Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of ant subfamilies/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 02:24, 2 November 2015 [1].

List of ant subfamilies[edit]

List of ant subfamilies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): jonkerz ♠talk 20:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ants are back. This list was previously nominated in July last year. It failed mostly because there was not enough of a consensus after more than two months, and it must be mentioned that a delegate and another editor were not comfortable with having a FLC based to such a large extent on open content (Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License; please see the first nom for details). The list looks very much the same, but has been updated. jonkerz ♠talk 20:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I still retain my support from the previous nomination and everything is up to date, especially with the genera. I do have one question though - If ants that lack a metapleural gland are excluded from Formicidae, wouldn't ants such as Camponotus and Polyrhachis be excluded as well, or is this statement only discussing Armaniinae ants? In regards to the issue of using open content, I do not find it really concerning if it's from a free source that allows its redistribution. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is only required to have evolved in a common ancestor (snakes and whales are both "four-footed", heh). I've tweaked the sentence slightly.
Makes sense, your changes look good. Burklemore1 (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - supported last time, just a few small comments before I support again:

  • "but overturn others — and suggest" - this shoudl either be an unspaced mdash or a spaced ndash, but not the current spaced mdash.
Done
  • " the most recently discovered subfamily.[4][1]" - reverse the order of the refs
Done
  • "All were placed in the single genus Formica..." - this sentence runs on and on with commas- rework or (better yet) split into two sentences.
Reworded slightly
  • A little out of bounds for this nomination, but it's odd that this list says that Armaniinae is a subfamily that's sometimes the family Armaniidae but there's evidence that contradicts that, but when you click through to Armaniinae it redirects to Armaniidae and says that the consensus is that interpretation. (Then the Genera and species section reverses that again.) Seems like the two should match. --PresN 00:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern. I had a discussion regarding this issue with another editor last year. It boils down to: 1) This list is based on AntCat's classification, which still treats the taxa as a subfamily. 2) As per LaPolla et al.‍ (2013), this taxa should probably not be classified as a true ant as long as fossils show no evidence of a metapleural gland.
However, listing the taxa as a subfamily in this list (along with the note explaining the situation) is imo better than excluding it, because a) AntCat is an authoritative source for ant taxonomy; cherry picking could constitute original research, and b) classifications change all the time, when AntCat updates their catalog, I'll update this article.

Support - happy to support again! --PresN 16:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! jonkerz ♠talk 18:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • The first paragraph is largely quotation of the source. I see you mention its licensing terms at the end of the references, but does this allow quotation without inline attribution NIkkimaria? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the publisher site says the journal is hybrid, meaning that some articles are published as open access and others are not. But since this particular article is listed there as open access, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: Thank you for taking a look at this; Zootaxa does not make it very easy to discover which articles are open access and which are not. Can I mark this issue as resolved? For anyone who wants to confirm that the Ward article is OA, please see the third paragraph from the first nom.
  • Yeah, that is what I was trying to say for that specific article. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Bayesian analyses of multi-gene data sets Leptanillinae is sister to all other ants, while the poneroids form a clade that is sister to the formicoids, but this result appears to be confounded by data artifacts." I had to read this sentence several times and I am still not sure I understand it. Does it mean that the Leptanillinae are one clade which is sister to another unnamed clade of the poneroids and the formicoids? What are data artifacts? Presumably the relationships of the Martialinae are unknown?
Sentence rewritten with a more recent source
  • I would prefer a bit less on the history of classification and some information on the history of ant's evolution. When did they first appear? When did they radiate to their current large number of species? How were they affected by the end-Cretaceous extinction?
I have added some info in. Dudley Miles, could you do some double checks? Burklemore1 (talk) 07:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the info but I have some concerns about it.
"Prior to assuming ecological dominance, only a few primitive species were widely known on the Laurasian supercontinent (located in the Northern Hemisphere)." I would delete "Prior to assuming ecological dominance". It is not needed and has not been explained at that point. I am not clear what the second part of the sentence means. "a few primitive species were widely known" - known to whom? Does it mean that ants were then confined to the Laurasia and there were only a few widespread species?
Tweaked.
"Following the rise of flowering plants, ants assumed dominance by the Eocene period." This is not quite right. The rise of flowering plants was in the mid-Cretaceous and was at the same time as the emergence of the ants, not their rise to dominance, as explained in your ref 6, which links their dominance to the flowering plants' advance into tropical forests. This ref also explains what is meant by dominance in this context.
Tweaked.
"Some subfamilies, such as Leptanillinae and Martialinae may have diversified from early primitive ants." Did not all subfamilies evolve from early primitive ants?
Removed.
I think this paragraph should be in a separate section, called say "The evolution of ants" rather than in the history of classification section.
Done.
How about something like: "Ants first arose during the mid-Cretaceous, more than 100 million years ago, associated with the rise of flowering plants and an increase in forest ground litter.[6] The earliest known ants evolved from a lineage within the aculeate wasps, and a recent study suggests that they are a sister group of Apoidea.[7] During the Cretaceous ants were confined to the northern Laurasian supercontinent, with only a few widespread primitive species.[8] By the middle Eocene, around 50 million years ago, ants had diversified and become ecologically dominant as predators and scavengers. Ant species are less than 2% of total insect species but have one third of the biomass." This is based only on ref 6, apart from the second and third sentences. You would no doubt wish to amend/add but I hope it is some help. The Laurasia sentence needs checking to see whether my revision is correct. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll use your suggestion, but the changes about the Laurasia part are still correct, that is what I was trying to imply as a matter of fact.
  • What does dorylomorph mean? Can it be linked?
There's no page for the dorylomorph clade (army ants and their relatives), but I've reworked the sentence.
  • I think it would be helpful to have the explanation of the dagger in the infobox as well as at the start of the list.
Done
  • You mention that Brownimeciinae was Cretaceous. You might do the same for Armaniinae. -
Done
  • "now only found in the Australian region" I think Australasian would be more accurate.
Done
  • "predominantly aboreal ants" Do you mean arboreal? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • Thanks for the review, Dudley Miles. I've addressed some of the concerns, more to come.
  • Support. A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on images: While I support the list to be promoted, I'll initiate an image review so we can confirm the images are fine to use. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the image review, Burklemore1. I'll ask the people on Commons.
Link: commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Public domain photo used in a Featured List Candidate
Okay, I have looked at the link and saw the image is in public domain instead? If so, then this image review is in order with no problems. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the recent changes, all images have been checked and can be used in the article. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching this!
No worries, best of luck on promoting the list! This time it seems to be going much smoother. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to any reviewer: I have noticed that the nominator has not been on Wikipedia for a bit, but I will email him to see if he can solve the single comment that hasn't been addressed. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Sorry for not being more responsive. Burklemore1 has graciously offered to address the final comment (which I've had some issues completing). While this is the oldest open FL nom, I'd be very grateful if the delegates could keep it open and gave Burklemore a chance to save it. jonkerz ♠talk 15:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will send a message to some editors to see if they are willing to have a look at this and leave any comments. If they decide to support, at least we could reach consensus to promote. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

Looks good, and I see no reason why reusing free text should be a problem, but why is there a separate clade list at the top of the article? Couldn't this info be incorporated in the main list? FunkMonk (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean something like this? Given that the list is nested and that some subfamilies are sisters to all ants, it makes it hard to incorporate it into the main list while still making it easy to read. I think keeping it close to the 'Clades' section makes the text easier to follow. jonkerz ♠talk 15:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think your example there would actually be less confusing for layman readers. Now it is kind of hard to understand it in context if you don't already know about the subfamilies. FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the clade list should be retained if it is going to cause further confusion by adding it into the the actual list itself. However, I will gladly join discussing other alternatives. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which has generated intense scientific and public interest" Intense is too hyperbolic.
Removed word. I'll let Jonkerz work on your other issue. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only a few primitive species were widely known on the Laurasian supercontinent" Are widely known? I doubt anyone knew anything back then.
Rewritten, per suggestion given above.
  • "As of August 2015, 12 genera are listed as incertae sedis within Formicidae" By who? And is there even agreement on this?
I'm not sure how to handle this, suggestions are welcome. Unless there is widespread disagreement within the scientific community, I tend to not mention it in articles (two of the incerae sedis genera are mentioned in the note section). Some options:
  1. Adding something like "according to AntCat", to make it explicit
  2. Make it less specific: "About ten genera are incertae sedis (of uncertain placement), and are not assigned to any subfamily."
  3. Leave it as is and let the reader follow the ref, because there's no such thing as The One True Taxonomy
  4. Removing the sentence (but leaving the preceding in place)
I think #2 is the best option. Let me know what you think. jonkerz ♠talk 15:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2 seems ok, and the exact dater seems irrelevant, as long as the text is up to date. FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. jonkerz ♠talk 17:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The info in the table seems inconsistent. In for example Formiciinae, we get: "Contains the Eocene-aged fossil genus Titanomyrma, with three described species. With queens the size of a rufous hummingbird, T. giganteum and T. simillimum are the largest ants known.[25]" Yet this is not the only genus, so why so much info?
Rewritten. jonkerz ♠talk 15:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_ant_subfamilies/archive2&oldid=1076194842"