Talk:Insect wing

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.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Naming system

I know that for the moment a lot of space is taken up by the naming conventions, but I'm going to move this part to the Comstock-Needham system article, and develop the rest a bit more. IronChris | (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Halteres

a little discussion about these vestiges might be a good idea too Goldfinger820 01:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion on wing morphology for insect orders required

We should have at least a line or two expalining the general shape of wings in each order, example for beetles, odonates, hemipteran etc. Note that most orders are named after wings,examples, lepidoptera, hemiptera etc. A note on the etymology may also be useful.AshLin 03:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excellent article

This is a lovely basic article. Good foundation to start on. Each order in hexapods has slightly different wing structures, different venations, different names. Would the wings of each order (technical description) be treated in seperate articles with this one being the common insect wing description with links to each of these articles? --Viren 03:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that we can start off by doing the descriptions here, and if they get too long we can move them (or just some of them) to a seperate article. Better that than we do them on seperate pages and they end up too short, not to speak of the fact that it would be more difficult to find all of the information in one go. I think it's generally best to start on a common article and split if necessary (see sections vs. separate pages, article size). IronChris | (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bring elytron here too?

The next question is: should we merge elytron here as well? It would fit quite nicely here, in my opinion. --Stemonitis 12:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I would have been against, but then I took a look at elytron, and it is a rather short article so it could fit in here. I'm not sure if it really is a necessity though, as there are links from this article already... I guess it makes it easier to get all the information without having to search through several articles. Maybe you should propose this on the talk page of "elytron". IronChris | (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glossimar wings

What is a "glossimar" wing? I know I have spelt that wrong, but I've hear the phrase used in the context of insect wings - jak (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The dictionary meaning of gossamer is any very thin gauzelike fabric; also, a thin waterproof material. Another is a fine, filmy substance, like cobwebs, floating in the air. It calls to mind a very ephemeral substance. Enid Blyton quite often used the word gossamer when describing fairy wings. You may have heard it in this context. I've seen the butterfly family Lycaenidae also referred to as gossamer wings. --Viren 04:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paranotal vs. epicoxal theory

Shouldn't we have at least some discussion here of the relative merits of the different theories regarding the origin of insect wings? -- NJPharris 03:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)