F. Johnson Borror and DeLong's introduction to the study of insects, 7th edition, Thomson Brooks/Cole, 2005 - Respectable but already somewhat outdated reference (there is a lag of several years between editing and printing) for insects, including Entognatha with keys to family. Keys also to family for arachnids and myriapods. The keys are for North America but can apply also to European arthropods.

[edit] Specific references

  • Lepidoptera references:
    • LEPINDEX. General concensus amongst Indian aurelians is that LEPINDEX, a project of the Natural History Museum at London, UK is THE reference to check Lepidoptera taxonomy. The site can be accessed at : [1]
    • HOST. Another project of the Natural History Museum is the database of larval foodplants of butterflies. You can search by butterfly_name, butterfly_family_name, plant_name, plant_family_name and country/region. Access it at : [2]
    • Another interesting taxonomy project from Finland! The gentleman, Markku Savela, uses perl scripts to generate rough distribution maps from the text data on distribution. The site is at : [3]

[edit] Article contents

The following items are desirable for articles of all levels, although the detail will vary depending on several factors. These items do not need to be separated into distinct sections; text should flow in continuous prose so far as possible. The order this information is included is also relatively unimportant, although the order listed is generally preferred.

  • Description (physical, behavioral) - what makes this (group of) critter(s) different from its close relatives? Include here evidence about cognitive capacities.
  • Habitat - where does it live? how broadly does it roam? maps are good
  • Cultural, Religious, Economic, etc. Importance - what impact has it had on humans? Include here use for experimental purposes that do not relate to other headings.
  • Classification - how does it fit into the tree of life?

[edit] Use a taxobox

Wikipedia:How to read a taxobox
How to read a taxobox
Scarce swallowtail

Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Arthropoda
Class: Insecta
Order: Lepidoptera
Family: Papilionidae
Genus: Iphiclides
Species: I. podalirius
Binomial name
Iphiclides podalirius
Linnaeus, 1758

In general, each arthropod article should have a taxobox. This is something we have inherited from the Tree of Life WikiProject. There are many examples there to look at.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/taxobox usage for the full details on constructing a taxobox.

Taxoboxes on the arthropod pages vary quite a bit from one another and could perhaps be standardised more than they are right now. This may or may not be a good thing. Discussion of this is welcome.

Here are several examples of arthropod taxoboxes, suitable for cut and paste insertion into entries:

[edit] Sample articles

[edit] Did you know entries (DYKs)

[edit] Tasklist

  1. Create article for each family
  2. Ensure all family articles are taxonomically consistent
    1. Ensure all articles between the order and family rank are taxonomically consistent
    2. Ensure all articles between family and genus rank are taxonomically consistent
  3. Create articles for all species and for needed genera. Many species, however, are virtually undescribed. It is better, then, to describe the genus or, if necessary, just the family.
  4. Emphasise the identifying aspects of each category. Wikipedia is all about getting the reader involved, and people who read it like to go out and look for insects themselves. Identifying an insect is also a primary reason for people to be consulting us. For each family/genus etc, what are the common identifying features which mark that group? For each species, what are the unique features that set it apart? Please concentrate on features that are observable without dissection or microscope, and remember to link to definitions of specialist terms used!

[edit] Articles/stubs that may need attention

Minor housekeeping issues : Please add articles or stubs that you think need reviewing or expanding here :

[edit] Requested articles

  • Mandibulata
  • Mandible (arthropod) (the article mandible is only about the human bone)
  • Maxilla (arthropod) ditto
  • Labium (arthropod) (this one definitely must be disassociated from the existing page)
  • Labrum (arthropod) (there is a disambig page for labrum, but nowhere to link to)
  • Protocerebrum
  • Deutocerebrum
  • Tritocerebrum

[edit] Other tasks

[edit] Arthropod-related templates and categories

[edit] Stub templates

Remember to mark up stubs with the appropriate template :

For all other arthropod-related stubs (myriapoda, merostomata, pycnogonida, etc.), use the template {{arthropod-stub}}.

[edit] Talk pages and grading scheme

Please place {{ArthropodTalk}} at the top of an article's talk page. What this template does:

  1. It will help to lead new editors to this project.
  2. If complete with quality and importance grading (see Article Classification and grading scheme), it helps us to stay on top of the huge number of arthropod-related articles.

[edit] Categories

Please make sure to add articles to the appropriate categories among the ones listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods/Categories. If there are any categories that you think should be created, please request them here or on the talk page.

In some cases, there might be more appropriate ways to group articles than categories, such as lists or article series boxes. For more information, see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes.

[edit] Userbox

This user is a member of WikiProject Arthropods.




Userbox enthusiasts may want to put this one on their user page: {{User WikiProject Arthropods}} to show that they are members of this WikiProject.


Find more information on Arthropods by searching Wikipedia's sister projects
Dictionary definitions from Wiktionary
Textbooks from Wikibooks
Quotations from Wikiquote
Source texts from Wikisource
Images and media from Commons
News stories from Wikinews
Learning resources from Wikiversity
Wikimedia Commons has media related to:

[edit] See also

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Arthropods_fb32.html"
In other languages