Talk:Apoidea

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Apoidea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061002024313/http://www.earthlife.net/insects/solbees.html to http://www.earthlife.net/insects/solbees.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929060623/http://www.bombus.it/pdf/fiori_e_api/fiori_e_api.pdf to http://www.bombus.it/pdf/fiori_e_api/fiori_e_api.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Uncited changes to taxonomy

An editor has been making multiple changes to the taxonomy in this and related articles without providing any sources. I've reverted these for now; obviously we'd like to have an up-to-date taxonomy and phylogeny, but since uncited changes cannot be verified (WP:V) this is not an acceptable approach. It will be fine to have the changes reinstated supported by suitable reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Spheciformes

The claim that Spheciformes has been has been abandoned doesn't seem consistent with the entries at the Spheciformes page, which is based on the relevant entry on the NCBI taxonomy browser. Suggest removing the claim of abandoned. I agree that the use of the term has changed over time. Klbrain (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• The NCBI taxonomy is rather outdated, and also very explicitly gives the following disclaimer: "Disclaimer: The NCBI taxonomy database is not an authoritative source for nomenclature or classification - please consult the relevant scientific literature for the most reliable information." The "relevant scientific literature" did indeed abandon Spheciformes well over a decade ago. Dyanega (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)