Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mealybugs
Appearance
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2015 at 01:41:43 (UTC)
- Reason
- As can be seen from the file history, this was a tough shot to get right. Mealybugs are tiny little "bug-cows" (herded by ants) which feed on plant matter. These were found in our garden (the pinkish background is the wall). I ended up focus stacking 5 images to get all three of these tiny insects in focus (not an easy task, if you look at the rest of the Commons category). I think it's rather nice, even if they terrorize plants.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Mealybug
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
- Creator
- Chris Woodrich
- Support as nominator – — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: I appreciate how big an ask this is, but do we have any clearer identification? We have nearly 300 listed genera, nevermind species, so "a mealybug" is actually a very vague ID. J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- I can try to ask, but some of the identification methods (poking a female, for instance) are not applicable to pictures. My wife's also gotten rid of the mealybugs - as soon as I told her they eat plants, she didn't want them in the garden. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- To quote User:Shyamal from elsewhere: "Unfortunately most mealybugs can only be identified under a microscope and identifying to species would require the specialist (i.e. not me) to examine a specimen, dissect the genitalia and compare with literature (often scattered in journals)." I'm still looking for a genus-level ID, but not hoping for much. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, I've received a response from an entomologist Jee recommended. As with Shyamal, he stated that a certain identification from a photograph would be impossible. He did note, however, that there is a species (Phenacoccus parvus) which feeds on Lantana (as here). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- To quote User:Shyamal from elsewhere: "Unfortunately most mealybugs can only be identified under a microscope and identifying to species would require the specialist (i.e. not me) to examine a specimen, dissect the genitalia and compare with literature (often scattered in journals)." I'm still looking for a genus-level ID, but not hoping for much. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Can we get it down to a genus or other subgrouping? Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- No, "identification" as above included identification to the genus as well. Sorry I wasn't clearer about that — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable supporting this without clearer ID. We used to pass a lot of images with only genus level ID, but even that strikes me as less than ideal, now. A lack of clear ID, for my money, reduces EV; the best and most useful images in professional works (such as reputable guidebooks or scientific papers [didn't we used to have something about this in the criteria?]) are going to have a subject which is identified with some accuracy. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, I understand completely. There are a lot of unidentified insects I've taken images of which haven't been anywhere near FPC or QIC (on Commons); they may be technically there, but the ID needs to be done. For the mealybugs, I thought that the extreme difficulty of proper identification (and the technical shot) would be a mitigating factor, so I tried nominating anyways. No worries if that's not the case. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable supporting this without clearer ID. We used to pass a lot of images with only genus level ID, but even that strikes me as less than ideal, now. A lack of clear ID, for my money, reduces EV; the best and most useful images in professional works (such as reputable guidebooks or scientific papers [didn't we used to have something about this in the criteria?]) are going to have a subject which is identified with some accuracy. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- No, "identification" as above included identification to the genus as well. Sorry I wasn't clearer about that — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- I can try to ask, but some of the identification methods (poking a female, for instance) are not applicable to pictures. My wife's also gotten rid of the mealybugs - as soon as I told her they eat plants, she didn't want them in the garden. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 03:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)