Talk:Nymphalis antiopa

Untitled

Which name suits better for the article, Camberwell Beauty or Mourning Cloak? I'd say Mourning Cloak, because it is more universal. The butterfly's name is literally 'mourning cloak' at least in German, Swedish and Finnish. [1] The speakers of those languages would recognize easier what the article is about, if its name were Mourning Cloak. Only the British English name refers to Camberwell. -Hapsiainen 21:12, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightst a llion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 07:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Mourning Cloak → Nymphalis antiopa – In the British Isles, the name "Camberwell Beauty" is universally and exclusively used; in North America, "Mourning Cloak" is universally and exclusively used. The scientific name is the only plausible option according to the policy given at WP:TOL. --Stemonitis 10:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support as nominator. --Stemonitis 10:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, with relevant redirects. David Kernow 00:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Image copyright problem with Image:Swenson-butterfly-iconograph unconscious-came-a-beauty dotumche.png

The image Image:Swenson-butterfly-iconograph unconscious-came-a-beauty dotumche.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and Would Like To Learn More

I read this, "The resurrection of mourning cloaks in the spring had a strong meaning to many different groups." I would like to know some examples for different groups that were with "strong meaning" of the morning cloaks. Very interesting cliff hanger.

Thanks for adding,"By the way, none of the oaks may be native to North America". And... "They may have been introduced by many many different groups of Europeans, the rarest from areas lost to mining". It might be off topic, but it's great information for a studier like me. Off to read more about oaks now.

Seahappy (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New additions and modifications

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Fall 2013. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Washington University in St. Louis/Behavioral Ecology (Fall 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

I am a student at Washington University in St. Louis working primarily on behavior of mourning cloak butterflies, specifically trying to provide more information on its mating systems and territoriality. I altered some of the page organization and referenced some of the prior material. In addition, I included behavior (including reproduction and development), as well as some more general information, distribution, and some experimentation. Thank you. Ichooxu (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reorganized the material presented, putting information from distribution, etymology, and predators earlier in the article than they were originally placed. This makes the article flow from basic and background information at first to more and dense information later on. --Vpandrangi (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I edited a minor grammar issue and was wondering if the "scramble competition polygyny" term should be linked? The behavior section looks good. Predation could be a good area to expand upon, as well as perhaps experimentation since there is already some information on it. Wmhua (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the grammar of the behavior and reproduction sections of the article, rephrasing sentences and clarifying some words used. In addition, I added a very short part on a unique reproductive characteristic of the Nymphalis antiopa. kzyoung (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed up the organization and flow. In addition, I tried adding more citations to already-existing but not well-cited paragraphs. Finally, I worked to add more information about the Mourning Cloak to broaden the breadth of the article. Thanks!

Ichooxu (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am also a student at Washington University in St. Louis studying the behavior of several species of Lepidoptera. I think the information on the selfish behavior through siblicide was fascinating. I’m confused about the categories/organization of this article: what is the delineation between “Behavior” and “Ecology” (of which includes topics on diet, predation, defense mechanisms, and pollination)? Do these topics under ecology not also constitute behavior? I think this article could also include topics of parental investment (to follow mating systems), feeding behavior (not simply diet), and intraspecies interactions/male competition (their territorial behavior is alluded to in the mating section). Z.kelley (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.254.109.43 (talk) [reply]

Hello, another Washington University student here! I also enjoyed reading about the siblicde behavior as this closely relates to what we are learning in class. I agree that this article could benefit from more information about behavior as well as some more information about the habitat of the species. I changed the sentence in the distribution paragraph from “They are commonly found in North America and northern Eurasia, as well as in Mexico.” to "They are commonly found throughout North America and northern Eurasia." as Mexico is in North America so the first sentence was a tad redundant. --Srosefuqua (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also a Washington University student commenting on this article for class! Here is my review: This article contains several grammatical problems as well as flow issues. The division of the headings doesn’t really make sense, since it separates “Behavior” and “Ecology” into two different sections that could both be classified as types of behavior. I did think it was interesting that a section on etymology of the name was included as well as a section about interaction with people. Despite these unique categories, a lot of things don’t make sense. For instance, there is a section about migration that claims these butterflies do not migrate. The section that should have been included would be overwintering behavior, since this is what is actually talked about. Additionally, I would add a category about social behavior and a subsection about competitive behavior among siblings, because the article erroneously mentions siblicide under defense mechanisms. It is also concerning to me that it states how the butterflies are not pollinators and thus do not benefit humans, which seems to me a strange jump in reasoning.Mnoronha456 (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found it very interesting that this butterfly can live for up to a year because most of the other butterflies that I have read about last about a couple months. It was cool to know that that this butterfly is a state insect for Montana. Every category that was listed in the table of contents had a substantial amount of information listed. I think that there are some grammatical issues, but it does not take away from the overall cohesiveness of the article. I think that the way in which things were ordered went well. The lead section could use some more information. I felt that way because it seemed like I was receiving more trivia like information than information I could use to write a paper. I know that the article said that the butterfly can live in any type of habitat I just feel like a category on habitat would have still been useful. It is because I am sure there is a habitat that the butterfly cannot live in. There needs to be more information on migration or the lead section needs to be updated because it says that the butterfly Is found in further areas from its home during migration, but in the migration category it says that the butterfly does not participate in migration. I am a little confused by this information. This article has been rated as Start-class and has low- importance on the importance scale. I can see that the article has a lot of information but there are some categories that could be added to improve its standing. Wadekunle (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

@Rwood128: What's your thinking for changing "Camberwell beauty" to "Camberwell Beauty"? Wikipedia's style is to use lower case for species common names except for proper nouns which are part of a name. That's in the Manual of Style at MOS:LIFE. Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 00:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I need to research this further, but I thought that the use of the lower case was for the Latin name. I took a quick look at the Style page. The use of the lower case for the English name looks odd to me. See Canadian Biodiversity Information Facility[2], UK Butterflies [3], Butterflies of North America [4] for usage by reputable sites. Rwood128 (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked further into this. It would indeed seem that the lower case rule generally applies to plants and animals, both on Wikipedia and more generally. However, as the above examples indicate, this rule doesn't seem to be generally used for butterflies. Further research indicates that there has been heated debate around birds and capitalization (Audabon Magazine [5]). This has also apparently been vigorously debated earlier on Wikipedia. The American Audabon organization seems to prefer the use of a capital letter for all the words in a birds name [6]. Perhaps what is needed is clearer WP guidelines, re the usage in English. But maybe Wikipedia should reflect – and respect – common usage, and not be hidebound? A simple compromise would be to indicate common usage in parenthesis. I leave this in your hands SchreiberBike | ⌨

Sorry I didn't read MOS:LIFE.carefully enough. I'll correct the changes that I made, though the differences here between Wikipedia and major authorities is disturbing and confusing. I don't wish to re-open the debate, however. Rwood128 (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name in "Germanic languages"

The list of the butterfly's names in Germanic languages includes Finnish, which isn't a Germanic language. The butterfly's name in Finnish is a calque from the Germanic languages, but Finnish should regardless be mentioned separately (with the detail that the Finnish name is a calque of the Germanic names?). I'm not sure what the exact wording should be, though. VHGW (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]