Wikipedia

Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Mantidforum

Help Support Mantidforum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
wow, very very nicely done, it really makes you realise just that even with the many mantid species that we have in captivity, along with all other insects that people around the world keep, we're really only on the tip of the iceberg :)

 
Thorska said:
wow, very very nicely done, it really makes you realise just that even with the many mantid species that we have in captivity, along with all other insects that people around the world keep, we're really only on the tip of the iceberg :)
Click to expand...
Thanks. I agree. Too much of the world to ever visit, too many species to ever cultivate!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I must of missed it, its not on the main page now

you got the address for it or anyway i can find it>??

cheers

 
WOW great job! Is it complete?

I'm just asking because I didn't see Bolbena, hottentotta or Tropidomantis, tenera (two of the fairly rare species that I keep/breed). I may of missed them, but I dont think I did, thats why I'm asking. :lol:

 
ABbuggin said:
WOW great job! Is it complete? I'm just asking because I didn't see Bolbena, hottentotta or Tropidomantis, tenera (two of the fairly rare species that I keep/breed). I may of missed them, but I dont think I did, thats why I'm asking. :lol:
Click to expand...
Thanks for the compliment! As noted in the intro, the article isn't complete. I have been slow to add what I call the "parenthetical genera" but have added Bolbena (Bolbena) hottentotta and Tropidomantis (Tropidomantis) tenera to the list at your prompting. If you want to release a photo under creative commons of either species I'll make individual species articles for them. and add the photo.

 
Hi.

Not bad, really. Some taxa need to be added, but one cannot be up to date with taxonomy in a blink of an eye. There is time for this. I would remove the vernacular names, though. They are misleading and confusing.

As well, the discussion at the beginning about the word "mantid" is clearly wrong, I'm sorry. I could oppose that the word "mantis" has to be strictly applied to the members of that genus (M. religiosa, M. beieri and so on). "Mantis", "mantid", "mantises" and "mantids" can all be applied. In fact, the terms Empusid(s), Hymenopod(s) are just a little better than slang, as the right spelling should be "Empusidae", "Mantidae" and so on. Just because we have changed the spelling and this had led to the coincidence between "mantid" as referring to both the whole group and the family, the use of the word isn't prohibited. In fact, I have never heard of anyone who has used "Mantid" for Mantidae. That discussion has no scientific base, I'm sorry.

 
Christian said:
Hi.Not bad, really. Some taxa need to be added, but one cannot be up to date with taxonomy in a blink of an eye. There is time for this. I would remove the vernacular names, though. They are misleading and confusing.

As well, the discussion at the beginning about the word "mantid" is clearly wrong, I'm sorry. I could oppose that the word "mantis" has to be strictly applied to the members of that genus (M. religiosa, M. beieri and so on). "Mantis", "mantid", "mantises" and "mantids" can all be applied. In fact, the terms Empusid(s), Hymenopod(s) are just a little better than slang, as the right spelling should be "Empusidae", "Mantidae" and so on. Just because we have changed the spelling and this had led to the coincidence between "mantid" as referring to both the whole group and the family, the use of the word isn't prohibited. In fact, I have never heard of anyone who has used "Mantid" for Mantidae. That discussion has no scientific base, I'm sorry.
Click to expand...
Hey, thanks for your comments! Part of the Wikipedia process is that when someone with a better understanding of a subject comes along, they can correct something. I lifted that "mantid" nomenclature paragraph from pre-existing material on Wikipedia. I was mostly interested in listing the genera and species, but hopefully I (or you, or someone else) can improve it soon. As for the common names, when citation for their use is provided I believe it's useful to include them (the common names are certainly much-used on this forum). People who aren't experts on mantises will glance at this list looking for something familiar to click on. I find them useful too...2000+ scientific names is a lot to wrap one's head around.

 
Thanks for the offer, but I am not really a fan of the Wikipedia principle. I tried once to improve some mantid Wikipedia site, but as long as everyone can spit you in the soup and your work is completely disturbed by anyone who feels called to add something, whether useful or not, I see no future for me in such a project. I can comment on it, I can give tips, but I will not work on it personally. I like projects over which I have full control.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In peer-reviewed scientific journals, the author doesn't have full control. I like the Wikipedia principle even though the majority may be wrong sometimes. Hopefully, only the smart people participate so that the majority being wrong is minimized.

 
Both the pro-Wikipedia and anti-Wikipedia comments have good points. I think the Wikipedia principle works over the long run, so I participate. The debate about Wikipedia is moot, especially as far as MantidForum is concerned. The list can hopefully still be of use as a quick reference.

 

Latest posts

Top