Talk:Stenocara dentata

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because... (the taxobox as such is relevant information for people trying to learn about insects) --Lies Van Rompaey (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Expert needed

I think this article ([1]) is proposing that S. dentata should really be called S. crenata because Thunberg in 1787 called it Erodius crenatus. I don't know if my reading of this is correct or whether this became an accepted name. Rmhermen (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Further sources

May be mentioned in Field guide to insects of South Africa, Mike Picker, Charles Griffiths, Alan Weaving - 2004 - but not in the pages available to preview online. Rmhermen (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

ID Is Problematic

We have a few different things here:

• The Stenocara dentata that the article was initially created for.
• The "long-legged darkling beetle" that stands on its head- no scientific name mentioned
• The beetle mentioned in the Hydnora article, specified as Stenocara dentata, but without author citation
• Stenocara dentata (Fabricius 1792) which is said to be a junior synonym of Stenocara crenata (Thunberg 1787) in the taxonomic article linked to above on the talk page

• There's also the Namib Desert Beetle of another article, which could be one or multiple species of Stenocara, quite possibly this one.

There's no source that ties these things together, though one could make a good (but not airtight) case for the Stenocara dentatas being the same. Without that, this page is just a random bit of vagueness that won't survive close examination.

I'm not sure that the Hydnora article is enough to show notability, and the beetle that stands on its head to absorb water is already covered by the Namib Desert Beetle article- so why have this article at all?

As for the issue raised by the taxonomic article: I'm not an expert, but it seems to make a good case that Stenocara dentata (Fabricius 1792[2]) is the same as Stenocara crenata (Thunberg 1787). I noticed a reference to Stenocara dentata (Herbst 1799) [3]], which might indicate something invalid about Stenocara dentata (Fabricius 1792)- possibly breaking the connection with Stenocara crenata (Thunberg 1787). There's also a rule in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature designed to protect names in use from being replaced by names that haven't been used in a long time- but I don't know if it applies here. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that the sources here don't tell us much about S. dentata. The ZooGram article could be talking about S. gracilipes, although it's also possible that other species in the genus display the same behaviour. Bolin et al. (doi:10.1086/593047) merely list S. dentata without giving any other details. This source lists a new synonymy, as follows:

Stenocara crenata (Thunberg, 1787) comb. nov.)

Erodius crenatus Thunberg, 1787: 41

Pimelia dentata Fabricius, 1792: 102, 16 syn. nov.

Pimelia dentata (F.) Herbst, 1799: 112, t. 124, f. 10

Adesmia dentata (F.) Haag, 1873: 31

Adesmia dentata (F.) Allard, 1885: 201

Adesmia dentata (F.) Gebien, 1910. 89

Stenocara dentata (F.) Gebien, 1937: 660

Stenocara dentata (F.) Penrith, 1979: 50, 52

Based only on that, I would suggest writing a new article at Stenocara crenata, and redirecting Stenocara dentata there. I don't think there's anything in the current article worth moving across. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)