User talk:Happy1892

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Happy1892! Thank you for your contributions. I am StewartNetAddict and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

StewartNetAddict (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the Chinese Mantis[edit]

Hello. You added that "Compared to many other species of mantis, they are even-tempered and seem to get along well with humans." to the Captivity on the Chinese Mantis page. Does even-tempered mean not aggressive towards humans? Chinese Mantids vary a lot. Adult females and adult males are very different. I do not think people would call an adult male Chinese Mantis even-tempered because just about all of them seem to be skittish. Some males are aggressive (I mean they attack instead of run) but still those (the ones I had) were skittish so I would say males are skittish like most kinds of mantids (I mean the adult males of those). There is not that much known about mantids. Most adult female Chinese Mantids seem to be calm but they can easily get aggressive and many mantids are like this. There are many adult female Chinese Mantids that are very different in that they are very skittish or aggressive. Older nymphs that are wild caught seem to always be skittish. Wild adult males seem to usually be more skittish than males that have been raised as a pet. There is a lot more about this in the way they vary but I will be a lot of writing so. What do you want to say? Write on the bottom of this "About the Chinese Mantis". Happy1892 (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Happy1892Happy1892 (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012[edit]

Hello, I'm R000t. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Stagmomantis carolina, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, I am r000t (talk) 04:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you.
Happy1892 (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Happy1892Happy1892 (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 19[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Chloroharpax modesta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Congo

Sphodromantis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Congo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mantis[edit]

Hello, Happy1892. You have new messages at CapitalLetterBeginning's talk page.
Message added 11:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

How to structure a Ref[edit]

Hi Happy1892, just a word in your ear about referencing in Flower mantis and elsewhere. If you simply put <ref>www.website.com</ref> that gives a naked URL, which is better than nothing but not very much -- because if a page is moved or deleted, all is lost; and it looks pretty rough too. The better thing to do is to provide at least some description of the page, article or book - you're not limited to web pages you know. For example you could say <ref>[www.orchidnurserywebsite.com Singapore Orchid Nursery]</ref> which displays a decent label in English, rather than the URL, and makes the label a clickable link too.

If it's a book or scientific paper you can do better by using a CITE template, or you can just list the author, title, publisher, and date, like this: <ref>Bloggs, Joe. ''50 Years of Flower Orchids''. Methuen, 2002.</ref> It's a whole lot nicer, no? Happy Christmas. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, will do that. Yes, it is nicer, I like it better. And merry christmas. Happy1892 (talk) 16:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Happy1892Happy1892 (talk) 16:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've dressed up the refs in Flower mantis ... and am working on Hymenopus coronatus which turns out to be the same insect as H. bicornis, which as I'd thought is described by Alfred Russel Wallace back in 1889! Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of mantis genera and species, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sibylla (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flower mantis author on Main page...[edit]

Hi Happy1892, you may like to know that James Wood-Mason and the flower mantis drawing he did are on the main page right now! I brought it to DYK level from a sad stub. Am working on The Colours of Animals which I hope to send to GA shortly. All the best - Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see it :D. Thanks for letting me know. I found these mantids that might be named after him. Are they? http://mantodea.speciesfile.org/Common/basic/Taxa.aspx?TaxonNameID=2626 http://mantodea.speciesfile.org/Common/basic/Taxa.aspx?TaxonNameID=980 http://mantodea.speciesfile.org/Common/basic/Taxa.aspx?TaxonNameID=3910 http://mantodea.speciesfile.org/Common/basic/Taxa.aspx?TaxonNameID=2287 (reminds me of Rhombodera fusca, a beautiful mantis, well, all animals are beautiful to me hehehe). My least favorite animals would be the cats and some other mammals, love Canidae though. Sorry, I am not sure what GA means. Happy1892 (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Happy1892Happy1892 (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the species named after him are called woodmasoni; probably the masoni are someone called Mason... Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Thank you. Happy1892 (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Happy1892Happy1892 (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year[edit]

Hi Happy1892, and welcome back. Just to say, I had to edit a caption just now, so that it is purely factual. If we don't know something, that's up to us, not the encyclopedia, which depends on verifiable facts, worse luck! All the best, and Happy New Year, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you!

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Orthoptera of Korea may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Parcoblatta virginica may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania.<ref>[http://blattodea.speciesfile.org/Common/basic/Taxa.aspx?TaxonNameID=1175488 Blattodea.speciesfile.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve List of Orthoptera of Korea[edit]

Hi, I'm Carriearchdale. Happy1892, thanks for creating List of Orthoptera of Korea!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This article is very well written and researched as well as quite informative. Pleas choose some appropriate categories for the article which will improve the overall article and make the article more easily searchable by wikipedia users. Thanks!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Carriearchdale (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for the help and advice. I will look for some categories to put on List of Orthoptera of Korea.Happy1892 (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Happy1892Happy1892 (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Parcoblatta bolliana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Roach

Parcoblatta lata (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Roach

Parcoblatta uhleriana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Roach

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roach resources[edit]

Thanks AlanM1! -Happy1892 October 9th 2021

Howdy, glad to see your contributions to the cockroach articles! I'm not an expert, but have created and edited a few cockroach articles. I'm not sure how much you know, so some of this might be stuff you're already familiar with, but I thought I'd share a few tips:

There are two good books which are available in PDF form online. I am not sure that they're supposed to be, so I'd link to their books.google preview versions rather than the PDF files, but it's useful to download the PDFs so you can read and search the entire text of the books. Neither book covers species the way a comprehensive catalog would, but Bell in particular covers a broad variety of topics related to cockroaches, with many miscellaneous references to various species, which are sometimes of use.

Robinson, William H. (2005). Urban Insects and Arachnids: A Handbook of Urban Entomology. Cambridge University Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-521-81253-5.

PDF download

Bell, WJ; Roth, LM; Nalepa, CA (2007). Cockroaches: Ecology, Behavior, and Natural History. JHU Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-8018-8616-4.

PDF download

(I replaced the above link, which has been usurped by a porn site, with its archived version. I hope you don't mind. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)) [reply]

Three websites I often cite in articles on cockroach species:

Itis.gov is a conservative, reliable source for taxonomy info; it seems to use the classification system most common in Wikipedia's cockroach articles. It's convenient for lists of subtaxa for a given taxon (e.g. species for a genus, genera for a family). It is less likely to have recent or contested entries than some other resources, but when it does contain information it's usually pretty solid. You can go to itis.gov and search for a species or other taxa, or google "itis blattella germanica" and if it has an entry it usually shows up on the first page of links.

Eol.org is a very organized amalgamation of information from other resources. As a result, it sometimes has contradictory information, such as several different taxonomic classifications for the same species, but it's very clear as to where each came from. It even includes information from Wikipedia, but again it's very clearly labeled so it's easy to avoid citing that. It's quite useful for finding common names, and binomial synonyms, for a given species (once you're on their species page, click on the names tab, then the "common names" or "synonyms" link). I generally include only English names, and sometimes don't include all of EoL's suggestions. Generally if you google eol with a species (e.g., blattella germanica eol) it will be the first link returned.

Blattodea.speciesfile.org can be useful for distribution data or other brief information. I tend to prefer eol.org for synonyms, since it lists them from various sources, so it sometimes lists more than speciesfile alone, and it's clearer when any given site made a mistake (e.g. adding or omitting parentheses around a binomial authority, which is apparently of significance to taxonomists).

I'd avoid citing bugguide.net, as I don't think it's a reliable source due to the ability of amateurs or the public to edit it, though sometimes it lists reliable references that you can look up separately and cite.

Tips on googling:

books.google.com returns just books. Some of them prior to 1920ish are copyright-free and fully readable, while newer books may offer nothing, be searchable in "snippet view", or have quite a few pages available in a "preview" version. There are various tools for creating a Wikipedia citation from a books.google.com link...I typically use reftag.appspot.com.
scholar.google.com returns journal articles, some books (duplicating books.google.com), and random PDFs that may or may not be reliable sources. It turns up links that may not show up, or would be deeply buried among other links, in a general google web search. Many journal articles are inaccessible unless you can access them through a university or library account, but some are freely available (really old ones, and increasingly recent ones).

Tip on citations: I noticed in an article that you were repeating entire citations in the article. After you enter a citation once, with a prefix of <ref name="whatever">, if you want to use the same citation elsewhere in the article, you just need to use <ref name="whatever"/> (with a / after the name)...you don't need to include the rest of the citation info again.

Let me know if you have any questions; I'll check back here.

Best regards, Agyle (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you very much for explaining stuff to me. I was frustrated when I was making those Parcoblatta pages because the internet was cutting off so I did not look carefully to figure out how to make the reference and other things. I keep roaches as a hobby and I catch native roaches in the piedmont area of North Carolina where I live. I wonder about entomologists misidentifying some Parcoblatta species, but I have no idea how they identify the Parcoblatta so I do not know. On bugguide and articles I see Parcoblatta that seem to be misidentified. Happy1892 (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Happy1892Happy1892 (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, good cockroach country! Bugguide.net and biolib.cz both have user-submitted photos of unknown species, so some misidentification is just people guessing what they are. In most cases the photos lack the detail necessary to determine a species, showing the top of live, winged insects, which hides most of the anatomy. Coloration in an adult can vary from blond, red, brown or black just depending on age, and other patterns/colors vary between individuals and subpopulations, so trying to judge from those characteristics alone is very prone to error. Some distinctions require microscopic examination of anatomical features.

Depending on when a species was identified, it can be useful to find its original description (e.g., if the authority is Hebard 1917, then somewhere there's a 1917 book or article written by Hebard). The description is supposed to clarify whatever distinguishes a species from other species. It requires a good understanding of the anatomy terms, but with enough googling you can figure out what they mean. I found a good 1920 text with descriptions of 9 of the 12 species of parcos, including some of Hebard's then-recent research. He found in distinguishing between the sexes "that the males of each species of Parcoblatta have one or more of the dorsal abdominal segments modified or 'specialized in a different way," some of which occur on a microscopic level, though some species have more obvious differences too. Here is a cite:

Blatchley, Willis Stanley (1920). Orthoptera of northeastern America: with especial reference to the faunas of Indiana and Florida. The Nature Publishing Company. pp. 77–89.

It covers P. bolliana (p. 80), P. uhleriana (p. 81), P. virginica (p. 82), P. fulvescens (p. 83), P. lata (p. 84), P. zebra (p. 85), P. pennsylvanica (p. 86), P. pennsylvanica divisa (now called P. divisa; p. 88), and P. caudelli (p. 89). It leaves out Rehn & Hebard's 1909-1910 species, P. desertae and P. notha (this author disliked their 1910 work), and P. americana (Scudder, 1901). Agyle (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you! I will read that. I need to google search without giving up then. I have some dark colored Parcoblatta I found inside two dead dry pine tree stumps (in the same place I found 2 P. divisa) and I found two under the bark of similar pine stumps (and a lot of P. divisa) in another area. The dark colored Parcoblatta are black with a brown stripe down the middle of their pronotum. I do not know what species they are. A person in Alabama had one of his males (that look like the same dark colored Parcoblatta I have) turn into an adult male and he said he looked underneath the wings and it was P. divisa. He might have just looked at the specialized ridges on the median segment. The P. divisa and the unknown dark Parcoblatta might be different in size. I cannot see any obvious differences in the personalities between the dark colored and P. divisa. Dark colored are harder to handle than the P. divisa. I will see if the two Parcoblatta breed together when they become adult. Also the Parcoblatta divisa and the dark colored Parcoblatta I caught are mostly males. I have caught about 15 of the dark colored ones and only one of them is a female.

This is a blurry picture to show the size difference between sub-adult males of Parcoblatta divisa and unknown dark colored Parcoblatta. Right now most of the P. divisa I have are not sub-adult. I think both of the P. divisa in the photos are sub-adult but I do not know for sure. The broken antennae and legs were broken by me because it was hard for me to handle them perfectly.	Here is a better picture. The male P. divisa in this picture is the same male as the one bumping up against or nearest to the black Parcoblatta in the picture above.	These both are the dark colored Parcoblatta. Male on top and female on the bottom.	Female on the right and male on the left. I think the male on the left of this photo is different male from the photo above.	Two sub-adult male dark colored Parcoblatta

Cool mystery! The pros had a hard time with some of these too; Parcoblatta divisa was considered a subspecies of Parcoblatta pensylvanica for at least a couple decades – the 1920 article still refers to it as P. pensylvanica divisa. The early parco scientists also wrote of having an easier time catching males...apparently they'd catch males relatively easily at night due to their attraction to light, and for females they suggested using molasses as bait. (I don't recall which species they were talking about, but it was some sort of parco(s)). I think most descriptions that differentiate species discuss observations of adults, so some patience may be required, though some details may be similar enough in nymphs. Descriptions also usually describe the egg cases, so it's worth paying attention to those when they arrive. Some bug freak wrote a whole journal article about Parcoblatta uhleriana's egg case...I couldn't understand the descriptions until I saw you had included a photo of its egg case. (Close-ups of oothecae would be nice additions to any species article...they are sometimes quite differentiating).

One more source for finding assorted old information about a particular species is the Biodiversity Heritage Library (biodiversitylibrary.org), for example here is their page on divisa. If you click on the document icon in the right-hand column you get a preview of one scanned page, if you click on a page # link it takes you to a document browser with the whole document. Basically they scanned a bunch of old biology documents they were able to get rights to (several groups gave them permission, including the American Entomological Society), then cross-referenced them when they found a species name on a page, so each species they find has a list of documents associated with it. Their uhleriana page has a lot more links, and I used several of them to beef up the uhleriana Wikipedia article.

Agyle (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I do not think the fact that P. divisa and P. pennsylvanica were similar in size was much of a reason for thinking they are a different species. I have closer-up pictures of Parcoblatta uhleriana oothecae. I will put them on the Parcoblatta uhleriana page. Haha, that is very funny that you said "some bug freak". I am wondering about Parcoblatta caudelli and that the entomologists might have misidentified females of the species around here in north of Raleigh that looks similar to P. fulvescens as Parcoblatta fulvescens. I wonder if those Parcoblatta north of Raleigh that look similar to P. fulvescens are Parcoblatta caudelli, but females have short wings. The adult males and females look similar to P. fulvescens. They are smaller than P. uhleriana but they are similar in size to P. uhleriana. The guy in Alabama has caught P. fulvescens and his P. fulvescens are slightly smaller than P. uhleriana, not larger. The Parcoblatta that look similar to P. fulvescens here in north of Raleigh are very common in pine needles with white fungus during the late summer and are the most common male Parcoblatta at lights (and females I have seen a few times around lawns during the night) and the second common male Parcoblatta at lights are P. uhleriana. It is weird that in "Orthoptera of northeastern America" he says that P. caudelli are small and females are full winged and that P. fulvescens males are similar to P. uhleriana males because they are totally different in looks. I think the Parcoblatta caudelli they are talking about in this article are the same roaches as the ones I have caught here north of Raleigh. I have not seen a P. fulvescens male here, but I could have mistaken a female for one of those common P. fulvescens like ones that could be P. caudelli. Here are pictures of the Parcoblatta that could be Parcoblatta caudelli. Happy1892 (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Happy1892Happy1892 (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adult male Parcoblatta uhleriana on the right and adult male of possibly Parcoblatta caudelli on the left	Adult male showing modified structures.	Females, from all I know there could be both P. fulvescens and P. caudelli in the photo.

Adult female and adult male on the right.	Adult female.	Adult female

I found a recent key to differentiating Parcoblattas, based on the earlier Blatchley 1920 work, which may be clearer, although I think it only covers parcos found in Florida. It's a PDF file found here.

I agree the divisa/pensylvanica thing was weird. I gather from a 1925 piece that other entomologists thought Blatchley's 1920 use of pensylvanica divisa was off-base. I noticed Blatchley is the authority for a 1903 synonym of uhleriana. I wonder if he was bitter about Hebard and others getting credit for everything...many of those entomologists seemed to use veiled or not-so-veiled insults in their articles; they'd have loved internet forums!

You could be right about mistakes being made. I read short article today, from the biodiversity library archive, that was just one guy correcting a bunch of different parcoblatta misidentifications made by other scientists in prior studies. It was from many decades ago, and presumably basic errors of earlier descriptions have been corrected to yield stable current descriptions, but it does make clear that the identifications can be tricky.

I added an external link to Parcoblatta divisa linking to a drawing of two females, one with normal wings, and one with ridiculously long wings...those sorts of variations could throw anyone for a loop. There's also a single county in Florida where the divisas are pale instead of dark, and subpopulations of fulvescens in different parts of Kansas where one a dark olive gray/brown, and the other is a light golden brown or tan.

Agyle (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was told by the person in Alabama that this female in this picture is a Parcoblatta fulvescens.

The picture of five nymphs and one adult of Lobster Roaches (Nauphoeta cinerea) in the first page of this look similar to Rhyparobia and different from Nauphoeta cinerea, but you may already know that. Happy1892 (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Happy1892Happy1892 (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P fulvescens sounds likely. P caudelli females have full wings, and are probably capable of flying. I updated Parcoblatta fulvescens with an external link to two drawings of females, and added information on similar-looking species. Hebard said the female could only be confused with Parcoblatta virginica and Parcoblatta lata. I think he meant they're the only parcos with such short wings that are close together (uhl's are widely spaced). P. lata is a lot bigger so can probably be ruled out just with a ruler, and virginica is a bit smaller, possibly differentiable with a ruler, though with a small fulvescens or big virginica you might need to consider other criteria. I think Hebard's Raleigh-area fulvescens were among the larger fulve specimens he included in his description. He seemed to have a lot of specimens to work with by 1917, so those size ranges (repeated by Blatchley 1920 and included in the Wikipedia articles) should be pretty accurate. I revised my earlier entries in the parco articles to put measurements in tables, for easier reading/comparison.

If that is a fulvescens, and you have male fulvescens as well, distinguishing them from uhleriana sounds like a good challenge. :-) Several entomologists screwed this up for a couple decades early on, and people were still trying to sort out their mistakes in the 1960s.

You have a point about the lobster roaches. I wouldn't have recognized it or Rhyparobia, and it's hard to imagine pros wouldn't catch the error, but a google image search does plant some doubt!

Agyle (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not caught P. caudelli females with the long wings. In this article it says that the P. caudelli were common in Raleigh. Here is the person from Alabama showing his P. fulvescens. The wings look more narrow and pointy at the tip ends than a male P. uhleriana. The male P. fulvescens have a white margin on their pronotum and sides of their wings while the P. uhleriana do not. Actually P. uhleriana males have lighter margins on the wings and pronotum than the rest of the body, so it might not be contrasted enough to really tell the difference between P. uhleriana and P. fulvescens.

On the Parcoblatta lata page it says that males are 17.5 to 20.5mm long and females are 15.7 to 20mm long. That seems kind of small for males because my P. uhleriana males were about 21mm long and the males of the unknown species with the four dots on their median segment were about 20mm long (they did not have much variation in length). I will measure my male P. lata when they become adults. Happy1892 (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Happy1892Happy1892 (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The black roaches were actually Parcoblatta pennsylvanica. I checked the median segment on one male and it was like P. pennsylvanica. I just noticed that on the Parcoblatta lata page it was body length of the adult males that was about 17.5 to 21.5mm long which does not include the wings. I measured the wings included for two male P. lata and they were 25mm long. I measured an adult male P . virginica and P. caudelli, the P. virginica 14mm long and P. caudelli about 18mm long including the wings. When they say body do they include the pronotum and head? Here are some pictures.

Parcoblatta lata and Parcoblatta virginica on top.	Parcoblatta virginica on bottom and Parcoblatta lata on top.	Parcoblatta lata in the middle and Parcoblatta caudelli on the left and Parcoblatta virginica on the right.

Adult female P. caudelli. I do not know if this is not P. fulvescens for certain but it was dark colored as a nymph and I have not found any P. fulvescens males in the pine needles in that area.	Adult female and adult male Parcoblatta caudelli.	Median segment of the adult male Parcoblatta caudelli.	Adult male P. caudelli.

The male P. pennsylvanica

Happy1892 (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Happy1892Happy1892 (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tenodera angustipennis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Iris oratoria may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

'''Date:''' "September 1, 2008"</ref> California,<ref>http://bugguide.net/node/view/338297/bgimage]By Bugguide user julieha64, '''Title:''' "?? - Iris oratoria", '''Locationa:''' "pittsburg, contra

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iris oratoria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blepharopsis mendica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestine. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Happy1892. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]