Chrysiridia rhipheus

• Featured article candidates/Chrysiridia rhipheus

Self-nomination: I'm nominating this article for featured article because I just put a lot more information in, and feel it is ready (and want to know how to make it ready if it isn't). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 03:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments...ok...let's have a look-see..... (I'll add comments below, and may change some obvious no-brainers. Advise or correct if I inadvertently change meaning). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd move all the alternate scientific names in the lead to the taxonomy section. They clutter a nice lead and are not essential, except maybe what it was first described as.

I thought they were fine before they were bolded, but now its true they "clutter". They're removed.Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 12:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd put the 3rd sentence of the lead as the 2nd, and place the material about lack of pigment after' that for natural flow (i.e. here's this pretty moth, but it ain't pigment which makes it colourful)

Done. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 22:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead should be two paras. I will look for some more info to add.

Added life cycle info to lead. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 22:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is it, with Urania, sister-taxa to the most basal diurnal uraniine genus Alcides. - erm, something get left out here? I can't follow it.

Changed to "The genus is, with Urania, sister taxa to the most basal diurnal uraniine genus Alcides." Clearer I think. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

..is produced by the alliance of two optic phenomena: - 'alliance' makes me think of battles. I know what you mean I am trying to think of an alternative.

How about 'union'? I know it also has a political connotation, I don't care which it is, as long as the meaning is there. (For finding synonyms you can try wiktionary, e.g. wikt:alliance). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. alliance → conjunction. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 15:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is if the insects possess polarization and color vision. - a bit abrupt, presumably you mean 'This is dependent on the insects possessing polarization and color vision, which is currently unknown (?).'

Yes, that's what I meant. Changed. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 16:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as revealed by its aposematic colours, - the colours don't reveal its toxic but warn...I guess

You guess right. Changed. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 16:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be Omphalea oppositifolia, rather than Omphalea oppositifilia?

Yes, well seen. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 12:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to continue later from Distribution and habitat Nectar sources. Ok, there's something to go on with anyway. Fairly straightforward fixes. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - a very informative and well-illustrated article. And wonderful to see more representation from the smaller majority
  • sole herbivore ... - seems a little too strong a claim given that HOSTS database lists Omphalea feeding lepidoptera - Alcides zodiaca, Lyssa menoetius and Urania boisduvalii (from other places)
    • Well, the sentence does say "It is the sole herbivore (...) in its native Madagascar;" Do you think it should be made clearer that this refers only to Madagascar? Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 12:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmmm, are you sure there are no leafhoppers, thrips, beetles and suchlike that feed on various other parts of the plant? Shyamal (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see what you mean, not I'm not sure. One sentence in the source is "In the absence of other obvious specialist herbivores on these plants (Omphalea)". I thinks the key to make it true is the "specialist". Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 16:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has five pairs of prolegs on the segments 3 to 6 and 10, with its six legs it has a total of sixteen. - I think legs should be specifically declared as thoracic or true legs and the summation leads to "sixteen" what? - summation is perhaps not really needed.
    • True, they can always use their abacus to figure it out. It'd be sixteen appendages I think. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 12:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once out of the pupal exuvia - exuvium ?
    • The exuvia article says both are correct. What's the difference? Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 12:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exuvium is singular - exuvia is plural. It appears here that it is about one pupa. Shyamal (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • PS: I am not so sure - appears User:Dyanega has recently been discussing this here [1]... Shyamal (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wings are deployed in about ten minutes, - hardened ? avoids a second deployed
    • Changed to "The wings are deployed in about ten minutes, by pumping haemolymph into the wing veins. The moth then beats them a few times, waits forty-five minutes to let them harden, then beats them lightly again. The moth finally takes flight one hour and a half to two hours later." I think it clarifies. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 16:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image Image:Chrysiridia madagascarensis.JPG is rather sadly cropped.

More later. Shyamal (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • User:IvanTortuga put a new one in. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 00:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Current ref 9 "Tait, Malcolm" is lacking a formatted website title, it just has a number right now.
  • Corrected. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 12:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Current refs 13 and 14 are lacking publishers (Oberthur and Webber)
  • Corrected. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 15:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Current ref 10 Griveaud is lacking a publisher. Might also warn folks that's a BIG file they are going to be downloading.
  • I mentioned in the "|format=" that the file is 3.87 Mbit. I couldn't find the publisher, [2] it isn't in the site I took the document from. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 16:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. the link does not bring to the intended location, place "the invertebrates ET griveaud" in the search box and you should get the document. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put s.n. to replace it. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Current ref 18 is lacking a publisher
  • Corrected. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 16:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources look good. Links all checked out with the link checker tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• New one - cite error in big red letters now. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Corrected. (I forgot a ref name...). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 14:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I think the lead could do with another paragraph perhaps, to better summarize information in the article that has not been mentioned in the lead yet.
  • Added life cycle info to lead. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 22:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Spell out units of measurement in full per WP:UNITS, so "7 to 9 cm (3 to 3½ in)," becomes "7 to 9 centimetres (3 to 3½ in)," and so on.
  • Changed good faith edit by User:Casliber. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question I added "Although the intended etymology of the specific epithet was not specified by the author Dru Drury,[13] it may be from the Latin Montes Rhipheaus, the Ural Mountains.[14]" This is borderline to original research, do you think the phrasing is clear enough on the fact that the real etymology is unknown and that this is an educated guess? (A well educated guess I think). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 22:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW - Rhipi refers to a fan ([3]) - See Rhipiphoridae - bearing fan (the antenna), Rhipidura (=Fan+tail) etc. Shyamal (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. Another possibility is Ripheus, I really don't know. Misspellings point in both directions. And "Rhipheus + a = Rhiphaeus" but "Ripheus + h = Rhipheus"... Do you think removing the whole thing is better? Or just to say the intended etymology isn't known. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 02:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added the possible etymologies as a footnote, and left the fact that the intended etymology wasn't specified in the main text. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 16:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments SPECIFIC POINTS DONE Prose tends to jump awkwardly from full-on bio-speak to much less formal registers. Some examples:
• "The Madagascan sunset moth, or simply sunset moth (Chrysiridia rhipheus) is a diurnal SPELL IT OUT? moth of the Uraniidae family. It is considered to be one of the most impressive and beautiful Lepidoptera,^[1] [for this reason] AND [it] has gained an international reputation ODD TERM - BEST DROPPED HERE, is much sought by collectors,^[2] and is featured in most coffee table books on the Lepidoptera.^[3] It is very colourful, but "THOUGH" BETTER the iridescent parts of the wings do not have pigment; the colours originate from refraction instead.^[4]" Size should be worked in in the lead, which generally should be expanded.
  • By spell it out do you mean 'add pronunciation'? Wikt:reputation doesn't give synonyms for the word. Do you have any suggestions? Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 15:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I meant explain it, or use "day-flying" or whatever you have lower down. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh I see. (Done, diurnal → day-flying). I also changed the sentence to remove "reputation" (with "famous worldwide"). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I expanded the lead with size and taxonomy. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 21:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "The moth is present all year long in most parts of Madagascar, but highest populations are found from March to August, while the lowest are from October to December. " should be "the" highest poulations, another awkward "but". Better something like: "The moth is present all year long in most parts of Madagascar, with populations highest from March to August, and lowest from October to December."
  • I put the sentence you suggested. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 15:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Description para 2 begins with "It"
  • It → The Lepidopteran. For variety. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 15:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "the alliance of two optic phenomena" combination, conjunction, joint effect of ...
  • alliance → conjunction. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 15:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Although the biological function of this polarization-dependent change in colour has not been studied, it may work as a visual signal among the species. This is dependent on the insects possessing polarization and colour vision, which is currently unknown"

"polarization-dependent" is ugly, and you've just said it, but not explained what it means. An explanation should be added, and the rest would be better something like: Although the biological function of this change in colour has not been studied, it may work as a visual signal to others of the species. This would require polarization and colour vision [BOTH? OR JUST ONE] abilities in the species, which have not been demonstrated.

• • Seeing this is the second comment on the paragraph, I rewrote it. The ugly "polarization-dependent" is gone, and I think it explains better. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 18:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "The caterpillars spin silk from their mouth with an ‘∞’ motion as they walk" - ???
  • Added "of the head" : "The caterpillars spin silk from their mouth with an ‘∞’ motion of the head as they walk". Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 15:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relationship with humans - better section name needed.
  • Renamed to "In culture". Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 15:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "The spectacular moth is featured in most coffee table books on the Lepidoptera,[10] and has an international reputation.[9] It is considered to be one of the most impressive and beautiful Lepidoptera,[8] rivalling almost any of the butterflies in brilliance of colouring and form.[18] For these reasons it is much sought by collectors.[9] It is collected in the wild, and raised commercially for the international butterfly trade. Only one of the four species of host plants, Omphalea oppositifolia, is used to raise the moth commercially. Using mainly wild collected plants, but also cultivated at a small scale.[21]

It was known by Victorians who used its wings to make jewellery.[24]"

- one sentence para, repeats wording in lead, etc. better something like:

This spectacular moth is considered one of the most impressive and beautiful Lepidoptera,[8] rivalling almost any of the butterflies in brilliance of colouring and form.[18] It is featured in most coffee table books on the Lepidoptera,[10][9] and is much sought by collectors.[9] It is collected in the wild, and raised commercially for the international butterfly trade; in the 19th century its wings were used in the West to make jewellery.[24] Only one of the four species of host plants, Omphalea oppositifolia, is used to raise the moth commercially, mainly using plants collected in the wild, but also some cultivated for the purpose.[21]

Reworded 'In culture' section with most of your proposition. But I put "its wings were used to make jewellery in the Victorian era.[24]" instead of "in the 19th century its wings were used in the West to make jewellery.[24]" As I feel Victorian has to be there, else "the West" extends the meaning to the whole Western world, which isn't as precise. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If it says how long they live I missed it.
  • It is in fact not included. I haven't found the answer. It might be in the R. Catala reference, as I haven't read all 262 pages, but it might not be there either. Another information I haven't put is the time spent in the egg... Catala explicitly says he doesn't have the information. I know of no source giving either the lifespan of the adult or the time in the egg. I am trying to contact David C. Lees (one of the authors in the references), I'll ask if he has sources for those questions if I get his email. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 21:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough - maybe no one has hung around to watch! Obviously nice to include if yiou get the info. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got David Lees' answer and he said that in fact the lifespan of the adult is "presumably not known", and would require large scale mark-release studies to determine. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 20:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question I've expanded the lead as suggested. Is the size about right now? Per Wikipedia:Lead#Length:

• < 15,000 characters → one or two paragraphs
• around 32 kilobytes → two or three paragraphs
• > 30,000 characters → three or four paragraphs

The article is 31kb, but about 11874 letters. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 22:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The size itself is fine, imo, but the silk safety rope stuff is unusual (no?) & worth mentioning. The lead is supposed (say some sages) to leave no surprises to come. I still don't quite grasp the importance of Polarization on the scales, & when i followed the link saw the nastiest lead para I've ever seen on WP (for scientific incomprehensibility). There must be a more appropriate article to link to somewhere, and a further sentence of explanation here would be good. Other than that, I think the article needs a quick prose polish all through, then I'm ready to support. Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the polarization article isn't clear... the Readability for Polarization says reader age is sometimes 23 and grade 18. Actually I don't grasp it that well either. You are right on the fact it should be clearer (both the section and the article actually), so I'll go learn on polarization (by reading related articles to the one I cited), and I'll rewrite the paragraph after I understand more. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I understand now is: Polarization is basically the 'shape' of light, we see it's 'size' (wavelength) but not the way this wave travels (the shape, or polarization). Since light can travel in a line (not polarized), in a circle (circular polarization) or in an ellipse or oval (elliptical polarization). We as humans don't see that, many insects do. For example this helps some butterflies see their polarized mate in the unpolarized forest (nice article in Nature). In this case the light is reflected, changes a bit in wavelength (colour change), but I think not in polarization. No one has ever studied the biological reason for this change. What we know is the reflected polarized light has the potential to carry more or better visual information to other moths. I am relatively certain of this, but I'd really feel better if I had a proofreader with knowledge in optics before I incorporate that to the article. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 20:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've added the silk use by caterpillars to the lead. The "safety-rope" is kind of unusual, but also found in other moths. The instances I've read more about were to get away from ants (in Lees and Smith, 1991, I think). But silk so the caterpillar won't fall is also found in tent caterpillars, and probably many more moth species. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Moved to Support after a further tidy of the prose. Johnbod (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Prose 95% of the way. "ssp." should be in italics? Footnote 1 spelt out in superscript? Can't it be signified by just a number? TONY (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]