User talk:Dyanega

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For anyone wondering, I'm the collection manager of a major US insect collection, and an actively publishing insect systematist. I work with several different insect orders, but focus on the Hymenoptera in particular. I am also intimately involved with efforts to create a standardized "Official" registry of zoological scientific names, and expect I may ultimately get involved in formal collaboration with Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Archives

Archive1 Archive2 Archive3 Archive4

[edit] Bombus subgenera/species list

Hey Dyanega. Just wondering if you think adding a "complete" subgenera/species list to the bumble bee page is a good idea or if it would just create clutter. The source of the list would be: S. A. CAMERON, H. M. HINES, P. H. WILLIAMS. (2007) A comprehensive phylogeny of the bumble bees (Bombus). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2007, 91, 161–188.Corbiculad 00:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My inclination, at this point, would be not to actually list all the subgenera on the page, but instead make sure that all the species pages place each species in the correct subgenus following the new classification. What you MIGHT do is to compose a separate article - a "List of world bumblebee species" (there's just over 200, if you don't count subspecies) - and organize that article by subgenera. About the only change that might need to be made to the bumblebee article would be to change the number of subgenera from 37 to whatever number those authors have used. I certainly wouldn't bother making separate articles for each subgenus. Peace, Dyanega 16:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yellow Jacket

Thanks for the heads up on the yellow jacket image. From the information I got from a friend it was identified as a Yellow Jacket rather than the Polistes dominulus(European paper wasp). Rather than let the image go to waist I will put it in that section instead.

The funny thing is that, this was is called the European Paper wasp but I live nowhere near Europe. The photo was actually taken in Toront, Canada, I guess they are not exclusive to the continent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverspark (talk • contribs) 18:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strepsiptera

Dear Doug, I have been looking over material on Strepsiptera and I have very limited access to current research literature. Borror-Triplehorn-Johnson (6ed) uses Mengeidae which appears to be now reserved for an extinct group with the extant members moved into Corioxenidae (which is not mentioned in the outdated outline material I have). Do you know of a key to the families listed on the Strepsiptera page ? TIA Shyamal 04:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I knew, the status of the classification was as reported on the Tree of Life web page, which is linked; the Mengeids referred to by BTJ are presently placed in the Mengenillidae. The TOL page may contain a reference with a key, though I'm not certain. Dyanega 00:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

You deserve a barnstar for your comments at Talk:Morgellons. Axl 09:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
To Dyanega, for providing a consistent, balanced viewpoint. Axl 09:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mimicry articles

Hello Dyanega, you've probably noticed I've been working mainly on mimicry articles lately, and I'd like to hear your thoughts on their development. How long do you think the main mimicry article should be, and how technical? I'm thinking of having two conceptual articles: evolution of mimicry and classification of mimicry to discuss the core theoretical aspects, allowing the main article to be more friendly to the lay person. I'm also hoping to have several daughter articles for specific mimicry types, such as acoustic mimicry, Müllerian mimicry, mimicry in plants etc. Since many of these don't exist yet, the main article is still in somewhat of a shambles, with some parts being underdeveloped and others too detailed. Do you think this is a good plan? Richard001 00:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

My own inclination would be to keep it as a single article for as long as possible, and only start splitting sub-topics off if the article truly becomes unmanageable; the conceptual articles would be nice, but possibly a little esoteric and therefore not worth spending a lot of time on until you think the main article is really in solid shape. One thing to consider is developing the mimicry category, where articles dealing with organisms that are considered to be mimics are hunted down and tagged as such, to expand the cross-referencing to the main article. I can see that being a very helpful tool in organizing the available examples. Peace, and keep up the good work, Dyanega 00:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

for this and the fix before. Must have been a late night for that typo! // FrankB 04:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bee Photo

Hi Dyanega:

I am very new to Wikipedia, and recently added a photo (taken by myself) to the Honey Bee page, which you subsequently removed, citing that it was a commercial photo. Do you consider it to be a commercial photo, because it was released under the Attribution license? Or because you believe it to be a "borrowed" image? Are attribution photos not allowed in the articles? If not, I am willing to release the photo into the public domain. If it is simply a matter of permission ... as it is my image, I certainly have given permission for its use.

Thank you for any clarification you can provide,

MrWikiFix —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwikifix (talk • contribs) 18:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ...apology

Okay sorry about that. But as an investigative researcher and journalist I am a resource of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hivementality (talk • contribs) 00:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for cleaning up beehive

Thanks for stepping in and cleaning up beehive. It needed that. --P3d0 21:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coccinellidae

Thanks. --John 16:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism

I saw your comment on Shyamal's page, and I've blocked a couple of persistent vandals for a while. I don't watch most insect pages, but if you let me know of any persistent vandals, previously warned, I'll block if necessary. Jimfbleak —Preceding comment was added at 17:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ant revert

The edit by Meldor that you reverted was actually legitimate. It puts a star against the interwiki link to indicate and it appears that [1] is indeed a Featured Article FA on that language wiki. Shyamal 04:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apiology Page

Hey Dyanega,

Thanks for your work on the apiology article! Do you think there should be a seperate article created for Melittology? I am a grad student studying bees in AZ. AJseagull1 06:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


p.s. i used a lot of the userbox templates from your user page. hope that's cool. AJseagull1 06:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beetle family

What family is this likely to be of. Less than an inch long and chooses to fly, found in open grassland and visits flowers. Shyamal 03:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Based on the prothorax, I'd say it has to be an Oedemerid. Dyanega 06:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks ! Shyamal 07:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warriors vs Soldiers

I believe you are right, but who came up with the terminology? AnteaterZot 08:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  • So not E.O. Wilson, then? About when did people notice there were castes? I ask because there is no article on insect castes. AnteaterZot 21:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carpenter Ants

I placed an expand tag on Carpenter ant because it is way too short an article for such an economically important topic. Having just read your user page, I suspect you might be in a position to do something about it. AnteaterZot 21:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  • As a genus page it's fine. But, what about those Wikipedia users who have carpenter ants in their house? They don't care about taxonomy, and the page is called "Carpenter ant", not "Camponotus". AnteaterZot 22:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Then they need to determine what species they have, and the article should help them do so, or at LEAST inform them that there are many possibilities they need to consider - there are dozens of different carpenter ants, just like there are hundreds of different termites, and tens of thousands of different bees and wasps. It's sort of like saying "Every day I'm being attacked by an animal in my neighborhood. What should I do?" - the proper response depends entirely upon knowing what kind of animal it is (even if you narrowed it down to "dog" that still isn't specific enough). Dyanega 22:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I've made some changes in that direction. AnteaterZot 22:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apis laboriosa smith

hello Dyanega,

Judging by what's on ur user page, I guess that you must quite an authoritarian figure in entomology. Therefore, in all wikipedian tradition, i am posting a query.

I have read in a couple of places that Apis dorsata laboriosa is no longer called so and now the Himalayan cliff honeybee is called just Apis laboriosa.

Just wanted to confirm, because i would like to make a few changes to the 4 bee species that are indigenous to South Asia.

Regards, 203.91.140.133 (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eusociality

The article is in a bad state without references. Could I have a soft copy of your "The definition of eusociality" Crespi and Yanega. Behav. Ecol. 1995; 6:109-115. Shyamal (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a link to a self-archived version of that paper? I can see only an abstract here [2] and did not find it here [3] Shyamal (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Have done a round of cleanup and have cited paraphrased versions of the definition debates in more recent reviews. Some of the material can be comfortably deleted - as they are also repeated in other linked articles. Shyamal (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia policy and inclusive fitness article

Understood, and pretty much in agreement. I previously did only copy editing--not for me, really, to tell someone else what to post, I thought--but we are working on the article to hash out a more busineslike version. It's just taking a lot of time that I don't have outside3 my regular job. Maybe over Christmas break we'll get it done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.187.23 (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coleopteran groups

How current is this List  ? Shyamal (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I compared the two lists and the only items needing reconciliation (annotations would be useful to the current list) are Cyathoceridae and Urodontidae (and Microsporidae which you already noted). 10:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyamal (talk • contribs)

[edit] Category:Empusidae

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Category:Empusidae. It is considered vandalism. If you think an article should be deleted, please use deletion process, in stead of blanking the page. Od Mishehu עוד מישהו 07:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a response

Responding to this:

Hi. Just so you know; while the technically preferred spelling of "bumblebee" is indeed "bumble bee", it is still the less common spelling variant among authoritative sources at this stage of things. As far as I can tell, this is primarily because non-American English speakers almost invariably use "bumblebee" as a single word still today, and Wikipedia has a fair bit of inertia in such regards. While it may not be consistent, this is one case where it is far easier to accede to the majority usage. The use of "honeybee" as a single word shows more clear signs of being phased out, even outside of the US, so I and other editors have been working to make the various WP articles internally consistent in using the "honey bee" variant. Perhaps that example will eventually be followed by a transition to "bumble bee", but I don't see it happening soon. Peace, Dyanega (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Merriam-Webster actually gave me almost precisely the same response when I told them that "honey bee" is the more correct spelling. They insisted that "honeybee" had a slightly higher incidence of usage in the journals that matter. I wrote back and told them that "wrong is still wrong". Maybe we have tipped over the edge now with "honey bee". My worry is that wikipedia is now "THE" authority and the stance that wikipedia takes becomes the defacto standard. I would love to take a stand on correctness. I suspect that when folks are in doubt, they will check wikipedia and then use that spelling... which will perpetuate the problem (if you can call it that).

So... I agree to a degree, but ultimately disagree. Wikipedia has a lot of power to drive standards now. I think we should be as correct as possible. So, my vote is: spell it as it should be and make a note as to common usage, not the other way around.

Happy Holidays!
-tonica

[edit] Pyrops candelarius vs Pyrops candelaria

Hi. Thanks for cleaning up the article that I started on this bug.

I see you moved the article from Pyrops candelaria to Pyrops candelarius. Do you have any souce to back up this claim?

Google has 526 entries for my original title. link to google search. But only 11 entires for the new name that you gave it. link to other google search

I'm no expert so it's possible that I was wrong. But I was just wondering why you changed it. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I happen to be an expert in nomenclature and taxonomy. There is a formal, official Code governing the proper spelling of scientific names (the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature). One of the rules is that the name of a species must agree in gender with the name of the genus. The name "Pyrops" is masculine, and all names in the genus must be formed to also be masculine. While it is true that nearly everyone in the world refers to the species as "candelaria", those folks who do so are all wrong, and their ignorance of the rule is no reason to perpetuate the misspelling. That's exactly why rules of nomenclature exist; so when there is a difference of opinion, there is one clear and definitive answer. The genus Pyrops is masculine, therefore, all the species names in the genus must also be masculine. Dyanega (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining it. Yes, I agree with you - those other people are wrong. I was wrong. Thanks for teaching me. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the advise

Hi Doug: Thank you for the recommendations. As I am starting with editing in Wikipedia I am continuously but still slowly learning what and how to do about editing, and helpfull comments like yours are allways welcome. I will be taking into account your sugestions. As for the move it happened in a starting confusion, when in some way I had the impression that I had been editing the pages Potter wasp and Eumeninae at the same time and then, to avoid duplication I decided to keep all the edits in the Eumeninae page, thinking that the scientific name was more accurate than the common name (I was thinking like a taxonomist and not like an enciclopedy editor in that moment, sorry). Cheers, Bolosphex (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Digging into a fruit?

Wow... it is really the first time I have heard of a record precisely like that. I am not very familiar with Epipona as the genus is not present in Paraguay and I just collected it one time in Nicaragua. But about other Epiponines, what I remember in Telica volcano, Nicaragua, many year ago, is having seen several Synoeca septentrionalis eating Nancite (Byrsonima crassifolia) fruits, wich are just about 2 cm across and sweet. That's the way I would expect a social wasp finding (ocassionaly or on purpose) a burrowing larva, although I did not see such thing happening at that time. But avocado fruits are large and not precisely sweet and I do not remember (personaly, which does not mean it couldn't happen) them as especially atractive for social wasps. It is probable that they were primarily atracted by a rotting fruit, if that was the case. I have seen Polybia and Agelaia wasps being atracted by rotting fruits and even carrion (some Agelaia species are well known for doing the latter). In such situations they are usually found eating the rotten matters, but it could well be an opportunity (I think) to prey on other insects visiting or developing on the spot. As long as I know a same pattern of behaviour is appliable to either predatory and parasitic wasps: they first seek for a place suitable to find a prey and after finding it they proceed to look for a prey in that place. Anyway, the observation is interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolosphex (talk • contribs) 12:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] blowfly photo

Re your comments on the Talk:Blow-fly page, I've added a tighter crop of the photo I'm proposing as a replacment, and would appreciate your comments. Martybugs (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Bengalia

Hello, Prof. Lehrer is back with his usual load of personnal attacks, but directed against you this time. Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry I did not reply in time to protect the page. It seems that another administrator has done it. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 19:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Dyanega! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article review for Mimicry

Your name was mentioned in a discussion about a Good Article reassessment for Mimicry. If you have any opinions that you would like to share about that article, please consider posting them here. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ID of photo

Hi. You incorrectly identified a photo of a queen bumblebee as a carpenter bee; I have restored the original image. It's a fine photo, but it's not what you thought it was. Dyanega (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, looking in your bee/wasp gallery, you have several misspellings and misidentifications in addition to this particular misidentification. The list: Apis mellifera is often misspelled as "melifera"; your "male Lasioglossum" is a male Halictus species; "Polistes gallicus" is not a valid species name (the correct name is Polistes dominulus); there is no family "Xylocopidae" (which you misspelled "Xylopcopidae") - carpenter bees are in the family Apidae; the Halictus species name is spelled "scabiosae" (not "scabiose"); Bembix and Philanthus are in the family Crabronidae (not Sphecidae). If you need help with IDs and nomenclature in the future, please feel free to post links to images on my talk page, and I will happily offer my assistance. Your photos are excellent, and it's a shame to not have the correct names to go with them. Dyanega (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's good to have an entomologist among us, thanks for your remarks ad help ! Yes, I'm sure I'll need it quite often, as I feel quite ignorant is this matter. Maybe part of the responsability for those family mistakes goes to Michael Chinery and his book "Insects of Britain and Western Europe (A & C Black, London, 1986), my primary source of information... As for the black bee, I'm not convinced yet: please notice the colour of the wings (purple) and of the tips of the antennae (redish). These bees made their appearance in Lisbon about one week ago and they are now everywhere! If they are all indeed queen bumblebees, what species do you think they belong to? Are all the black bees at the end of my gallery of the same bumblebee species? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I got it! It is indeed a bee, a female Anthophora plumipes. In this species there is a strong sexual dimorphism, with the females being all black - Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry to insist, but please take a closer look at this picture. The eyes almost reaching the jaws and the rust-coloured pollen brushes on the hind legs are all characteristic of A. plumipes. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, I was also doing my home work... Please look here -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No need for apologies. I have learned more about insects in the last year (in Wikimedia and Wikioedia) than in my entire life before! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cochineal edits - thank you!

Big thanks for this edit. I know I should be more bold (and your edit summary encapsulates just why) but, mmm, I'm shy about making substantial changes to other editors' conributions. Thanks again!
--Shirt58 (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phegonidae

I was looking for information on this beetle family that many folks spot the larvae in the night out here and ask about it and its relation to Photuris beetles. There is almost NO information on the family (what is it now?) on the whole Internet. Hope some information on this can be unearthed. thanks. Shyamal (talk) 12:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The correct spelling is Phengodidae. You have no phengodids in India; the only possible bioluminescent families in your area are Lampyridae (the family that Photuris belongs to) and Rhagophthalmidae. Dyanega (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah ok. Many thanks. Rhagophthalmidae it must be then. Shyamal (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Thanks for explaining about categories. I am very new here and trying to learn, but I am getting the wrong lessons sometimes. Why is there a Category: Bumblebees with only one article? Why is Category: Bees under categories Hymenoptera and Apoidea? These problems are nothing compared with the ones that I find in Wikipedia Español. Too bad that there is no Spanish speaking clone of you! All the categories and articles in Hymenoptera are in complete disarray. Argh! Polinizador (talk) 12:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Taxacom related comment

You wrote:

...and no model will work without *participation*. Frankly, I have a hard time imagining ANY way to convince every taxonomist in the world to collaborate with all the others on a *voluntary* basis: there are too many "rugged individualists" who will refuse to join in the effort, if not actively work to undermine it for their own selfish reasons.

If you don't think the Wiki model is a viable approach to the matter, even if modified to require approval for changes, then what alternative do you see that will draw in all the world's taxonomists to contribute?

I have come to similar conclusions and tell folks that win-lose seems to be the way it is for collators versus individual contributors (related), win-win collaboration appears impossible so why not a lose-lose collaboration (individuals lose, communities gain though).

cheers. Shyamal (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barcoding notes

Dropped some notes on Talk:DNA barcoding and would be interested in your opinion. Also I have DOI'd 4 papers (1 new and 3 not new at all ones) that may yield good refs here - I find the debate on mol-barcoding to consistently miss one major point: something very very similar has been tried before. It did not work as it was supposed to. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming horrors

You may find the PDF links on Nyctibatrachus hussaini of interest. Shyamal (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback rights

I just discovered that rollback rights can be granted to help fight vandalism. You should now find a rollback link in the history that makes reverts easier. Shyamal (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] history of kin selection

The important paper is Hamilton's 1964 one in the Journal of Theoretical Biology -- The Genetical Evolution of Social Behavior. This is the most cited paper in evolutionary biology.

The 1963 note by Hamilton does not have the maths in it, nor as lengthy a discussion. It was written second, submitted to Nature, rejected and published in the American Naturalist. The 1964 paper was written as part of his PhD thesis, and with difficult maths, and the fact that it had to be split into two, took longer to peer-review and publish.

There are two incidences of pre-Hamiltonian kin selection. (1) R.A. Fisher The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (1930), q.v. the chapter on mimicry. (2) Haldane (1955). Neither seem to have fully understood its implications, nor did they show, like Hamilton did, that this works for all gene frequencies and is fundamental to fitness, evolution of eusociality in haplodiploid organisms. The Haldane quote is quotable, as Haldane often was, but an oversimplification and it is wrong to attribute it to him.

Alan Grafen concludes "inclusive fitness was a major conceptual advance in biology, wholly original with Hamilton". To see why, please read the paragraph before this quote at: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~grafen/cv/WDH_memoir.pdf search for Haldane and start reading there (though the rest of it is relevant too)

See also http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1988/A1988Q116000001.pdf

and if you can Seger J, Harvey P (1980) The evolution of the genetical theory of social behaviour. New Scientist 87:50-51

and Narrow Roads of Gene Land vol. 1.

I think Dawkins goes on about it somewhere too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I am not a dog (talk • contribs) 17:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't like your tone.

Secondly, please show me where Maynard Smith credits this idea to Haldane. Have you read the Grafen paper? I am not a dog (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, the term kin selection originates with Maynard Smith -- Hamilton always preferred inclusive fitness. That led some at the time to attribute kin selection to Maynard Smith, but not Haldane. Maynard Smith, e.g. Evolutionary Genetics (1998) correctly credits it to Hamilton. As Grafen notes, it is a common mistake to attribute it to Haldane. And as I have pointed out, the first known instance is Fisher. There may be others yet unknown before him. I am not a dog (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Maynard Smith got his idea of kin selection off Hamilton anyway, it was he who peer-reviewed Hamilton's paper for J. Theor. Biol. And then it crept into his consciousness. That he initially did so without crediting Hamilton led Hamilton not to like him for a while. Again, Narrow Roads of Gene Land, vol 1. I am not a dog (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grafen

Just how revolutionary was this work? There were frequent accusations of lack of originality, which were found hurtful. However, the view cannot be sustained that Hamilton’s work was merely an elaboration of an idea that should be credited to Haldane or Fisher. They had both previously published some of the ingredients, but neither had seen or even partly understood the magnitude and significance of the problem that Hamilton identified. Fisher never pointed out that his argument about aposematism contradicted the assumptions of his fundamental theorem. Haldane published his 24-line passage in a paper (Haldane 1955) in a semi-popular journal. Neither Fisher nor Haldane indicated that there was a general problem about how natural selection acted on social behaviour, and so naturally neither claimed to be tackling it. Neither gave the impression they attached more importance to these arguments than to the others on adjacent pages. In the large, then, there is no question of pre-emption. Even with a more detailed point, it is easy to overvalue the earlier work. A modern audience reads Haldane’s use of the chances of sharing a gene and, being familiar with inclusive fitness, immediately thinks of the coefficient of relatedness, and is then tempted to credit Haldane with the importance of relatedness in social behaviour. But there is no evidence that Haldane ever made that leap from gene-sharing with particular relatives to relatedness in general. There was, however, a definite moment at which Hamilton realized the significance of the coefficient of relatedness and found that, in place of separate models making special assumptions, he could instead construct a single general model in which relatedness had a crucial role. Finally, the idea that individuals acted as if maximizing some quantity that generalized Darwinian fitness was not even hinted at by Haldane or Fisher. Indeed, so novel was this idea that I know of no passage in their work in which such a hint could even have found a natural place. Yet it is precisely this aspect of inclusive fitness that forms the centrepiece of Hamilton’s achievement.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by I am not a dog (talk • contribs) 17:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Precursors

When an idea originates, there are often precursors to it. Hints that people had started going down that road but had stopped travelling down it for some reason. The obvious example is natural selection itself. Some had thought about natural selection before Darwin. But none had synthesised it all together to create a theory of evolution. So Hamilton has precursors too, yes, but please don't attribute something to Haldane that wasn't his. Haldane contributed enough to biology and would be embarrassed to be attributed with something he did not do.

The important paper is Hamilton's first 1964 paper, published second. I am not a dog (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] inclusive fitness v kin selection

inclusive fitness, kin selection, Hamilton's rule are all basically the same thing, viewed from a different angles (Dawkins' famous Necker cubes I suppose). Hamilton preferred inclusive fitness, the term "kin selection" was invented by Maynard Smith. It's swings and roundabouts but the history is more-or-less the same. I am not a dog (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: inappropriate edit to Death's-head Hawkmoth

Hi Dyanega, thank you for your message. The problem in Death's-head Hawkmoth was caused by many wrong interwikis in foreign wikipedias. I have now moved all interwikis related to Acherontia atropos to the page Acherontia atropos. If something is wrong, please tell me, and I will correct it. --Pipep (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Youtube links

Well I was under the impression that if you can't cite from the external link then better not to have it in the section? But checking WP:EL it would seem that YouTube links are ok if appropriate to the subject. I wasn't aware that the user had been adding links all over the place. I'm still of the opinion that references are a better option than adding too many external links to an article. But if you think that the link is ok then feel free to revert my edit.--Sting au Buzz Me... 10:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Just a small personal thank-you for your work on the Morgellons article, and for dealing patiently but firmly with the POV-pushers there. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mexican geography stubs

Hi Dyanega - good to see a couple of new stub articles on Mexican geography. One suggestion though - instead of adding both {{geo-stub}} and {{mexico-stub}} to the end, just adding {{mexico-geo-stub}} will save you (and stub sorters) a little work. All countries now have their own geo-stub templates - and some countries, including Mexico, have state specific ones, too. Keep up the good work :) Grutness...wha? 01:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] stingless

I probably have to accept the fact that the name "stingless" bees will stay most present... However, I hope you understand that something is right or wrong because it is most stated or cited in the web or literature. To give two examples: "killer bees" and "killer whales" are most common - both in language and google. It is still wrong then (though I must admit that stingless is not as bad as "killer"). I do not know if this is only a personal opinion, but I think that nothing should be named after something it does not have/possess (especially if it is actually wrong). There are plenty of ants and insects lacking a sting or eyes or wings etc. "stingless ants", "wingless bees" imagine that! Thank you, however, for letting include "meliponines" though! At least the name meliponine is not wrong then! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.130.72.222 (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some images

You may be able to help putting families on some of these invertebrate images. Feel free to edit the captions. All specimens from the Central Himalayas. User:Shyamal/images4 Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 05:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Velvet Ant?

On the velvet ant talk page you said that your an expert on them. I was wondering if you could tell me if this is a velvet ant? Pic 1 Pic 2 Pic 3 Pic 4 We saw this little guy trucking across the sand in the desert just outside the Mojave National Preserve in California. We followed him until he found a plant and started eating something on it. There were others around like him, but most of their "shells" looked shrivled up, as opposed to this one which looked really beautiful. I thought it was some kind of ant, and was wondering if it had some eusocial function. But it would make more sense if it was a velvet ant, because it looked solitary. Thanks in advance. I was really fascinated by this thing: I had never heard of velvet ants before.  :) Brentt (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a blister beetle, in the genus Cysteodemus. They ooze caustic fluid from their joints. Pretty cool-looking beetles, though. Dyanega (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow, really? Thank you for that. It wierd how much Coleoptera and Hymenoptera look alike. Is the distinction cladistic? Are all Coleoptera more closely related to each other than they are to any Hymentoptera and vice versa do you know? Because, so many Coleoptera look like ants. . Brentt (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture for Rod (cryptozoology)

Hi! I somehow ended up on Rod (cryptozoology) from somewhere else (you know what this place is like), I noticed on the talk page that you're an entomologist (I bet you have plenty of articles to work on!). Do you think it would be possible to set up a pair of cameras like in the article and get some shots of a moth or something to provide an illustration? Seems like you might know about setting up that kind of picture. :-) We could put the "rod" image at the top to illustrate the concept in general, and its counterpart in the "explanation" section to illustrate that.

Of course, the article text itself needs some serious editing, it's all over the place at the minute... I've watchlisted it to try and remind myself.

Thanks for your time! --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 12:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ant

Have gone ahead and thrown Ant to the WP:FAC process for evaluation. Not sure if it will make the mark for "brilliant prose" - but several editors have offered their help to its improvement. Do take a look at the review comments when you have some time. Shyamal (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI Morgellons

Discussion at NPOV Noticeboard here. Ward20 (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] minor edits

Hi Dyanega. Thank you for writing about Morgellons at my talk page. I will try to be giving the mainstream view less weight but please edit my POV if I am not being enough kind to the fringe theories IYO. I wanted to let you know, your edits at Morgellons were inadvertatnly marked as m or minor. In WP:MINOR "Any change to the information, pictures, or other things in the article is not minor, and should not be marked as minor." Yours were not minor edits b/c they add information to the article, minor edits are usually stuff like punctuation, spelling, and I need alot of that I know! Just FYI! Thanks again! RetroS1mone talk 21:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Morgellons

Hi Dyanega,

I am writing to save you time, you need not respond to my last post unless of course you want to, I don't plan on editing the article again. Best of Luck. Ward20 (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)