Talk:Arctiinae

Missing fact

This article make no mention of the food they eat. -- penubag  (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree. In fact many articles on lepidopterans make no mention of the foodplants. This is disappointing in view of the fact that all the reputable sources list them ... but I guess most editors don't look in the reputable sources. --Wally Tharg (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

edit

I added the species Utetheisa ornatrix to the notable species list under the Arctiidae family. kzyoung (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Into Erebidae as subfamily?

See Lafontaine, J.D. & Fibiger, M. (2006) Revised higher classification of the Noctuoidea (Lepidoptera). Canadian Entomologist, 138, 610–635. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it's not being discussed because the prospect of fixing hundreds and hundreds of WP entries is not particularly appealing, and we ARE in fact talking about hundreds of pages that are all incorrect. A very large portion of the Noctuidae was moved to Erebidae back in 2006, in the following major publication: Lafontaine, J.D.; Fibiger, M. 2006: Revised higher classification of the Noctuoidea (Lepidoptera). Canadian Entomologist, 138: 610-635. Not only did it split noctuids into two families, but it sank two other families, Arctiidae and Lymantriidae, into the new family, as well. The consensus since this publication has been to accept the new classification, and, for example, Wikispecies has been almost fully updated and brought into line. Wikipedia has not, and I can only assume there are two factors at work: (1) SCOPE - because the amount of work to fix all the broken articles is enormous, and (2) INERTIA - because many editors or would-be editors on WP are still using references that pre-date the new classification; one can expect, for example, that attempts to update all the articles that use the name "Arctiidae" so it says "Erebidae" instead are going to be subject to incessant reversion by well-meaning editors who are using OUTDATED resources. I doubt that any editor is going to be happy about spending days of effort re-writing the classifications on several hundred pages, if they are going to have to fight against an incessant battery of reversion attempts by other editors. As things stand as of today, the articles for Noctuidae, Arctiidae, and Lymantriidae are all INCORRECT, and need to be brought into line with the Erebidae article. I will post copies of this explanation on those pages, as well. Maybe some enterprising soul will take this project on, but even though it is certainly something that should not be ignored, it may be a long time before it's resolved; it's already been 8 years now, and only Wikispecies has been changed, presumably because there are no editors there who use outdated resources. Dyanega (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

North American bias

This article is biased towards North American species & folklore etc - an account of European and Asian species is needed Barney Bruchstein (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Arctiidae caterpillar edit.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Arctiidae caterpillar edit.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 13, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-01-13. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 10:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A "woolly bear" caterpillar belonging to the moth family Arctiidae. Many species in this large and diverse family (containing around 11,000 members) have "hairy" caterpillars and the family name is derived from the Greek word for "bear".Photo: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Call for better referencing of all articles in this area

Articles on moths and butterflies are very light on references to the standard works in the area, notably Richard South, Bernard Skinner, Heath and Maitland Emmet and so on. I've just spent a happy hour or three upgrading the Jersey tiger article from really obvious sources that every lepidopterist worth their salt should have on their shelves. So why are there so few references to them?

Come on, folks! Books such as South, Skinner, Heath & Maitland Emmet etc. have all the foodplants listed, agreed size ranges, and all the distributions as they stood at the time. So why so few references to them here? Let's get editing! --Wally Tharg (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hairiness - is it prickly or soft?

I gots to know and I don't want to go poking if you can has done it for me. :-D 2.98.252.42 (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arctiinae (moth). 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/20090822010011/http://www.sciencefriday.com:80/videos/watch/10229 to http://www.sciencefriday.com/videos/watch/10229

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

General Comments

The wide array of photographs used to depict the species as well as they key behaviors solidifies its coverage. In addition, the list of references covers quite reliable sources that boost the article’s credibility. I particularly found the section on defense chemicals (also shared between organisms) to be the most interesting, for they appear to suggest an altruistic behavior that might contribute to kin selection. I also noted additional behaviors that I think may be included to add more content to the article, but these are completely open to debate. 1) Upon reading the article, I noticed a lack of information on butterfly feeding, which I then discovered had also been acknowledged by the Talk Page. This category can be added because it is a fundamental piece of information to understand the butterfly’s interaction with its environment and territory. 2) The article does not elaborate on the moths’ mating strategies. I think that reinforcing it with content on courtship, reproduction, and strategies males use to attract females can provide more information on sexual selection in this species. 3) The article mentions that this species can be social but does not explain this in reference to resource competition. For example, this category specifically could explain how defense chemicals used by this species may have evolved to aid in resource defense.

J.Prakash2344 (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Redirects and page titles

When a user enters or selects Arctiidae for a the Wikipedia topic, it redirects to Arctiinae. This is good, because the family no longer exists and was changed in rank to the subfamily Arctiinae. However, when a user enters Arctiinae for the topic, they end up on the page for the tribe Arctiini instead of the subfamily. When the user enters Arctiini, they end up at the subtribe Arctiina. This is confusing. I understand why it's this way -- there are explanations (very well written) in the articles. But I think it's a bad idea to assume the user wants a topic other than the one they specified. It definitely had me confused.

I would suggest using the single word names for the appropriate pages instead of guessing which rank the user wants: Arctiinae for subfamily, Arctiini for tribe, and Arctiina for subtribe. I'd be happy to make these changes, including incoming wikilinks, but I hesitate to tear into it without some kind of consensus or approval. Bob Webster (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. It's really confusing the way the redirects and article titles are currently set up. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 22:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Go for it. The tribe and subfamily should be at the base titles; hatnotes can explain how circumscriptions have changed. Plantdrew (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 26 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Pages moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

---

• Arctiinae (moth) → Arctiinae
• Arctiini (erebid moths) → Arctiini

– Currently, Arctiinae redirects to a page about the tribe Arctiini. Arctiini redirects to a page about the subtribe Arctiina. This is very confusing. See the discussion above.

These changes will also be necessary:

• Arctiinae (erebid moths) should redirect to Arctiinae instead of Arctiinae (moth)
• Template:Taxonomy/Arctiinae should have the link Arctiinae instead of Arctiinae (moth)
• Template:Taxonomy/Arctiini should have the link Arctiini instead of Arctiini (erebid moths) Bob Webster (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Current arrangement of redirects/titles is very confusing. While the taxonomic situation is inherently somewhat confusing, that can be handled with hatnotes. Plantdrew (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom / comment above. Thanks. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 01:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Jammer Moth" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jammer Moth. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Plantdrew (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)