646:. Woah, bad start. Zero out of five families have a useful common name. The Riodinidae family doesn't have a common name at all; the purported common names of the others are enumerations of common names of two or more of their subclades. Papilionidae are "Swallowtails Apollos". Lycaenidae are "Blues, Coppers, Hairstreaks." Pieridae are "Whites Yellows/Sulphurs". Well, actually they are "Whites and Yellows" or "Whites and Sulphurs" depending on where you live, but whatever; it's not funet's problem the contraction makes for a shitty article name.
174:
74:
53:
146:
22:
211:
654:. Interesting. This list gives actual common names for four out of five families, but two of them directly contradict their funet counterparts. Papilionidae are simply "Swallowtails"; where did the Admirals go? Pieridae are "White, Yellow and Sulphur butterflies"; how again did Yellows and Sulphurs become two distinct subfamilies of equal rank?
426:; I don't have any hard number on this but I'd guess it's about nine out of ten. In a genus of somewhere between ten and twenty species I typically have to move between one and four articles. Just browse around and see for yourself. We are not introducing a new convention; we are straightening out deviations from the existing one.
470:. Knowledge (XXG) is changing IMO, and in exactly the direction you want. But change is slow. Please help it to happen smoothly by contributing these views in the appropriate forums, rather than ignoring the current conventions and endlessly repeating the same arguments, which simply do not address the issue I have raised.
998:
This table dramatically understates the size of the problem. One, as I've already said, Papilionidae is the easy family. Two, I've only checked if the page on genus X at funet directly contradicts the page on genus X at the NCBI. If you test for contradictions across genus boundaries you get at least
515:
to take action on because they were using common names that were highly ambiguous, actively misleading, or flat out wrong. If you look at my contributions history you see that these examples account for roughly half the common names I've changed so far. One out of every two common names we currently
1092:
No, it wasn't you who discouraged me and nothing about your phrasing was overly confrontational. You insisted that a significant departure from established policy must have an extensive and compelling body of argument to justify it. You are absolutely right about this, and not just in the abstract;
1062:
I really regret discouraging your hard work with the best intentions, and can't help noticing the enormous good will which is expressed in your commendable reluctance to escalate this and start a fight. I wish I'd found a better way forward, and apologise for some of my phrasing which has been more
699:
Well, let's see. Two out of three subfamilies have a common name. Unfortunately, the common names in question are "the
Swallowtails" and "the Apollos", which makes you wonder how funet can call the family "the Swallowtails and Apollos" and how the NCBI can call it "the Swallowtails". I mean, aren't
695:
As luck would have it, Papilionidae is the easy family. Papilionidae tend to be large, flashy, and popular. They are much more likely to have established common names than the small, sallow
Pieridae or small, dull Lycaenidae. Along with Nymphalidae, Papilionidae are the butterflies that people love
1096:
What discouraged me was the discussion on the project talk page. One editor, a distinguished expert and experienced contributor here, is against the cleanup I was trying to perform. I think he means well, and with respect to some of my article moves he does have a case. The problem is he's let the
560:
that
Reliable Sources actually agree on. (The NCBI taxonomy, funet, and tolweb contradict each other in more cases than they corroborate each other in.) My assertions are easy to verify; just spend an hour or two browsing the species tree and run a few vernacular names against funet and the NCBI.
536:
I have been actively involving the
Lepidoptera Project in everything I do; please look at their talk page. The convention seems to have been voided, as far as Lepidoptera are concerned, by the negatory precedent of years of active disregard. How many butterfly articles have you seen recently being
1104:
We all know that
Knowledge (XXG) usually sides with the rules lawyers over the pragmatists. Now that a competent and energetic rules lawyer has decided this is personal I would need an official amendment to the policy to be able to continue with anything even remotely resembling effectiveness. My
1045:
Good research you did here. Might I suggest you put all relevant arguments and thnis research you did on a user page or at a subpage of the wikiproject for future use? We could expand on this gradually to make people not actively working on insect articles see why using scientific names DOES make
1112:
nothing; the butterfly tree definitely contains fewer errors now than it did two weeks ago and I cleaned up a handful or two of unrelated disambiguation pages on the side. Two, the repairs this place needs are tedious but not actually hard, lots of people can do this, and there is no reason the
429:
The cleanup I'm doing has valuable side effects. Due to the ambuigity problems I mentioned earlier some links in articles currently go to articles different from the ones the article author intended. Due to the same problems many species appear to be documented in multiple articles. It is not
801:
Two tribes here. Neither of the two tribes has a common name, but then again neither does any of the seven genera they contain between them. Of the 77 species in this subfamily, ten have common names that both taxonomies agree about; five species have common names with regards to which they
909:
has somewhere between 80 and 230 species, somewhere between 22 and 100 of them have common names; I'm going to go with 200 and 90. For nine species, the common names stipulated by the two taxonomies are exact matches; in four cases funet and the NCBI explicitly contradict each other.
1134:
I don't see any strong arguments based on policy or broad consensus either way. Personally, I think the common name in
English (disambiguated as necessary) makes the encyclopedia better. Anyone who needs or will benefit from the scientific name... there it is in the lead.
508:, as I've already pointed out somewhere, the possibility of using common names didn't even come up any more. The fact that a common names policy would be "asinine", as AshLin has put it, it completely self-evident to everyone who actively works on this area at this point.
564:
That makes it quite complicated, and yes, now you're addressing one of the issues. This sounds to me like a valid case can be made for the exemption you're seeking/assuming. Specific links, please? You should be able to do in a few seconds what it would take me
898:
Two out of the three tribes and three out of the 17 genera in this subfamily appear to have useful common names. This clade is huge, nobody knows how many species precisely it contains. Roughly half of the species and most of the common names are in
187:
914:
for example is either the "Mocker
Swallowtail" or the "Flying Handkerchief" according to the former but the "African Swallowtail Butterfly" according to the latter. In the remaining cases funet postulates a common name while the NCBI does
1068:
As I see it, we are caught up in a very gradual shift in
Knowledge (XXG) towards a more authoritative and less democratic polity. Whether long term this is a permanent shift or a temporary fluctuation it is not possible to
1319:
999:
twice as many positives. Three, many common names are useless even if the two taxonomies agree with respect to them simply because they are ambiguous. I believe I have established that ambiguity is a problem on
415:
or are useless due to ambiguity or neutrality issues. Using common names for a fraction of the one out of four articles where it's theoretically possible would get you nothing but a usability nightmare.
522:
have an encyclopedia that willfully and knowingly misleads people (and in some cases promulgates factual errors) because it puts The Rules before clarity (and in some cases factual correctness).
124:
486:"The current discussion, which I initiated, is merely a restatement of your views as re-restated above. Neither the recent discussion nor the old discussion produced a clear consensus"
466:
Several editors including yourself have formed the opinion that there should be a specific convention as an exception to the existing convention for insects and the general policy at
191:
1320:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070804165348/http://www.nrm.se/utstallningarcosmonova/jourhavandeforskare/jourhavandebiolog/insekter/apollofjaril.4.18fc9baff6275048180002991.html
1097:
discussion nudge him into deciding he has an ego investment in his position; this has made the debate devolve first into angry rules lawyering, then argument by derision, then
588:
Likewise. In fact I want all of
Knowledge (XXG) to be like that. The project namespace is an important part of this. It won't ever match best practice completely, so we have
732:
724:
896:
810:
799:
498:
494:
382:
378:
918:
1351:
1347:
1333:
1323:
1241:
1237:
1223:
807:
916:
638:. You will have to either trust my count or go form an impression for yourself, which is why I invited you to browse the tree. Anyway, I will try to make a case.
206:
This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the
Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at
730:
1428:
1418:
114:
894:
797:
574:
I'm not trying to be territorial here or anything, I just want a Lepidoptera tree that doesn't spout bullshit at laypeople who don't know not to trust it.
722:
316:
use scientific names instead of common names for titles in general, partly because articles on butterflies in general do, partly because most species in
726:
It contains one genus, Baronia. Good news everybody! funet and the NCBI finally agree on something! They agree that Baronia has no common name at all.
1423:
718:. It's the least actively confusing option brought up so far, except of course for that evil scientific name we can't use because of The Convention.
1027:
1023:
505:
502:
90:
709:
691:
1413:
540:
What you seem to be saying there is that the documentation and practice don't match. I'm not arguing with that. That seems to be the problem.
1189:
348:
In cases where common names are well-known and reasonably unique, they should be used for article titles. Scientific names should be used
195:
81:
58:
342:. This appears to be part of a campaign to introduce a new naming convention, departing from the convention of the parent Wikiproject at
1105:
chances of getting this amendment are essentially zero as long as it remains a subject of noisy contention even within its own project.
532:"Please help it to happen smoothly by contributing these views in the appropriate forums, rather than ignoring the current conventions"
320:
don't have any common names in the first place. "Apollo (butterfly)" and "Clouded Apollo" are the only two exceptions among 60+ pages.
1324:
http://www.nrm.se/utstallningarcosmonova/jourhavandeforskare/jourhavandebiolog/insekter/apollofjaril.4.18fc9baff6275048180002991.html
1329:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
711:
lists an alternative second "common" name for Apollos. Apparently they're not just the Apollos, they're also the "Parnassians".
644:
343:
33:
1000:
396:
511:
The current discussion is definitely not just a restatement; it provides a fair number of specific examples of articles I
1394:
1284:
1158:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
238:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
199:
922:
The rest of the clade consists of 267 species with a total of 37 postulated common names. There are 10 exact matches.
634:
do not have common names and that in cases where do the taxonomies disagree with each other on what these names are
1350:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1240:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
294:
1113:
entire tree has to be fixed in one go by one person. One day or other things will have ironed themselves out.
160:
39:
652:
353:(my emphasis). Has consensus been obtained for this new convention? If so, link to it. If not, then seek it.
1385:
1311:
1275:
1181:
715:
693:
1051:
1369:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1357:
1259:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1247:
1093:
you were absolutely right to step in and demand specific data points. You have nothing to apologize for.
700:
they forgetting something? Like, at least one entire subfamily? Awesome, neither taxonomy is consistent
306:
89:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1310:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1190:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070928091331/http://www.goliathus.cz/en/parnassius-apollo-apollo-249.html
1180:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
186:
texts. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under both the
1214:
1140:
275:
252:
310:. There is no reason I'm aware of to give precedence to either species. Two, articles on species in
21:
374:
This is not a new convention; there has been consensus about this since at least 2007. Please see
285:
548:"and endlessly repeating the same arguments, which simply do not address the issue I have raised."
1303:
1173:
451:
I know it can be frustrating, but this is not a trivial matter. I have read the links above. The
262:
1354:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1244:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1370:
1260:
1193:
1079:
1047:
597:
475:
358:
300:
266:
455:, which I initiated, is merely a restatement of your views as re-restated above. Neither the
497:
there were seven strong supports and one weak oppose against using scientific names. In the
1377:
1267:
589:
1136:
248:
796:
6. Let's back up and look at the second of the subfamilies we saw earlier, Parnassiinae.
616:"Specific links, please? You should be able to do in a few seconds what it would take me
467:
430:
realistically possible to fix these problems without cleaning up the naming issues first.
339:
194:. You may use either or both licenses. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by
1336:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1226:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1118:
1035:
1012:
579:
439:
389:
325:
271:
1376:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1343:
1266:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1233:
1407:
643:
1. Let's look at the root of the butterfly tree, Papilinoidea, for example at funet
1075:
593:
471:
354:
812:
Others, however, are fairly serious turds in the punch bowl: according to funet,
86:
210:
1342:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1232:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
721:
4. Let's look at the first subfamily, the one with, you know, no common name.
152:
73:
52:
893:
7. Let's back up again and have a look at the third subfamily, Papilioninae.
1399:
1289:
1144:
1122:
1114:
1108:
At any rate this is not worth getting upset about. One, I didn't accomplish
1083:
1055:
1039:
1031:
1016:
1008:
601:
583:
575:
479:
443:
435:
362:
329:
321:
256:
802:
contradict each other. Some contradictions are inconvenient but harmless;
463:
produced a convention, nor even a clear consensus that one was possible.
298:– One, the common name "Apollo" is ambiguous; it is used to refer to both
552:
I've pointed out that nine out of ten of the clades we are talking about
592:, but the better it matches the less time we'll waste in the long run.
516:
have, in other words, is provably unsustainable. You have two options:
407:
Four out of five articles on Lepidoptera have to use scientific names
317:
312:
156:
232:
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal.
179:
The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from
1152:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.
501:
three years later there were three supports and zero opposes. In
168:
140:
15:
1199:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
1194:
http://www.goliathus.cz/en/parnassius-apollo-apollo-249.html
188:
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license
180:
809:
and the "Rocky Mountain Parnassian" according to the NCBI.
1314:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1184:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
696:
and whose naming scheme has received the most attention.
159:
project (see below). For further information, please see
1307:
1177:
1098:
903:, so it makes sense to look at this genus separately.
816:
is the "Southern Festoon"; according to the NCBI it's
183:
344:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Insects#Names and titles
85:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1346:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1236:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
561:How, specifically, am I not addressing the issue?
690:3. Let's look at the first family, Papilionidae.
558:do not have a neutral and unambiguous common name
806:is the "Mountain Parnassian" according to funet
651:2. Now let's look at the same node at the NCBI
216:. Do not use this template to claim permission.
1332:This message was posted before February 2018.
1222:This message was posted before February 2018.
519:let me continue correcting these mistakes, or
8:
714:I say we name our article on this clade the
1302:I have just modified one external link on
1172:I have just modified one external link on
47:
734:Good news again! No common name either!
338:. Neither name is ambiguous in terms of
99:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Lepidoptera
49:
19:
1211:to let others know (documentation at
925:So this is what we end up with then:
704:as regards to common names, not even
7:
1429:Items with VRTS permission confirmed
422:of existing articles on Lepidoptera
79:This article is within the scope of
1419:Mid-importance Lepidoptera articles
38:It is of interest to the following
1074:Not easy meantime. Hang in there.
151:This article uses text donated by
14:
1306:. Please take a moment to review
1176:. Please take a moment to review
1424:WikiProject Lepidoptera articles
729:5. Baronia contains one species.
209:
198:volunteers, under ticket number
173:
172:
144:
102:Template:WikiProject Lepidoptera
72:
51:
20:
706:across the very first two nodes
243:The result of the proposal was
119:This article has been rated as
1123:09:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
1084:22:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
1063:confrontational than I wished.
1056:11:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
1040:10:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
1017:05:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
602:01:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
584:23:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
480:20:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
444:19:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
363:18:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
330:16:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
192:GNU Free Documentation License
1:
1028:not interested in hostilities
424:uses scientific names already
93:and see a list of open tasks.
1414:B-Class Lepidoptera articles
1290:12:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
1145:22:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
1099:argument by pretend butthurt
537:created using common names?
495:first of the old discussions
296:15:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
257:18:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
554:do not have any common name
161:Knowledge (XXG):GLAM/ARKive
1445:
1363:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1299:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1253:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1169:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
937:useful common names found
832:useful common names found
746:useful common names found
673:useful common names found
125:project's importance scale
708:. Oh, and the funet page
118:
67:
46:
1400:00:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
1155:Please do not modify it.
235:Please do not modify it.
1295:External links modified
1165:External links modified
1024:no consensus in project
626:No, I can't prove with
395:the current discussion
82:WikiProject Lepidoptera
716:Fucksticks Butterflies
388:the recent discussion
28:This article is rated
411:because common names
307:Parnassius autocrator
245:No consensus for move
87:butterflies and moths
32:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
1344:regular verification
1234:regular verification
804:Parnassius smintheus
659:Let's keep a tally:
628:a few specific links
377:the old discussions
346:which reads in part
276:Parnassius mnemosyne
105:Lepidoptera articles
1334:After February 2018
1224:After February 2018
1203:parameter below to
636:more often than not
404:Executive summary:
1388:InternetArchiveBot
1339:InternetArchiveBot
1304:Apollo (butterfly)
1278:InternetArchiveBot
1229:InternetArchiveBot
1174:Apollo (butterfly)
1019:
1005:
814:Zerynthia polyxena
660:
655:
647:
639:
622:
506:recent discussions
490:This is not true.
453:current discussion
263:Apollo (butterfly)
34:content assessment
1364:
1254:
1007:
996:
995:
934:taxons looked at
891:
890:
829:taxons looked at
794:
793:
743:taxons looked at
688:
687:
670:taxons looked at
662:
658:
650:
642:
625:
614:
457:recent discussion
301:Parnassius apollo
297:
267:Parnassius apollo
222:
221:
218:
167:
166:
139:
138:
135:
134:
131:
130:
1436:
1398:
1389:
1362:
1361:
1340:
1288:
1279:
1252:
1251:
1230:
1218:
1157:
928:
927:
823:
822:
818:Zerynthia rumina
737:
736:
702:even with itself
664:
663:
292:
281:
237:
213:
204:
200:2011090810014488
176:
175:
169:
148:
147:
141:
107:
106:
103:
100:
97:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1444:
1443:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1404:
1403:
1392:
1387:
1355:
1348:have permission
1338:
1312:this simple FaQ
1297:
1282:
1277:
1245:
1238:have permission
1228:
1212:
1182:this simple FaQ
1167:
1162:
1153:
612:
409:not matter what
286:
233:
227:
145:
104:
101:
98:
95:
94:
61:
29:
12:
11:
5:
1442:
1440:
1432:
1431:
1426:
1421:
1416:
1406:
1405:
1382:
1381:
1374:
1327:
1326:
1318:Added archive
1296:
1293:
1272:
1271:
1264:
1197:
1196:
1188:Added archive
1166:
1163:
1161:
1160:
1148:
1147:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1106:
1102:
1094:
1087:
1086:
1071:
1070:
1065:
1064:
1059:
1058:
1022:Scratch this,
994:
993:
990:
987:
983:
982:
979:
976:
972:
971:
968:
965:
961:
960:
957:
954:
950:
949:
946:
943:
939:
938:
935:
932:
889:
888:
885:
882:
878:
877:
874:
871:
867:
866:
863:
860:
856:
855:
852:
849:
845:
844:
841:
838:
834:
833:
830:
827:
792:
791:
788:
785:
781:
780:
777:
774:
770:
769:
766:
763:
759:
758:
755:
752:
748:
747:
744:
741:
686:
685:
682:
679:
675:
674:
671:
668:
618:an hour or two
611:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
572:
571:
570:
567:an hour or two
550:
544:
543:
542:
541:
534:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
520:
509:
488:
461:old discussion
449:
448:
447:
446:
433:
432:
431:
427:
416:
402:
401:
400:
393:
386:
366:
365:
289:Alpha_Quadrant
279:
278:
272:Clouded Apollo
269:
241:
240:
228:
226:
225:Requested move
223:
220:
219:
208:permissions-en
203:
177:
165:
164:
149:
137:
136:
133:
132:
129:
128:
121:Mid-importance
117:
111:
110:
108:
91:the discussion
77:
65:
64:
62:Mid‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1441:
1430:
1427:
1425:
1422:
1420:
1417:
1415:
1412:
1411:
1409:
1402:
1401:
1396:
1391:
1390:
1379:
1375:
1372:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1359:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1335:
1330:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1300:
1294:
1292:
1291:
1286:
1281:
1280:
1269:
1265:
1262:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1249:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1225:
1220:
1216:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1170:
1164:
1159:
1156:
1150:
1149:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1133:
1130:
1129:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1100:
1095:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1072:
1067:
1066:
1061:
1060:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1020:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1004:
1002:
991:
988:
985:
984:
980:
977:
974:
973:
969:
966:
963:
962:
958:
955:
952:
951:
947:
944:
941:
940:
936:
933:
930:
929:
926:
923:
920:
919:
917:
913:
908:
904:
902:
897:
895:
886:
883:
880:
879:
875:
872:
869:
868:
864:
861:
858:
857:
853:
850:
847:
846:
842:
839:
836:
835:
831:
828:
825:
824:
821:
819:
815:
811:
808:
805:
800:
798:
789:
786:
783:
782:
778:
775:
772:
771:
767:
764:
761:
760:
756:
753:
750:
749:
745:
742:
739:
738:
735:
733:
731:
727:
725:
723:
719:
717:
712:
710:
707:
703:
697:
694:
692:
683:
680:
677:
676:
672:
669:
666:
665:
661:
656:
653:
648:
645:
640:
637:
633:
629:
623:
621:
617:
609:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
586:
585:
581:
577:
573:
568:
563:
562:
559:
555:
551:
549:
546:
545:
539:
538:
535:
533:
530:
529:
521:
518:
517:
514:
510:
507:
504:
500:
496:
492:
491:
489:
487:
484:
483:
482:
481:
477:
473:
469:
464:
462:
458:
454:
445:
441:
437:
434:
428:
425:
421:
420:vast majority
417:
414:
410:
406:
405:
403:
398:
394:
391:
387:
384:
380:
376:
375:
373:
370:
369:
368:
367:
364:
360:
356:
352:
351:
345:
341:
337:
334:
333:
332:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
314:
309:
308:
303:
302:
295:
293:
291:
290:
284:
277:
273:
270:
268:
264:
261:
260:
259:
258:
254:
250:
246:
239:
236:
230:
229:
224:
217:
215:
214:wikimedia.org
212:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
182:
178:
171:
170:
162:
158:
154:
150:
143:
142:
126:
122:
116:
113:
112:
109:
92:
88:
84:
83:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1386:
1383:
1358:source check
1337:
1331:
1328:
1301:
1298:
1276:
1273:
1248:source check
1227:
1221:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1198:
1171:
1168:
1154:
1151:
1131:
1109:
1048:Ruigeroeland
1021:
1006:
997:
924:
921:
911:
906:
905:
900:
892:
817:
813:
803:
795:
728:
720:
713:
705:
701:
698:
689:
657:
649:
641:
635:
631:
627:
624:
619:
615:
613:
566:
557:
556:or at least
553:
547:
531:
512:
485:
465:
460:
456:
452:
450:
423:
419:
413:do not exist
412:
408:
371:
349:
347:
335:
311:
305:
299:
288:
287:
282:
280:
244:
242:
234:
231:
207:
205:
120:
80:
40:WikiProjects
1215:Sourcecheck
912:P. dardanus
820:. Oh well.
632:most clades
155:from their
96:Lepidoptera
59:Lepidoptera
1408:Categories
1395:Report bug
1285:Report bug
1137:Born2cycle
1110:absolutely
953:subfamily
848:subfamily
762:subfamily
249:Stemonitis
181:Wildscreen
153:Wildscreen
1378:this tool
1371:this tool
1268:this tool
1261:this tool
1001:this page
992:29 – 142
610:Very well
503:these two
350:otherwise
1384:Cheers.—
1274:Cheers.—
1069:observe.
986:species
881:species
784:species
459:nor the
372:Comment.
283:Relisted
190:and the
1308:my edit
1201:checked
1178:my edit
1076:Andrewa
1046:sense.
942:family
907:Papilio
901:Papilio
837:family
751:family
678:family
620:to do."
594:Andrewa
493:In the
472:Andrewa
355:Andrewa
304:and to
123:on the
30:B-class
1209:failed
1132:Oppose
975:genus
964:tribe
870:genus
859:tribe
773:genus
590:WP:IAR
569:to do.
499:rehash
336:Oppose
318:Apollo
313:Apollo
184:ARKive
157:ARKive
36:scale.
931:rank
826:rank
740:rank
667:rank
630:that
468:WP:AT
340:WP:AT
1205:true
1141:talk
1119:talk
1115:Noym
1080:talk
1052:talk
1036:talk
1032:Noym
1026:and
1013:talk
1009:Noym
989:575
915:not.
598:talk
580:talk
576:Noym
476:talk
440:talk
436:Noym
418:The
397:here
390:here
383:here
381:and
379:here
359:talk
326:talk
322:Noym
253:talk
1352:RfC
1322:to
1242:RfC
1219:).
1207:or
1192:to
1003:.
978:25
887:10
884:78
513:had
196:VRT
115:Mid
1410::
1365:.
1360:}}
1356:{{
1255:.
1250:}}
1246:{{
1217:}}
1213:{{
1143:)
1135:--
1121:)
1082:)
1054:)
1038:)
1030:.
1015:)
981:3
970:2
967:5
959:2
956:3
948:0
945:5
876:0
873:8
865:0
862:2
854:0
851:3
843:0
840:5
790:0
787:1
779:0
776:1
768:0
765:3
757:0
754:5
684:0
681:5
600:)
582:)
478:)
442:)
361:)
328:)
274:→
265:→
255:)
247:.
202:.
1397:)
1393:(
1380:.
1373:.
1287:)
1283:(
1270:.
1263:.
1139:(
1117:(
1101:.
1078:(
1050:(
1034:(
1011:(
596:(
578:(
474:(
438:(
399:.
392:;
385:;
357:(
324:(
251:(
163:.
127:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
