Talk:Ponerinae

Insects: Ants Low‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Ant task force (assessed as High-importance).

From PNA/Biology[edit]

Ponerinae - see talk page, needs editing for layman. rhyax 06:41, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

moved from cleanup (no longer accessible except by page history; see [1] [2] and [3]):

"This one needs some serious clarification. It was obviously written BY an entomologist FOR entomologists...and possibly one with some literacy issues. The sentence structure in the second paragraph was totally screwed. I tried to fix it, but the part where he talks about "These two evolutionary developments" was not possible to parse with any certainty...was he talking about the ones that preceded or the ones that followed? If he was talking about the ones that followed (in the same sentence, based on the placement of periods...and there really wasn't anything else to go on in determining where the sentences began or ended...there was no structure), why only show contrast?

"Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Wikipedia is intended to be readable by laymen in any field that it covers, correct? The author's other pages aren't so bad, so no crusade to clean this stuff up is needed, but damn. At first I thought it was just the technical jargon...and that is pretty nasty in this one...but wow." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andy Christ (talk • contribs) 17:06, 4 June 2004 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed Cormany (talk • contribs) 21:07, 4 June 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

There is a lot of information here that I think would be clearer if divided appropriately; such as putting the information on the Poneramorph Group in a seperate article. And limiting this article to the current information of the Ponerinae sub-family. I'm going to work some on this, please post suggestionsWynler 22:54:18, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

Moved most of the info to the more appropriate Poneromorph subfamilies article.--Wynler|Talk 19:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genera is wrong[edit]

The names are correct, but the number of genera is incorrect. There is not 28 extant, there is 46 or 47. The fossil count however is correct. Here is AntWeb even stating 46 genera. This category from Antwiki has 47 genera, seen here, but before you go and say "UNRELIABLE SOURCE", check the sources in all those that support they are apart of that genera, all 47 of them. I will be fixing this article as it is sending out inaccurate information. The antcat reference also does not directly link to the subfamily. Antcat however is a good reliable source, but it needs a different link representing all the generas. Burklemore1 (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Burklemore1: I've updated the article per AntCat (47 extant + 12 fossil genera). We still need to create 18 new articles per Schmidt & Shattuck (2014) (they split Pachycondyla into 19 genera (see Talk:Pachycondyla) and erected a new ponerine genus, Iroponera). AntWiki is generally reliable, and they usually update their pages to reflect the most recent taxonomy faster than AntCat/AntWeb, but like you're saying, it is not a WP:RS source in the Wikipedia sense. jonkerz ♠talk 12:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get onto that. I will add that I recently fixed a problem when I found out that Acanthomyops was actually a subgenus, and the species listed there were actually species of the genus Lasius. All articles have been redirected and tweaked. I was only using the category as some sort of support, but again AntWiki is very reliable when it comes to taxonomy, I think they have just about every species, genus, tribe, etc etc listed there (with a lot of sources). I realised a recent genera (Pseudoponera) I created on Wikipedia was one of the 19 split, so that is one done, as you know. If you go onto my talk page, I am listing all genera on a to do list and such, but it will probably take a bit until I have the full list. I used AntWiki as they have all the genera (that I know of, or they know of), and the fact Wikipedia articles on the genera aren't 100% covered, I tried elsewhere. AntCat and AntWeb were also used. Just wanted to put it out there, but again I'll get onto these new generas. Categorys seem very useful when you want lists. :P Burklemore1 (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Burklemore1: You can add synonyms in need of cleanup under "Cleanup synonyms or misspellings" on WP:ANTS/TODO (this is what I do when I'm short of time, heh). Also, feel free to move the list from your talk page to something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects/ant task force/todo/genera; that way, other editors could help out. jonkerz ♠talk 14:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that soon, will be a lot easier. I will do this once I return from school and all that, since I'm doing nothing afterwards. Burklemore1 (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology[edit]

Could somebody figure out the etymology of "ponerine" and "Ponerinae", and write it in the article? SwordAngel (talk) 09:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]