The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk) 08:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
* ... that the
chrysalises of the
Mechanitis butterfly look like they are covered in shiny metal but they are actually coated with
chitin? Source:
Contrary to some comments online, these structures don't contain metal particles; they're made of chitin,
5x expanded by Bruxton ( talk). Self-nominated at 17:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC).
They are (Tithorea tarricina) in the brush-footed butterfly family, Nymphalidae., Tithorea tarricina is in an entirely different genus, let alone subtribe (Tithoreina vs. Mechanitina). The Indiatimes article that you cited here makes no mention of the genus Mechanitis, so it should not be in the article in the first place. Not all butterflies with metallic-looking pupae are in the same genus after all. This happens twice, so it needs to be addressed and removed.
The Mechanitis was named..., Mechanitis is a proper noun and should be worded as "Members of the genus Mechanitis" rather than "The Mechanitis". This happens a couple of times in the article as well. The etymology of the genus is very vague, saying it is "machine-like" but not giving an explanation as to who had named it or what language it had came from. There are definitely sources on the matter that you can potentially look for, and you can reach out if you need help. A specialized section addressing the etymology of the genus would also be very helpful.
Mechanitis Polymniawhen it should be Mechanitis polymnia. In addition, the article refers to the species M. polymnia as a "phenotype" rather than as a species.
Mechanitis is a genus of tigerwing butterflies in the Ithomiini tribeI would recommend you to mention this is the common name and possibly provide a source on it. You could perhaps say "Mechanitis is a genus of butterflies in the tribe Ithomiini, commonly known as tigerwings".
Mechanitis were describedto "Mechanitis was...",
They are brush-footed Nymphalidae butterflies.sounds off, perhaps something like "Members of the genus Mechanitis are members of the brush-footed butterfly family, Nymphalidae". Also
The classification of Mechanitis...and
The mature Mechanitis butterflies..., should be "the genus Mechanitis" and "butterflies in the genus Mechanitis".
The classification of Mechanitis, when based entirely on appearance of wing pattern and color is inaccurate because on the incidence of polymorphic butterflies.[3], you do not elaborate on what would be accurate. Probably would be best to finish that portion.
machineliketo "machine-like", language clarification would be helpful. I would assume Latin but it isn't given and probably helpful.
The polymnia chrysalises have a reflective coating which conceals the defenseless pupa by reflecting its surroundings to confuse predators. It is thought that predators see their own reflection in the chrysalis and then flee.[11]According to this it's not reflection, but rather, thermoregulation, so I would prefer you use a more scientific source than Earthtouch. In addition, it would not be "the polymnia chrysalises" but "the chrysalis of the disturbed tigerwing" if we use the common name, and "the chrysalis of Mechanitis polymnia/M. polymnia" if we want to use the scientific name.
Butterflies in the genus Mechanitis are abundant and they are "unpalatable".[2]should be in description rather than distribution. The quotations are not necessary as the status of unpalatability isn't bizzare or out of the ordinary for it to be directly quoted.
Female Members of the genus Mechanitis lay their eggs in clusters on the small hairs found on the leaves on poisonous solanum and poisonous Apocynaceae plants.[7], this sentence is a bit repetitive. You can say "on the leaves of poisonous plants in the genus Solanum and in the family Apocynaceae".
@ Bruxton: alright, the article looks to be in order. If you could possibly reword the hook, that would be the only thing left to do. Thank you for hard work so far. Ornithoptera ( talk) 06:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I have been checking this nomination multiple times every day and I have pinged the reviewer excessively. I do not think the DYK is going to reach the finish line so I withdraw.
Bruxton (
talk) 23:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk) 08:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
* ... that the
chrysalises of the
Mechanitis butterfly look like they are covered in shiny metal but they are actually coated with
chitin? Source:
Contrary to some comments online, these structures don't contain metal particles; they're made of chitin,
5x expanded by Bruxton ( talk). Self-nominated at 17:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC).
They are (Tithorea tarricina) in the brush-footed butterfly family, Nymphalidae., Tithorea tarricina is in an entirely different genus, let alone subtribe (Tithoreina vs. Mechanitina). The Indiatimes article that you cited here makes no mention of the genus Mechanitis, so it should not be in the article in the first place. Not all butterflies with metallic-looking pupae are in the same genus after all. This happens twice, so it needs to be addressed and removed.
The Mechanitis was named..., Mechanitis is a proper noun and should be worded as "Members of the genus Mechanitis" rather than "The Mechanitis". This happens a couple of times in the article as well. The etymology of the genus is very vague, saying it is "machine-like" but not giving an explanation as to who had named it or what language it had came from. There are definitely sources on the matter that you can potentially look for, and you can reach out if you need help. A specialized section addressing the etymology of the genus would also be very helpful.
Mechanitis Polymniawhen it should be Mechanitis polymnia. In addition, the article refers to the species M. polymnia as a "phenotype" rather than as a species.
Mechanitis is a genus of tigerwing butterflies in the Ithomiini tribeI would recommend you to mention this is the common name and possibly provide a source on it. You could perhaps say "Mechanitis is a genus of butterflies in the tribe Ithomiini, commonly known as tigerwings".
Mechanitis were describedto "Mechanitis was...",
They are brush-footed Nymphalidae butterflies.sounds off, perhaps something like "Members of the genus Mechanitis are members of the brush-footed butterfly family, Nymphalidae". Also
The classification of Mechanitis...and
The mature Mechanitis butterflies..., should be "the genus Mechanitis" and "butterflies in the genus Mechanitis".
The classification of Mechanitis, when based entirely on appearance of wing pattern and color is inaccurate because on the incidence of polymorphic butterflies.[3], you do not elaborate on what would be accurate. Probably would be best to finish that portion.
machineliketo "machine-like", language clarification would be helpful. I would assume Latin but it isn't given and probably helpful.
The polymnia chrysalises have a reflective coating which conceals the defenseless pupa by reflecting its surroundings to confuse predators. It is thought that predators see their own reflection in the chrysalis and then flee.[11]According to this it's not reflection, but rather, thermoregulation, so I would prefer you use a more scientific source than Earthtouch. In addition, it would not be "the polymnia chrysalises" but "the chrysalis of the disturbed tigerwing" if we use the common name, and "the chrysalis of Mechanitis polymnia/M. polymnia" if we want to use the scientific name.
Butterflies in the genus Mechanitis are abundant and they are "unpalatable".[2]should be in description rather than distribution. The quotations are not necessary as the status of unpalatability isn't bizzare or out of the ordinary for it to be directly quoted.
Female Members of the genus Mechanitis lay their eggs in clusters on the small hairs found on the leaves on poisonous solanum and poisonous Apocynaceae plants.[7], this sentence is a bit repetitive. You can say "on the leaves of poisonous plants in the genus Solanum and in the family Apocynaceae".
@ Bruxton: alright, the article looks to be in order. If you could possibly reword the hook, that would be the only thing left to do. Thank you for hard work so far. Ornithoptera ( talk) 06:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I have been checking this nomination multiple times every day and I have pinged the reviewer excessively. I do not think the DYK is going to reach the finish line so I withdraw.
Bruxton (
talk) 23:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)