Talk:Mecoptera

Template:Tmbox[[Category:Template:GA/Topic good articles|Mecoptera]] Template:WikiProject banner shell

New cladogram needed

Given this information: [1], the cladogram needs to be updated. Jalwikip (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Siphonaptera are really Mecoptera?

There isn't a reference to back this up, but even if there was, I don't think DNA entirely overrules the other taxonomy characteristics that are taken into account. In any case I don't think the claim that Siphonaptera are a part of the Mecoptera is widely accepted. The Tree of life and the Systema Naturae certainly don't think so. I'll probably remove that from the taxo box unless there's good evidence that the claim is widely accepted. - Taxman ^Talk 15:52, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

You're probably right that it's not widely accepted yet, so feel free to remove it from the taxobox, although it should probably be mentioned in the article. I'll add the reference in a minute. AFAIK the DNA evidence does not really contradict other evidence -- it's just that before, nobody really knew where to put fleas since they are so highly specialized, and so as a stopgap they made them their own order. With TOL/SN, it's unfortunately hard to tell if they disagree with a research result or if they just haven't heard about it yet. --Chl 20:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

More than happy to leave it in the article the way it is now as a mention, especially if you can find the reference for it. But I'd really like to remove it from the taxobox unless there's further verification that the claim is widely accepted. Covering it that way seems appropriate given the facts of the situation as I see them so far. Thanks for responding also - Taxman ^Talk 21:04, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Needs citation and more detailed discussion (i.e. which sequence? nDNA, mtDNA, ...? Have HGT or parasite-forced evolution effects been discussed (Have Wolbachia studies been done in these taxa?)? Morphological apomorphies seem to me at first sight and being fairly ignorant about syn- vs aut- in insects to be equivocal as for being syn- vs autapomorphies: the exact nature of the reversal would be interesting to know; Resilin vs no resilin is apparently a highly autapomorphic character in arthropods so its presence is not very informative. (Reversals tend to screw up parsimony analyses because they're unparsimonious per definition; might be worthy of note if we can get a current morphology paper/discussion too)

Also, there is one word missing from the Boreidae part; please see the source as I have outcommented it, being unable to resolve it myself and the information making not much sense at present - probably just "and", but might as well be "versus" (i.e. phylogeny -> B. (M. + S.) ). In any case, scrapping Siphonaptera would only be a relevant question to ponder if Mecoptera would be polyphyletic otherwise, and even then it might be better to split up the latter as Siphonaptera's evolutionary "trajectory" has gone along a very different course for considerable time. It might even be possible to live with a paraphyletic Mecoptera (to the exclusion of Siphonaptera); it is basically what weighs more, phylogeny (where they came from) or evolution as a whole (where they're at). Dysmorodrepanis 02:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link which might be helpful: [2] --Kjoonlee 22:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Somehow the article formatting got screwed up

If you know how to fix this (I don't), please do! Thanks 64.252.206.245 (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Images

Template:Ping just wanted to let you know, I was looking to give a better overview of the Mecopteran diversity, as the gallery and page both were almost entirely of Panorpa sp. The fossil and evolution section is woefully lacking still so that section will be expanded to add the supporting text needed.

Yes, far too many of the most commonly photographed species. I've moved the fossils to the fossil section where they can or will support the text in that section as it is worked on. I don't think, actually, that we need an enormous essay on fossils for an Insect order article, but clearly it's a bit sketchy at the moment. Diversity will be best handled in the "Diversity" section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree about not needing a large section on fossils. By fossils I mean extinct members of the order. The extinct taxa provide the evolutionary history of the order, and an article that glosses over them should not be considered ga or fa level. --Kevmin § 19:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, we plainly agree that we need a section. It needs to cover "the main points", as the guideline says, of the history, and to be proportionate to the rest of the article in length and style. The evolutionary history of most groups of insects has been ascertained at least as much by molecular phylogeny as by anything else. Nobody's attempted to write very much of one for this article in the 12 years it has existed; I'm happy to write something, but if you'd rather do it, feel free. I'll probably put in a few basic details of what lived when. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Cladograms

Given the space taken up by the cladograms, should we be including the images on the first one? Also do we have a good idea of how accurate both are given the amount of research that has happened since they were published?--Kevmin § 22:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, that's three good questions all at once. On the images, yes, I think so: by far the most helpful place for the images is at the leaf nodes where they belong, so they give an immediate visual impression of the phylogenetic relationships. On the space, I think it's very reasonable, given the agreed importance of the evolutionary history of the group (and while I'd not use otherstuffexists as an argument, you will certainly find much larger cladograms for other groups). On the accuracy, the external relationships are pretty solid, very well agreed by people in the field and not changed in 16 years now. The internal relationships are boldly presented as doubtful because nobody has yet done any better: any cladogram with three-and-a-half-way branches is going to get revised eventually! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Title

Insect orders that have English names are normally titled in English. Scorpionfly is a widely-used name for the order, not used for anything else, and familiar to amateur naturalists and experts alike. I therefore propose we move the article to that title. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that scorpionfly is only the common name for the panorpids, with Bittacids commonly known as hanging flies (not having the enlarged genitalia) and Meropids are forcepflies. I would say it should stay at Mecoptera. See Hymenoptera, Neuroptera and Lepidoptera for precedent.---Kevmin § 21:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you are overstating your case. The Nannochoristids, Choristids, Panorpodids, Panorpids, Apteropanorpids, Boreids, Eomeropids and Meropeids are all reasonably called scorpionflies. Even the Bittacids are sometimes called hanging scorpionflies, a special kind of scorpionfly. It's plain that 'scorpionflies' has spread from the narrower usage (Panorpus) to all-the-Panorpids to all the Mecoptera, as has happened with many other English names. (The Lepidoptera would all be called 'butterflies' if it hadn't been for the strength of 'moth', and the French indeed call all of them 'papillons'.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I am going with accuracy over vernacular inaccuracy, and we should be working at informing of the complex naming of the groups by leaving the article at the most commonly used name, Mecoptera. Bitaccids and meropids, make up at least half the order, and are most often not called scorpionflies. Lepidopterans should be precisely be called moths as butterlies are simply derived moths, so that doesnt actually work as a strong argument either.--Kevmin § 13:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

All "vernacular" names are "inaccurate" by taxonomic standards: if we followed that logic we would never use any English name for any taxon, but on the contrary Wikipedia favours common names. When a name is in widespread usage for a group among naturalists both amateur and professional, we should properly use it. That does not require a count of the number of bittacids or meropids, but of what people generally call the group, which is scorpionflies. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mecoptera. 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/20050818104810/http://myrmecos.net/insects/mecoptera.html to http://www.myrmecos.net/insects/mecoptera.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)