Template:Did you know nominations/Pachycondyla succinea
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Pachycondyla succinea edit
close-up of Pachycondyla succinea male
- ... that Pachycondyla succinea queens were first described in 1868, but males (pictured) weren't described until 2009?
Source: "Description section" (DLussky 2009B pages 1051-1054 [1])
- ALT1:... that the ant Pachycondyla succinea (male pictured) was first described from three queens that are now presumed lost?
Source: "The species has been described by Mayr based on three specimens, none of which has survived" (neotype Section, Dlussky, 2009B [2])
- Reviewed: Syllis ramosa
Created by Kevmin (talk). Self-nominated at 23:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC).
Newly created article, QPQ done, no problem with text, sufficiently long article, use of fair images, cited hook. RRD (talk) 06:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Kevmin: The last paragraph of the article needs a reference before this can go ahead. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth:Done.--Kevmin § 15:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Replacing tick. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
