Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nothomyrmecia/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2016 [1].

---

Nothomyrmecia

Nominator(s): Burklemore1 (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a spectacular, yet critically endangered species of ant. The history of this species is rather interesting, being presumably discovered in Western Australia in 1931 and described in 1934. The ant was not seen since and biologists believed it went extinct until a solitary worker was found in 1977. It was rediscovered near the town of Poochera, and as a result is perhaps the only town in the world that thrives off ant-based tourism. The ant is considered to be the world's most primitive ant, the "Holy Grail" of myrmecology and a living fossil, exhibiting a wide variety of odd behaviours. My purpose here is to ensure the article is a high-quality source of information about this unique ant and to honour the 60th anniversary of John S. Clark's death (who described Nothomyrmecia). The article was given an excellent copyedit and subsequently promoted to GA status on 21 January 2016. As well as that, I have done additional improvements, so the prose should be fine. Further improvements to the prose and article are most welcome, and I hope you enjoy. Burklemore1 (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Tentative support from jonkerz

I've seen this interesting and important ant article grow from a small Start-class article to what it is now, and as far as I can tell there are no obvious issues. Formatting and structure is good, it is well-referenced, well-researched and broad in coverage, and it has already been thought a GAN where it was copyedited. Before changing to support I'd like to spot-check a couple of references -- not that it has been an issue in Burklemore's other articles, but an FA is an FA. Comment: I think Category:Insects described in 1934 are usually placed on the species redirect. jonkerz ♠talk 15:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I am very grateful for your support and comments, I will respond swiftly to ensure this article gets promoted. :) Burklemore1 (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Also removed the category, just went on the redirect page and saw it there. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Image review - OK (version)

• Checked images:
  • File:CSIRO ScienceImage 2478 Dinosaur or Fossil Ants Nothomyrmecia macrops.jpg
  • File:Nothomyrmecia macrops casent0172003 head 1.jpg
  • File:Nothomyrmecia macrops casent0902784 p 1 high.jpg
  • File:Nothomyrmecia macrops casent0172002 profile 1.jpg
  • File:Nothomyrmecia macrops casent0172002 label 1.jpg
  • File:Nothomyrmecia macrops occurrence map.png
  • File:Nothomyrmecia macrops feeding on honey bait.jpg
  • File:CSIRO ScienceImage 347 Dinosaur or Fossil Ants INothomyrmecia macropsI.jpg
  • File:The Big Ant.JPG
• Images are appropriately licensed
• Captions are factual and correct, and referenced in the Commons description or in a link on the Commons page. Not sure if this is a real issue, but two captions contain statements that are neither mentioned in the article or directly on the file's page (ie only outside of any Wikimedia project):
  • The fact that Taylor was the collector of "N. macrops worker specimen collected by Taylor" -- but it is mentioned in the link in the file description, and the article even includes the specimen label with Taylor's name.

I think there is a specific page on AntWeb that provides an overview of the specimen, including the collector. I'm sure that may be a useful source if we really need one. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• • The file descriptions of the same image and File:Nothomyrmecia_macrops_casent0172003_head_1.jpg do not mention that the pictured specimens are workers -- but that fact is linked from the Commons descriptions. jonkerz ♠talk 15:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Did some tweaks. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• WP:ALTs probably OK, but I'm no expert and since they're not required I won't fail the image review even if turns out they're not 100% perfect
• Nikkimaria commented that several captions need copyediting. The ones I believe are somewhat odd are "Label view of Nothomyrmecia collected by Taylor" and "Sculpture of Nothomyrmecia in Poochera". I'm not a native speaker, but I suppose something like "Label of one of the Nothomyrmecia specimens collected by Taylor" and "Sculpture of a Nothomyrmecia ant in Poochera" would be easier to read.

Done.

Reference spot-checking - OK

• Ref numbers from [2]. 8, 9, 12 are OK (true to source, no close paraphrasing). More to come. jonkerz ♠talk 15:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Note to any coordinator reading: Just to get this off my chest, Jonkerz has initiated the image and source review (in which he is still doing the source review). Burklemore1 (talk) 05:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

And btw, I have added another image of the ant. It is photographed by R.W. Taylor in a 2014 article he published, which is licensed under CC BY 3.0. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I've updated the image review. jonkerz ♠talk 13:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• More from the same revision:
  • 2a, 3a, 3b (the first two sentences from the taxonomy section): 99% OK, but there's no source for the name "Amy Crocker", but you dug up this the last time we talked about this, so I don't question that they are the same person.

Taylor 1978 mentions A.E. Crocker I believe, which is undoubtedly her.

• • 3p ("30 minutes"), 39, 56 OK
  • 46: too close paraphrasing? Not sure. From Ward, P.S.; Taylor, R.W. (1981, p. 182): "The brachypterous nature of the queens suggests that mating probably occurs near the mother nest" vs "Due to the brachypterous nature of the queens, it is likely that the winged adults mate near their parent nest" from [3].
    • Does it stray from close paraphrasing now?
      • Fixed; not completely sure it was an issue to begin with to be honest, I'm just trying to be thorough.
  • According to the PDF and Google searches, Taylor, R.W. (1977). "Nothomyrmecia macrops: a living-fossil ant rediscovered". Science. 201 (4360): 979–985. Bibcode:1978Sci...201..979T. doi:10.1126/science.201.4360.979. JSTOR 1746819. PMID 17743619. was published in 1978.

Changed.

• • 2b: "John S. Clark described Nothomyrmecia in 1934 as a new genus of Myrmeciinae" [slightly expanded/reworded in the current revision]. From what I can tell Clark put Nothomyrmecia in Ponerinae.

Did some major corrections.

• • 2c (Nothomyrmecia vs Prionomyrmex) OK, 25 (climate change etc) OK
  • [First sentence in the description section] 2d ("9.7–11 mm") OK, 33 (polymorphism) OK (but ctrl-F "In many species, the" on this page for a comment)
  • 29 [Taylor et al (1990)]: "highest number of chromosomes" OK, but the current revision also includes "insects with a 2n above 52 are ants" which I could not find in either Taylor (1978) or Taylor et al. (1990), possibly because my PDF reader did not manage to OCR the number "52".

"...and all Hymenoptera with 2n exceeding 52 are ants." - Taylor 1978

• • 32 (cladogram) OK
  • I haven't checked each and every one reference to confirm that the year/title/etc are correct, but of the one I've checked all except one (which has been fixed) are correct.

Comments from JM

You've piqued my interest.

• Is the second line of the lead a little specialist/long for so early in the article?

Did a minor cut.

• "The ant only remained in literature and from two specimens" Clumsy

Rewritten.

• "The average length of this species is 9.7–11 mm (0.38–0.43 in), and polymorphism does not occur among the castes" Again, a little clumsy. Species don't have lengths, and the relationship between the first part of the sentence and the second (which is a little technical, I feel) is unclear.

Split the sentence into two and did a little rewrite.

• "Nothomyrmecia was originally discovered by Amy Crocker[a] in December 1931, from two syntype workers presumably collected near the Russell Range from Israelite Bay in Western Australia." It wasn't discovered from two workers- that doesn't make sense. The opening lines of this paragraph don't seem to be in the right order; I'm struggling to follow.

Changed to "Nothomyrmecia was collected by ......" Not sure how you'd want the lines to be reorded in though.

• "mesosoma and gaster" Links?

Linked.

• "The type material is currently housed in the National Museum of Victoria in Melbourne." A bit out-of-place

Removed.

(Lost track of time. I'll be back some other time to finish reading...) Josh Milburn (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for willing to review the article. I will (hopefully) respond to your comments shortly. Burklemore1 (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, back:

• I'm still not sold on the first paragraph of the lead; "The ant was only known from published literature until a group of entomologists rediscovered it 46 years later, 1,300 kilometres (810 mi) away from the original site." The first clause is weird, and "original site" is odd given that you leave it as an open question as to where the first specimens were from. (Also, "It is monomorphic, where it occurs in a particular form." is unclear)

Did some tweaks. I have now said the ant remained unknown to scientists until it was rediscovered in 1977, 1,300 kilometres away from the original reported site.

• "Queens are univoltine and only produce a single generation of ants annually" These mean the same thing?

Did a few tweaks.

• "Nothomyrmecia was collected by Amy Crocker[a] in December 1931, from two syntype workers presumably collected near the Russell Range from Israelite Bay in Western Australia.[" This still doesn't work. How about "The first collection of Nothomyrmecia was made by Amy Crocker[a] in December 1931, who collected two workers, which became the syntypes, reportedly near the Russell Range from Israelite Bay in Western Australia."

Done, thanks for the suggestion.

• "It is unknown where Crocker collected the insects she sent to Australian entomologist John S. Clark," It's a bit odd to list a reported location, then a presumed location, then say the location is unknown. You could probably drop this.

Dropped.

• "but the locations Clark provided had no Nothomyrmecia colonies present when the areas were surveyed" Perhaps this could be moved further down the paragraph?

Seems I removed this along with the above sentence.

• "from the site of the 1931 discovery" But we don't know where that is?

Not sure if this helps a lot, but I added "reported".

• "Its distant relationship with modern ants" What are modern ants? If you just mean extent ants, it would surely have to be other extent ants, as this one is extent

Changed.

• "non-tubulated fourth abdominal segment" Jargon

Removed.

• "would classify the ant into its own subfamily" You classify as, you place into.

Changed.

• "a new Baltic fossil Prionomyrmex species"- Name the species?

Done.

• "is a paraphyletic relative to Nothomyrmecia" I'm struggling with this. Relative of?

Yes, changed.

• "Dlussky & Perfilieva" How about "entomologists [or a more accurate description] G. M. Dlussky and E. B. Fedoseeva". Same with other similar mentions; "Ward & Brady", for instance.

Done.

• "in addition, transferred both taxa as distinct genera in the older subfamily Myrmeciinae.[17][18] Later, Dlussky also refers only to Ward & Brady's classification.[18][19]" I'm struggling with this.

I felt like this sentence, after realising, did not make much sense. Further, the final sentence of the paragraph tends to imply the same meaning so I have removed it.

• "his former interpretation as opposed to that of Ward & Brady's arguments" Do arguments have interpretations How about "his former interpretation as opposed to Ward and Brady's"? (You may want to consider splitting this paragraph; this may improve readability)

I have split the paragraph and used your suggestion, cheers.

• "In the Evans' vespoid scale" ??

Removed, I couldn't find any further explanation as to what it was.

• (If it's monomorphic, why do you bother to specify that the type specimens are workers? Or am I misunderstanding? ... I think I am.)

Well, because it's obvious; the type specimens are workers. It is monomorphic, though males are very easy to tell apart. Queens and workers appear very similar, but can be distinguished. Idk, I guess monomorphism only occurs in workers then?

To put things clearer, the type specimens are workers, not anything else. I think it's better to clarify what they are if the castes are difficult to distinguish.

• "concave occipital border" Jargon

Removed.

• "A sting bulb gland is only known in Nothomyrmecia and Myrmecia, an exocrine gland with an unknown purpose." This doesn't quite work

I did some tweaks.

• "there are more derived characters" What does this mean?

I decided to change this accordingly. I think it's more interesting to know that despite being the worlds most primitive ant, some features such as its sting apparatus is considered more advanced than other ants (example provided).

• "but the basal hamuli and apical set present" Struggling

Removed "apical set present" and latter sentence. Also described what the hamuli is if that helps.

• "two tibial spurs; the first is a long calcar and the second is short and thick" Again

Added brief explanation.

• "these ants have six maxillary and four labial palpae" More jargon

Added two brief explanations as to what these features are.

• "The unspecialised nature of the cuticle" Again

I added a link + brief explanation to "cuticle", though I'm not sure what you'd want addressed exactly. Perhaps the "unspecialised nature" part?

Ok, pausing there- I've read to the end of the description section. I'm finding the prose a little short of FA level at the moment. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

More:

• "Nothomyrmecia ants colonise areas at elevations of 85 metres (279 ft)." No more, no less?

Haven't found anything else that suggests otherwise. Perhaps "Nothomyrmecia colonies have been recorded at elevations of 85 metres (279 ft)? Burklemore1 (talk) 05:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• "soil and degraded limestone soil" The latter is a type of the former

Removed first instance of soil.

• "Nest galleries are 4–5 mm (0.16–0.20 in) in diameter that descends further into the ground at about 60° degrees, ending up to subelliptical and horizontal chambers 3–5 mm (0.12–0.20 in) wide." Unclear

Did some tweaks.

• "other sexual reproductive ants" Should this be sexually reproductive ants? Or do you mean "ants who are both sexual and reproductive"?

Changed to "sexually", using "ants who are both sexual and reproductive" would not make much sense to me.

• "but sometimes a colony may be overwintered" Slightly odd use of passive voice, I feel

Removed passive.

• "Nothomyrmecia is a polyandrous species" That's a genus, not a species

Changed.

• "colonies can be found by one or more queens" Founded?

Done.

• "The queens will contest for dominance" Compete?

Changed.

• "Reasons of brachyptery among queens are possibly due to" Clumsy

Did some tweaks, hopefully they're OK.

• "Notable biologists" Is this editorialising? (A fact you may find vaguely interesting: Wilson is quite widely read by philosophers of science and ethicists due to his work on sociobiology. As a rule, philosophers aren't impressed.)

Changed to "entomologists"

• "but neither was successful" Were?

Fixed.

• "Wildlife Conservation Act 1950" Should this be italicised? It is currently, but I'm not sure. (Same for the other mentioned Acts.)

Done.

• "With this said, it is unknown how widespread it is, and scientists are unsure if any threats are impacting the species." Reference?

Source added.

• "An increase in sea temperature would also threaten Nothomyrmecia" Why? Is this particular to this taxon?

Nothomyrmecia experiences cool temperatures due to the cold wind blowing off the cold Southern Ocean. If the sea temperature there was to rise, this would lead to fatal consequences (no cool habitat = no suitable habitat).

• "Measures needed to ensure the survival of Nothomyrmecia include fighting climate change, conducting surveys, and maintaining known populations through habitat protection" Slightly too how-to, I feel; we should report on measures others have proposed, not present certain actions as necessary.

Did a few small tweaks.

• "Local councils should also be aware of the conservation status of Nothomyrmecia" Again

Changed.

It's clear that some very good work has gone into this article, but the prose falls a little below FA-level, I think. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I hope the prose isn't too bad for opposition. I'll address your comments shortly (again). Burklemore1 (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

If it doesn't pass at this time (and it might!), a peer review might be able to give it the push it needs to pass next time. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Most of time I "push" articles as much as I can to whatever goal I set, whether it's FA or GA. While I'm not the best with prose, I'm sure I could get it to FA if I put my mind to it. If not, peer review will be especially beneficial; being new to FA, I do get nerved, but there's no problem at having a go. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: If you'd care to ping me after you've finished your re-wording, I'd be happy to add some further feedback. At the moment there are still quite a few minor stumbles in the flow of writing and a few tautological statements which I could help you iron out. And just for starters, I would recommend a wikilink to the key term 'caste' see Eusociality. Parkywiki (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Definitely, I'll ping you when Josh is happy to support or feel like his issues have been addressed. I linked caste to eusociality because the article caste is basically discussing the human aspects. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

J Milburn, mind having a look? I saw you left a notice saying you will be busy for a bit, so no rush. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Parkywiki:, I noticed Josh may be absent for a couple of days, so do you feel like adding some comments in the meantime? Burklemore1 (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Note to delegates: The article has developed significantly since I left these comments; please do not take my comments as indicative of current problems with the articles. I neither support nor oppose; I'd like to find time to look through the article again, but may not; please do not hold up the candidacy on my account. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I'll just skim through and leave some thoughts, then possibly add more later when I also have time (I'm currently working on getting my own article ready to nominate for FA.)

• I would reorder the first lead paragraph, and ask what the subject actually is. Is it the genus or the species? Either way, the second sentence starting with 'the ants' seems wrong. I would simply use 'its', so allowing the ambiguity around the subject to pass by unnoticed.

We're talking about the ant itself, which means the species itself. However, since it's a monotypic taxon, the species name is usually redirected to the genus, also used your suggestion.

• Still in the Lead: Whilst the story around the discovery of the species is interesting, I would not expect that to be the second sentence in the lead. So I'd put the third sentence in second place. (i.e. beginning The ant It lives in South Australia, nesting . . ."

Done.

• Queens are univoltine, producing a single generation of ants annually. This is both helpful and tautologous. Suggest: Queens are univoltine (i.e. they produce just one generation of ants each year).

Done.

• After its description, the ant remained unknown to scientists ... shorten to: The ant then remained unknown to scientists. . .

Done.

• The ant is monomorphic, showing little morphological differentation [sic] among castes. correct to: The ant is monomorphic, showing little morphological differentiation between castes. or : The ant is monomorphic, showing little difference in appearance between castes

Done.

• Two queens may found a colony together, but only one... You've already used 'found', so I'd prefer 'Two queens may establish a colony together, but ...

Done.

• ...collecting arthropod prey and sweet substances such as honeydew from Hemiptera insects. This is wrong as it implies all members of the Hemiptera produce honeydew, and I'm not also comfortable with 'Hemiptera insects' - it's like saying all beetle insects. It should at least be Hemipteran insects, but I would go for; ...substances such as honeydew from aphids.

Done.

• Potential predatory threats are restricted to other ants. This is ambiguous - it makes perfect sense when you know what it means, but it could be clearer. Which ant is making predatory threats to which ant?

Camponotus and Iridomyrmex to Nothomyrmecia. Did some changes.

• I've no more time this morning other than to make comments on the Lead section. My last though on the lead is to suggest that all the bit about discovery/relationships to other taxa should goes into one paragraph, and that you should make that the last paragraph in the Lead Section. I would also find a way to slightly strengthen the key main threat to the species which I think was climate warming and link this to their need to hunt on cold nights. Apols for any typos or lack of insertion of all your original wikilinks - must dash to work now. More to follow, if this helps? Parkywiki (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Definitely helps, thank you very much for leaving some comments. I'll address your issues shortly. :-) Burklemore1 (talk) 09:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Also have done some of this, just going to add some more detail about its threats and such. Burklemore1 (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Great to hear. So, I'll look next at 'Description' mainly because it's easier, but also because I firmly believe the structure of many FA articles on species are flawed in putting Taxonomy before Description, and I would generally put Taxonomy much lower down. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the subject - I just recognise that most people care to know about the species, where it lives and what it looks like before they learn about its detailed relationships, and I say that as someone whose first job was in a major national museum, dealing with the taxonomy of grasses.) You might want to look at pulling out the bit on eco-anto-tourism from the taxonomy section and putting it elsewhere more relevant to conservation or 'significance' Parkywiki (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not sure if I'd move it either way, I can't really find a better spot to place it. And it's always how I've structured articles I have worked on. Re eco-ant-tourism: I might as well move it to conservation, do you know a spot where it would fit in nicely? Burklemore1 (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Finally added detail in the lead about its threats and such, may need rewording though. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Moved. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Description section - comments from Parkywiki

• Nothomyrmecia is a medium-sized ant, measuring 9.7–11 mm (0.38–0.43 in). In length, one assumes?

Yes.

So state it, please.

• The ant is monomorphic, showing little morphological differentation among castes - same comment applies here as in lead.

Changed.

• The hair is yellow, erect and reasonably long and common, but on the antennae and legs it is suberect (standing almost in an erect position) and shorter. What is the hair on? Maybe The hairs on the INSERT TERMS HERE is/are yellow, erect and reasonably long and abundant, but on the antennae and legs they are shorter and suberect (standing almost in an erect position).

On the body itself. Clarified.

• The pubescence is white and abundant. I'm unclear what the pubescence is on, and if there's a difference between hairs and pubescence.(I prefer the plural term, rather than 'hair', which tends to give and image of a fringe and parting).

Decided to remove it, I think pubescence shares a very similar definition with hair.

• Mandibles are less specialised than Myrmecia and Prionomyrmex, elongated and triangular. These mandibles are shorter than the head with 10 to 12 teeth I'd suggest inverting these two sentences to:The mandibles are shorter than the head. They have 10 to 12 teeth and are less specialised than those of Myrmecia and Prionomyrmex, being elongate and triangular in shape.

Changed, thanks for the nice suggestion!

• The head is longer than its width and broader at the back. It is broadest around the eyes with convex sides Because the eyes don't appear to be right at the back in the photo of the worker, I stumbled on this a bit. I've not looked at the original references yet, but perhaps this would be better: The head is longer than it is wide and broader towards the back. The sides of the head are convex around the eyes. (They actually look slightly concave to me, but there you go!)

Done.

• The node, pronotum, epinotum and thorax are longer than broad, and the mesonotum is just as long. I assume we need to know what it is that the mesonotum is as long as. (I assume as long as it is wide, but it's not clear, sorry).

Bingo! I checked the source and you were correct.

• There is a retractable stinger with the furculae (attachment sites for the muscles which help protrude the stinger) present at the back of the abdomen As the attachment muscle have to be present, isn't it acceptable just to say: A retractable stinger is present at the rear of the abdomen (I'd avoid 'back' because this could suggest the upper surface of the abdomen, rather than its end, and I doubt that is where it's located.

Reworded.

• A sting bulb gland is present in Nothomyrmecia; an exocrine gland, the functionality of this gland is unknown. Reword to: A sting bulb gland is present in Nothomyrmecia; this is an exocrine gland with unknown function. (but see next comment)

Used this suggestion.

• The location of the gland is between the Dufour's gland and the ducts of venom.[34] I think the use of the phrase 'ducts of venom' has come about because of a slight misinterpretation of the phraseology used in the abstract and in Fig 1 in Billen's 1990 paper in which he describes and names this new organ for the first time. Looking at the paper, it seems clear it should read as follows that this and the previous sentence should be worded. Try: A 'sting bulb gland' is present in Nothomyrmecia; this is a small exocrine gland of unknown function, first discovered and named in 1990. It is situated in the basal part of the insect's sting, and is located between the two ducts of the venom gland and the Dufour gland

Used this also, though "Dufour gland" will stay as "Dufour's gland" (that is how everyone words it).

• They have a jugal anal lobe (a portion of the hindwing), a feature found in many primitive ants, and a basal hamuli (a hook-like projection that links the forewings and hindwings). Now, I can't get full access to the reference you cite, so I can't tell whether this species has a single hamulus linking the fore and hindwings, or a number of hamuli. However, I'm confident it should either read as ...and a basal hamulus or as ...and basal hamuli - simply to avoid mixing singular and plural together.

The reference doesn't go into detail as to how many hamuli there are, but simply says "a series of hamuli" (which implies there are multiple).

OK, so they're plural. No need for 'a' before basal hamuli then, I'd suggest.

• In both the queen and worker caste, males are also known to have a ventral stridulatory organ. This doesn't quite make sense (both=two things, not three). Not only that, I think you've missed the key point of the reference - that no other Hymenopteran is known to have such an organ on the ventral side. I suggest: Adults have a stridulatory organ on the ventral side of the abdomen – unlike all other Hymenopterans in which such organs are located dorsally.

Changed.

• In all castes, these ants have six maxillary palpae (palps that serve as organs of touch and taste in feeding) and four labial palpae ... I've never ever heard the term 'palpae' being used, nor can I find it in a quick online search. Are you sure this is correct? I have only ever encountered 'palp' or 'palps' to refer to insect mouthparts. It's very unfortunate that a wikilink from palp redirects to a page exclusively on arthropod pedipalps. There's some work that needs doing over there, I feel. Can you confirm all the other factual statements in this paragraph are supported by the full citation given? I can only view the Abstract online, and this limited text does not support the rest of the paragraph.

This is what the text says: "Adult Nothomyrmecia and Myrmecia share other significant primitive features including a formula of six maxillary and four labial palpae in all sexes; 12 antennal segments in female castes and 13 in males; paired calcariae on the middle and hind tibiae; tarsal claws each having a strong median tooth; and a sting whose complete structure includes a furcula and two-jointed gonostyli, as in other primitive ants. The proventriculus of workers is actively dammed, with the cuticular structure relatively unspecialized, that of Nothomyrmecia being similar to Pseudomyrmex (Pseudomyrmecinae). Most of these features are present in various other primitive ants of subfamilies Ponerinae and Pseudomyrmecinae." I assume palpae is another plural form for palp (as palpi is plural too)? Burklemore1 (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• In general, the body structure of all Nothomyrmecia castes exhibits the primitive nature of the species. I think 'demonstrates' or 'reflects' would be a more suitable word than 'exhibits'

Done.

• The eggs of Nothomyrmecia are similar to that of Myrmecia, appearing as non-adhesive and subspherical. How about: The eggs of Nothomyrmecia are similar to those of Myrmecia, being subspherical and non-adhesive. (note: that-> those)

Changed.

• The morphology of the abdomen, mandibles, gonoforceps (an area apart of the external male genitalia) and the basal hamuli show it is more primitive than Myrmecia. the bracketed element does not makes sense and needs rewording.

Did some rewording, not sure if it's better though.

That's the end of the Description section for the moment. I'll see what else I can work on in the next day or two for you. Skimming forward, I am beginning to feel quite some unease that there are simply too many unnecessary technical terms being employed in this article. Wikipedia's purpose is to inform, not impress. So I am going to challenge you on the over-use of terms such as Trophallaxis, pleometrotic, alates, brachypterous, trophic eggs etc. Unless a reader has hovercards enabled, or is a very well-informed naturalist, they simply won't stand a chance. I could excuse technical morphological terms in the 'Description' section, but less so in Behaviour and ecology, and there are clearly very easy ways round this - they're absolutely not essential to the understanding of the article, and serve to undermine its content. It is sometimes good to inform readers what the correct technical term for some process is, but the best way is to use a plain english explanation and follow it, if you really, really must, with the technical term in brackets (didacticism). You have already put explanations for some terms in the text, which is great. But I think others should go completely - alates, for example. Just call 'em winged adults! Parkywiki (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Did some additional edits by simplifying the terms. I think brachyptery would be too much pain to remove since it's quite commonly used throughout the article. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm - I think you've just made my point for me. In fact it is used 8 times, and well-explained on first useage - which you've clearly tried to do with other terms throughout, which is great. But in my view a Featured Article should not be overly complex (see WP:NOTJOURNAL, so do consider removing unnecessary technical terms whenever possible. Thanks for incorporating many of the other suggestions - glad this is helping. You are right, it's Dufour's, not Dufour - my error there. Do stick with 'palps' - it's by far the most well-known and understood plural form of 'palp', even if 'palpae' is used in this particular reference. Well done on incorporating these suggestions so promptly - more to follow in the days ahead. Parkywiki (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Distribution and Habitat - comments from Parkywiki

• Nothomyrmecia is present in the cool regions of South Australia and possibly Western Australia in mallee woodland and old-growth areas populated with various Eucalyptus species, including Eucalyptus brachycalyx, Eucalyptus gracilis and Eucalyptus oleosa. I sense ambiguity here which could be removed with some mild sentence re-ordering. Would this be more factually correct and unambiguous?: Nothomyrmecia is present in the cool regions of South Australia within mallee woodland and especially 'old-growth' areas populated with various Eucalyptus species, including Eucalyptus brachycalyx, E. gracilis and E. oleosa. It is possible that it occurs in Western Australia, too. In fact, the first ever description of the species was from a specimen collected from western Australia in 1931. However, doubt has since been cast over the accuracy of the labelling of that original specimen, and subsequent surveys have failed to re-find it.

Done, excellent suggestion.

• It is unknown how widespread Nothomyrmecia is, although the ant may be more abundant if it is heavily associated with mallee woodland. I think there may be some misinterpretation of points made in the citation from environment.gov.au. Firstly, 'abundant' definitely does not mean the same thing as 'widespread', and that online reference does not use the word abundant at all. The reference is stating that the species may be more widespread than known records suggest if it's association with mallee vegetation, and especialy mature areas of trees. (It's important to appreciate that many species can be widespread but extremely rare, whilst others can be less widespread but much more abundant - two very different things.) How about something like this?: The full distribution of Nothomyrmecia has never been assessed, and it is unknown how widespread it really is. If it does favour 'old growth' mallee woodland, it could have the potential for a wider range than is currently known from surveys and museum specimens.'

Done. '

• Recently, however, Nothomyrmecia colonies were located ... when?

1998, added in.

• Nothomyrmecia colonies have been recorded at elevations of 85 metres (279 ft). I think another reviewer commented on this. Clearly, altitude range has not been given in any other of your references, so I'd recommend you omit sentence entirely. If you feel that a single spot height genuinely does add value, you could say ...at elevations of around 85m ..., but I wouldn't.

Removed.

• Nest holes are difficult to identify, as they are only 4–6 mm (0.16–0.24 in) wide holes under shallow leaf litter with no mounds or deposited soil present, though guards are regularly seen. Try this alternative wording: Nest entrance holes are difficult to detect as they are only 4–6 mm (0.16–0.24 in) in width, and are located under shallow leaf litter with no mounds or soil deposits present, although guards are regularly seen. Note the deletion of the first comma. It's not clear where the guards are regularly seen, but I think we can pass by that one.

Done.

• Nest galleries are 4–5 mm (0.16–0.20 in) in diameter that descends deep into the ground; these galleries form into subelliptical and horizontal chambers 3–5 mm (0.12–0.20 in) wide. I can't believe this is right. How can galleries 3 to 4mm in width then 'form' into chambers that are actually smaller than the galleries? - this seems patent nonsense, and I suggest could be yet another misinterpretation of source material - or perhaps a simple typo for centimetres?. Please check and confirm. Beware mixing singular and plural forms together: Nest galleries descend; a single nest gallery descends.

No where near from nonsense Perhaps it was nonsense, but I have done some major changes. Better?

• These chambers are typically 18 to 43 centimetres (7.1 to 16.9 in) below the earth's surface. don't you mean soil's surface? What other planet could it be?

Changed.

Behaviour and ecology will have to wait for another day - but at a cursory glance I think the first paragraph of that section is in the wrong place, again being full of trivial detail and some clumsy phrasing. Move it to the end, or get rid of all but the really useful stuff. Parkywiki (talk) 01:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Removed most detail except for waste material being disposed of far away from the nest. This sentence was moved to the end of the second paragraph, I couldn't think of a better place. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Behaviour & ecology - comments by Parkywiki
Subsection: Foraging, diet and predators

• Workers are nectarivores and can be found foraging on top of Eucalyptus trees, where they search for food and prey. This sentence is does not quite make sense to me. How can the term nectarivore be justified if it is stated that the workers search for both nectar and other insects prey? Saying they are nectarivores should mean this is their main source of food, but obviously it is not. However, if the hunting is solely for the purposes of taking back to feed to the larvae, then this should be more clearly stated in this initial sentence.

Done.

• Prey items are usually 4 millimetres (0.2 in) or less,... The reference (only the abstract is available to me) actually states that prey are usually less than 4mm in size, so I recommmend correcting this statement to Prey items are usually less than 4 millimetres (0.2 in) in size,....

Done.

• ..and workers grab them [i.e.prey] using their mandibles and forelongs, what on earth are 'forelongs'? It sound like a made-up term, and none of the online references mention it, nor can it be found on Google. There is only one urban dictionary slang term: Forelong="A guys who has a big forehead but is actually very stupid and has a small brain inside." surely not?

Removed.

• Workers also feed on sweet substances such as honey coated on trees and... Please clarify. Honey coated on trees sounds like something scientists might do to attract/study them - it doesn't sound like a primary food source.

Removed instance.

• Despite being nectarivores, workers are known to drink hemolymph from the insects they capture... See above.

What can be clarified here though? I did some tweaks and moved it next to the first sentence.

• Captured prey items are given to larvae, which are carnivorous. - ah, so if all the prey is genuinely given to the larvae, and not eaten by the workers, then you should move sentence to become the second one in this section.

Done.

• Workers lay unfertilised eggs used to feed the larvae,.. For the first time I could suggest actually insert a new technical term. You could say Workers are able to lay unfertilised eggs specifically to feed the larvae; these are known as trophic eggs.

Done.

• Among adults, the winged adults and larvae, the workers exude anal droplets to their nestmates, as an act of food transfer. needs rewording.

Done.

• Workers are strictly nocturnal ants only active during cold nights; they do not emerge from their nests during the day. is 'ants' a typo? It would be better to say: Workers are strictly nocturnal, and only emerge from their nests on cold nights

Done.

• The ability to withstand such cold temperatures suggests that Nothomyrmecia encounters very few competitors, including dominant diurnal ants that are sometimes found foraging during warm nights.[44] not supported by ref The online abstract of Hölldobler & Tylers paper does not support this statement, or even allude to it - maybe the full article does? At risk of inserting 'original research' - and you will need to check for this - I would suggest the following wording makes more sense: The ability to withstand such cold temperatures suggests that Nothomyrmecia has adapted to reduce its exposure to competitors, including other more dominant diurnal ant species that are sometimes found foraging during warm nights.

I have done some major changes.

• There is no evidence that they use chemicals to communicate; instead, workers rely on visual cues to navigate around. factually incorrect The abstract of Holldobler & Taylors reference clearly states the following: "Nothomyrmecia employs chemical alarm communication when other ant species attempt to enter its nests" Now, if you mean that Nothomyrmecia does not use a chemical trail to navigate back to its nest, then you need to check and explicitly state this.

Done, I think. I am sensing that this FAC contained a lot of well-read references, but insufficient judgement or careful use of english to communicate the concepts in an effective, unambiguous way - which is absolutely essential for a Featured Article. But we do seem to be slowly getting there! More to follow later. Parkywiki (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure after your review, these problems will be dealt with, so we'll get there eventually. ;) Burklemore1 (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Subsection: Life-cycle and reproduction

• Nuptial flight does not occur in Nothomyrmecia. Instead, they engage in long-range dispersal which... what does long-range dispersal mean? I'm guessing this means they walk away from the colony for some distance - perhaps this should be stated.

Done.

• These winged adults born around January, are usually young when they begin to mate. punctuation

Done?

• Queens are seen around vegetation trying to flutter their wings, a behaviour seen in some brachypterous Myrmecia queens suggest their vestigial wings

Done.

• ...and attract fully winged males Suggest:fully-winged

Done.

• However, a colony with two queens reduces to a single queen when the nest is mature, forming colonies that are monogynous Might I suggest: ..., forming colonies that are termed monogynous.

Done.

• Queens are semi-claustral and can be seen among workers searching for food, meaning that during the founding of the new colony, the queen has to forage so that she has sufficient food to raise her brood re-order sentence to explain jargon How about: Queens are semi-claustral, meaning that during the initial establishment of the new colony the queen will forage among the worker ants so that she can ensure sufficient food to raise her brood.

Done.

• Eggs are not seen in nests from April to September, and foraging activity greatly reduces and nests are sealed to avoid overwintering. Clarify I don't understand this - it doesn't seem to make sense to me and I can't draw any conclusion from what it is trying to communicate. Where are the ants? - sealed inside the nest, or have they sealed the nest with them on the outside? If the latter, why has foraging greatly reduces, and what are they feeding on?

I have decided to remove most of the sentence, didn't seem to relate with the following sentences after. Did some additional changes.

• Workers may be capable of laying reproductive eggs, although it is not known if these eggs give rise to males and fertile females. Check source The source (p164) actually states "whether worker-laid eggs give rise to males, or females, or both, is not known" Perhaps this suggestion would be more precise: Workers are capable of laying reproductive eggs, although it is not known if these develop into males, females or both. It avoids the unnecessary ambiguity of the word 'may' as well as any reference to the females being fertile, which isn't stated in the citation.

Done.

• It is also unknown whether workers are gamergates, but some nests possibly have inseminated workers that act as supplementary reproductives. Jargon

Not sure if my edits have made a difference, but please double check.

• Nothomyrmecia can recognise brood of their own by licking larvae, which also enables them to identify an alien conspecific that is transferring its colony odour to the larvae Jargon - clarification needed.

Likewise with many unnecessary statements, I have removed this.

• I have read the final paragraph of this section (beginning Brachyptery in Nothomyrmecia might relate...) several times. I still fail to grasp what is being communicated, despite the fine words. Maybe it's me. However, let me try an alternative, and you can tell me if I've got it all wrong, and then hopefully provide an even clearer version: The feature of non-functional, vestigial wings (brachyptery) may have evolved in this species relatively recently, as wings might otherwise have long-since disappeared completely had they no function for dispersal. Wing-reduction could somehow relate to population structure or some other specialised ecological pressure. Equally, wing-reduction might be a feature that only forms in drought-stressed colonies, as has been observed in several Monomorium species found throughout semiarid regions of Australia. As yet, there is insufficient evidence to confirm any of these scenarios. Don't be afraid to leave stuff out if you don't think it adds anything to an article. My preference would be for: As yet, scientists do not fully understand how the feature of non-functional, vestigial wings arose in this species.

Changed.

Conservation section coming up next Parkywiki (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so far for such an excellent and thorough review. I will try and respond to your comments shortly, just have a few things to do. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

No worries - I've enjoyed it, though I suspect you might feel I am being over-critical. Here's the next bit. Conservation

This review has not been as difficult as I thought it'd be. It's a lot longer than my first FA, but nonetheless comprehensive and helpful. Being over-critical tends to make a FA candidate reach its quality a lot quicker though! Burklemore1 (talk) 07:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• However, the Threatened Species Scientific Committee states... Add Wikilink to Threatened Species Scientific Committee and make a stronger link between the first and second sentences of this paragraph. Try this: ..Conservation Act 1999. This is because there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that populations are declining. Colonies are also naturally depauperate (lacking in numbers of ants), and their distribution is potentially quite extensive across southern Australia, due to the ants' habitat preference for living in old growth mallee woodland. With 18 sites known for this species, and the potential for many more being discovered, there seems little immediate possibility of extinction.

Done.

• The cold winds blowing off the Southern Ocean allows Nothomyrmecia to experience cool temperatures, so an increase in sea temperature would also threaten these ants need to match up singular-plural

Done, I think?

• Conservationalists suggest that fighting climate change, conducting surveys, and maintaining known populations through habitat protection may ensure the survival of Nothomyrmecia. Correct Conservationalists->Conservationists I also suggest that inverting the order of actions from the specific (range surveys), thru' habitat protection to wider climate change would sound more logical.

Done and done.

• They also suggest that its remaining habitat... This a bit tame. What we normally do is "advocate" or "recommend action", rather than simply "suggest", and this is what your refs seem to show. How about this?: They also advocate protection of remaining mallee habitat from degradation, and for management actions to improve tree and understorey structure. Because most known populations are found outside protected areas in vegetation alongside roads, a species management plan is required to identify other key actions, including making local councils aware of the presence and conservation status of Nothomyrmecia. This could result in future land use and management being decided more appropriately at the local level. Some colonies have been found on private property, where in one case the owner intends to conserve them. Not all colonies are found in unprotected areas; some have been discovered in the Lake Gilles Conservation Park and the Chadinga Conservation Reserve. More research is needed to know the true extent of the ant's geographical distribution.[26]

Done.

• In the Ceduna area. . . I'm not familar with the geography, but references seemed to be more specific in mentioning Poochera, than the wider area of Ceduna. (As a complete aside, I note the Poochera article could do with some correct information on number of areas the ant is found in, plus some citations to support it).

Upon reading the source, it does mention populations being destroyed in the Ceduna area.

• Do consider moving the section on ant-based tourism out of Taxonomy, where it clearly doesn't belong, and moving it to this section. In fact, eco-tourism would benefit from some further expansion, with sources such as this.It might even be worthy of an 'eco-toursm sub-section if there are enough reliable sources. I don't think you mention this in the Lead, and I feel this is very worthy of inclusion there, too.

How about a structure like this:

• Relationship with humans
  • Conservation
  • Significance

In the "The IUCN Invertebrate Red Data Book" source, it goes into some detail about its scientific interest due to its status as the most primitive ant, can be cultured easily and could become a useful insect in experiments. Mainly for studies learning about insects and the physiology of nocturnal vision. Entomologists from all over Australia and around the world, namely North America and Europe, also arrive to Poochera for study, as they have done previously. In addition, the source you provided is considered reliable owing to the status of the author, who has published many peer review studies. The expansion of eco-tourism could be very beneficial. Perhaps this could make a nice new subsection? What do you think? Burklemore1 (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I will gird up my loins to face the Taxonomy section as soon as I can. Meanwhile do give consideration to my earlier recommendation to move Taxonomy lower down the article structure - it's so heavy and detailed that it's really off-putting, and should in my view be at least beneath 'Description'.Parkywiki (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Moved the taxonomy section below. Look any better? Burklemore1 (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Taxonomy

• The first collection of Nothomyrmecia was made by Amy Crocker[a] in December 1931, who collected two workers, which became the syntypes, reportedly near the Russell Range from Israelite Bay in Western Australia May I suggest a small rewording of this sentence? It might avoid the momentary confusion I had when I took 'worker' to mean co-workers of Amy Crocker! It also orders the story better, I feel: The first collection of Nothomyrmecia was made in December 1931 by Amy Crocker[a] who collected specimens of two worker ants, reportedly near the Russell Range from Israelite Bay in Western Australia. Recognised shortly afterwards as a new species, these specimens became the syntypes. The discovery of Nothomyrmecia and the appearance of its unique body structure led scientists in 1951 to initiate a series of searches to find the ant in Western Australia. Over three decades, teams of Australian and American collectors failed to re-find it. Then, in 1977, Taylor and his party of entomologists from Canberra found a solitary worker ant at Poochera, southeast of Ceduna, some 1,300 kilometres (810 mi) from the reported site of the 1931 discovery.

Done.

• Currently, Poochera, where there are ant pictures stenciled on the streets, is probably the only town in the world with ant-based tourism. As previously suggested, move this to the conservation section.

Will get onto this after you discuss a proposal I have made in relation to this sentence.

Moved. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Having suggested a sub-section for 'Discover', we now need a second sub-section for the next bit. How about simply 'Naming'?

Done.

• John S. Clark described Nothomyrmecia in 1934 as a new genus of Myrmeciinae.[2] He did so because the two syntypes bore no resemblance to any ants he knew of, although they shared similar morphological characteristics with the extinct genus Prionomyrmex. Minor tweak How about: In 1934 John S. Clark published a formal description of Nothomyrmecia as a completely new genus of the Myrmeciinae.[2] He did so because the two specimens (which then became the syntypes) bore no resemblance to any ant species he knew of, although they did share similar morphological characteristics with the extinct genus Prionomyrmex. I've tried to avoid implying that he looked at the syntypes and then decided they must be new species (because until the specimens were formally described as a sp.nov. they couldn't be syntypes!)

Done.

• Its distant relationship with extent ants was confirmed after its rediscovery, and its placement within the Formicidae was accepted by most scientists until 2000. typo change 'extent' to 'extant' (unless it should have been 'extinct'? - please check source).

This was suggested by the reviewer above (while I didn't think twice and added it in). What I mean is extant.

• The single waist node led scientists to believe that Nothomyrmecia should be separate from Myrmecia and retain Clark's original proposal. retained - not retain. (In other words, at some time in the past a load of experts decided they wanted to keep the species separate from Myrmecia from that point onwards, and so, at that time, they 'retained' the original Clark proposal. If that's what you meant, then it should definitely be 'retained' in the past tense.)

Done.

• After examining specimens of Nothomyrmecia, Baroni Urbani stated that his new species and N. macrops belonged to the same genus, and the name Prionomyrmex would replace the name Nothomyrmecia and the subfamily Nothomyrmeciinae must be called Prionomyrmeciinae. suggest change to: After examining specimens of Nothomyrmecia, Baroni Urbani stated that his new species and N. macrops were so morphologically similar that they belonged to the same genus. He proposed that the name Prionomyrmex should replace the name Nothomyrmecia (which would then be just a synonym), and also that the subfamily Nothomyrmeciinae should be called Prionomyrmeciinae. (I suggest deleting the sentence beginning: Baroni Urbani further states that Prionomyrmex is a paraphyletic relative... as it overcomplicates.)

Done.

Genetics and phylogeny

• I couldn't find anything in this section that sounded incorrect, though I didn't understand a word of it and had possibly begun to lose the will to live. Oh, except that you need to explain what the diploid number 2n means, and I question whether Nothomyrmecia ants have dot-like acrocentric chromosomes, but metacentric chromosomes are sometimes present has strayed into WP:NOTJOURNAL. You decide if it's really relevant here.

I guess ants are that deadly then. I have removed the sentence you questioned and tried to explain what 2n means.

Various

• Caption: Two queens showing their brachypterous wings, as well as a worker and several cocoons I know it is frowned upon to have more than one identical wikilink in an article, but does this include usage within captions? My own view is that an image is often looked at separately from the article, so technical terms should be linked there too. Others more experienced in FA reviews should be able to advise, as this is the first I've got involved with. I see no reason why the caption shouldn't actually remove the jargon and state: Two queens showing their vestigial wings, as well as a wingless worker and several cocoons.

Done.

• Caption: Closeup view of the head state which caste - it looks like a worker.

Done.

• Caption: N. macrops male specimen suggest changing to N. macrops, winged male

Done.

• None of the images have alt text, and this is needed for FA.

Done, please check.

• The ant is monomorphic, showing little morphological differentation between castes. fix typo

Fixed.

• References: None of the links to your key reference 3 (Tyler 1978) gave access to a full article - just an abstract. You might wish to add this link

Done.

• I've not checked your other references, but I've now found a second complete online paper (I wish I'd found them before I started). See Urbani paper

Done.

• The Peer Review tools did flag up auto-suggestions that you needed to check for &nbsp between numbers and units, so you might wish to check for this. Equally, check you have used standard abbreviations for unit conversion - this was also auto-flagged up.

Done both suggestions, everything should be clear now.

That's the end of my technical and grammatical concerns. Perhaps you'd ping me and Josh Milburn when you've considered/acted on all these points. Before doing so, I suggest you printout out and do one final check for any remaining technical trivia you can delate, or any typos. I think it would then be worth us having another read through, as it has been a bit of a monumental task navigating through and unraveling the very complex phraseology and technicalities you have used.Parkywiki (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Parkywiki: I'm almost done with everything here, but I want to see what you think of a proposal I have come up with in relation to eco-tourism. I have found additional information that could form a nice subsection (see above). Burklemore1 (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Well done for incorporating/responding so quickly. (Don't forget the alt-text captions for the images, or moving that second sentence in the lead a bit lower down)I think your idea is a good one to have a final section on 'Relationship with humans'. 'Conservation' and 'Significance' seem two good sub-sections. It may be that, on final reading, a different sub-title might fit better - but we can assess that when you've fleshed out the eco-tourism/climate change indicator/contribution to evolutionary research and all-round-brilliant-pet angle. I've just spotted this signpost at Poochera which states how painful the ant sting is to humans and how only 3 people have been stung, but that it causes a lot of swelling. Find some better sources than this badly-laid out notice and you have further info to add. It's nice to have a very scientific article on a species that concludes with a section on its significance to humans - and vice versa. (Must get back to finalising my own FA nomination to submit, now!)Parkywiki (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Alt-text' I'm afraid you will need to use much simpler and shorter descriptions than those you've inserted. Do see WP:ALT for advice, remembering they are intended to be machine readable for people with visual impairment.

• Head of worker dinosaur ant with large eyes and long mandibles
• Male dinosaur ant with long, functional wings
• Side view of worker dinosaur ant etc,etc. Parkywiki (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Used these suggestions, will be doing further fixes and tweaks. Burklemore1 (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Also moved and did some reorganisation. More to follow up. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Parkywiki: I apologise for pinging you again in such a short time, especially since you are preparing your FAC. I have finalized everything here: I have attempted to address all of your issues. I assume you have more comments if you are doing a second read. I have done some edits to the alt text by simplifying them or I just wrote shorter sentences. The significance subsection has been created, and I have now added some info there. This includes its scientific interest, potential role in studies, and tourism (which is now mentioned in the lede). Unfortunately, I could not find some of the material you have mentioned, though I have added in a brief sentence about its pain as mentioned in Taylor (1977). Any suggestion/change to the new subsection name and/or content is most welcome. Also, I have been re-reading some sources and must discuss this: In regards to the "aphids" and "Hemiptera" concern, I noticed that the sources only state "Hemiptera". Here is one source as an example. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

OK - you'll have seen I have taken the liberty of making some direct edits to the page - all in good faith and in the same vein as my previous comments. I felt this was probably quicker than trying to explain them all here. I'll keep any edits in discrete paragraphs so you can see and check any changes, and revert if necessary. I use the top of my Sandbox page to collate comments before placing them here, so you could always get a sneak peak of my thoughts. Be aware, though, that I may make a statement there that I subsequently feel are invalid, and wouldn't place here. Parkywiki (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

So far all of your edits are fine, I see no reason to revert them. I think at this point of time the article is looking excellent, I doubt you may find a lot of issues now. I'll just leave this for now until you have more comments to post here, and then I'll address them as usual. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Second pass - comments by Parkywiki I finally think I understand the article enough to go through it a second time and highlight outstanding issues.
Lead section

• The lead should reflect and summarise the main content. There are some key facts missing: Possibly not quite enough emphasis on its very restricted range, or dependancy on cold conditions for foraging. No mention of ant eco-tourism at Poochera.

Done.

• Due to the species' restricted distribution and potential threats to its survival, such as habitat destruction and climate change, which would reduce the geographical range of Nothomyrmecia as they only thrive in cold regions, the IUCN lists the ant as Critically Endangered. simplify - split and reword this sentence into at least two clear sentences.

Done.

• I have taken the liberty of reordering the sentences in para 2 to give greater logical flow - it was easier than trying to explain!
• They rely on their vision to navigate and there is no evidence to suggest that the species use chemicals to communicate. check this - my recollection from the references was that there is no evidence that they lay a chemical trail for navigation, but that they do use a chemical alarm signal to communicate. You will need to be be clear on this.

Done.

• regarding Hemiptera: The reference may use the term Hemipterans, but clearly it's not the entire Order. You could say ..honeydew on scale-insects and other Hemiptera. (actually it will be the Homptera, but let's not worry about that. See page 25 of this ref for a photo of scale-insects being tended.

Done, also did the same with latter instance.

• Probably worth dping a duplicate link check. I note that caste has been wikilinked more than once. Personally I like this, but it goes against FA protocols, I believe

I know someone who can stamp out any possible duplicated links. I'll leave them a message shortly. BTW, terms linked in the lead can be linked again in the body.

Description

• This is very technical, but it all makes sense, and complex terms are explained. I'm quite happy with this section now.

Taxonomy - Discovery

• This section could make mention of the completely 'chance discovery' of the species. An interesting account of its discovery here, plus a mention by none other than Bill Bryson here
• I don't like the words possible abundance in connection with a species' absence - it's counter-intuitive. Suggest changing to possible presence (or something similar).

Done.

• Move picture to right side as it's causing an indent in the 'Naming' header on my screen, and at various magnifications.

Done.

Taxonomy - Naming

• In 1944, British myrmecologist Horace Donisthorpe moved Nothomyrmecia to the subfamily Ponerinae, suggesting that all bulldog ants are Ponerine.[16] I query this interpretation The Donisthorpe paper you cite is merely a correction of errors that had been highlighted, in which confirms (because of his earlier error) that the correct sub-family to put N. macrops into is Ponerinae, and not Myrmecinae. You are wrong to state that Dinosthorpe 'suggested' that all Bullldog ants are Ponerine - he makes it abundantly clear that 'everyone knows this'. As you've not discussed bullldog ants at all up to this point, I'd urge you to delete the second half of this sentence entirely, as it adds seemingly pointless and flawed statements to the article, for no benefit. Remember it's WP:NOTJOURNAL.

Removed second half of sentence.

• ref error: in The Creaceous biocenotic crisis and the evolution of insects -> correct to Cretaceous

Corrected.

• The rest of this section now seems fine, if a little hard-going for us mere mortals.

Taxonomy - Genetics and phylogeny

• Nothomyrmecia and a Ponerinae ant, Platythyrea tricuspidata, share the highest number of chromosomes within Hymenoptera, with a diploid chromosome number 92–94. Studies show that all Hymenopteran insects with a 2n (as in two copies of each chromosome) above 52 are ants. I'm not quite sure what the significance or, indeed, reason for having this fact here is. Irrespective of that, if you feel it's important to keep in, I suggest rewording to: Studies show that all Hymenopteran insects that have a diploid (2n) chromosome count above 52 are themselves all ants; Nothomyrmecia and another Ponerinae ant, Platythyrea tricuspidata, share the highest number of chromosomes within all the Hymenoptera, having a diploid chromosome number of 92–94.

There have been many studies revolving around the chromosomes in members of the Myrmeciinae, I consider it important. (fun fact: it's relative Myrmecia pilosula only has a single chromosome).

• There are two hypotheses of the internal phylogeny of Nothomyrmecia: Could you make it clearer in the sentences that then follow which is one hypothesis, and which is the other, please? It could be that all you need do is simply need to change 'However...' for 'Alternatively...'

Done.

Distribution and habitat

• Nothomyrmecia is present in the cool regions of South Australia within mallee woodland and especially 'old-growth' areas populated with various Eucalyptus species, including Eucalyptus brachycalyx, E. gracilis and E. oleosa. citation needed?

Added.

• This gallery descends steeply into the ground towards a subelliptical and horizontal chamber that is 3–5 mm (0.12–0.20 in) in diameter and 5–10 mm (0.20–0.39 in) in height. This is still wrong! I checked the ref and my initial thought that you'd got the units wrong was confirmed. Page 983 states 3-5 centimetres, and height 5 to 10 millimetres. - please change this accordongly.

Oops, I see what you mean now. Changed.

• Behaviour and ecology - Foraging, diet and predators
• Workers transfer food to other nestmates, including winged adults and larvae, by exuding anal droplets from the anus - I believe you may have misinterpreted the page 984 quote about trophallaxis. My take is that the first half of your sentence is correct, in that food or fluids may be transferred between adults. However, Taylor states "Occasional trophallaxis has been seen between workers, and with sexuals or larvae, which exude anal droplets imbibed by workers." Isn't this implying that food/fluid transfer does occur between castes, but that anal droplets are exuded by the larvae, and taken up by the workers? Do please check this and see what you think.

Done. Life cycle and reproduction

• Nothomyrmecia is a polyandrous ant, in which queens mate with one or more males (an average of around 1.37) in a single mating season. I'm not sure that the queen:male ration is helpful here - it serves to confuse the reader by interrupting sentence flow. Is it needed? Alternatively expand it along the lines of: in one study of (18?) colonies, it was found that queens mated with an average of 1.37 males.

Done, and it is 32 colonies.

• Workers are capable of laying reproductive eggs, although it is not known if these develop into males, females or both.[51] This is further suggested by scientists, stating that workers could be inseminated by males and act as supplementary reproductives, as observed colonies showed high levels of genetic diversity.[44] maybe 2nd sentence could be restructured to: ...females or both. This uncertainty results from the suggestion that, because some colonies have been shown to have high levels of genetic diversity, worker ants could be inseminated by males and act as supplementary reproductives.

Done.

• The larvae are capable of crawling around the nest, swelling up dramatically and later buried in the ground to spin their cocoons I'm not happy with the ambiguity in this sentence. What causes them to swell up dramatically? Is it an alarm response, or is it just a weird way of saying that they grow very big? Who does the burying? Themselves? Or worker ants?

They swell up because they are ready to spin their cocoons. Workers bury them which allows cocoon formation, so hopefully my edits have solved this.

Final comments on this section to follow shortly Parkywiki (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Relationship with humans - Conservation

• After its rediscovery, the International Union for Conservation of Nature listed Nothomyrmecia as Critically Endangered in 1996, stating that only a few small colonies were known,[1] and it is a protected species under the Western Australian Wildlife Conservation Act 1950.[38] I suggest splitting these into two sentences, putting them into proper chronological sequence.

Done.

• ...extensive across southern Australia, due to ... Should this be Southern Australia - the state, or just referring to the south of Autralia? I suspect the former.

The source itself says "southern Australia".

Relationship with humans - Significance

• The status of Nothomyrmecia being the most primitive living ant has caused scientific interest among the entomological community. most primitive Checking back, the article doesn't actually state that this is the most primitive ant, despite the CSIRO and IUCN references calling it just that. You should consider stressing that more within the lead, and ensuring it is properly cited.

Done, added sources to sentence.

• Because it can be cultured with ease, it could become useful in experiments and studies. citation needed

Done.

• This is evident for those studying insects or the physiology of nocturnal vision reword and/or cite - do check back to the source ref which actually states 'learning in insects' - and I don't think anything is 'evident' at all - it needs to be slightly tweaked to make it flow and make sense.

It's quite hard to not closely paraphrase the text, I'll see what I can do.

Done, I think.

• In addition, many scientists from the United States, Europe and throughout Australia have previously visited Nothomyrmecia to study its behaviour. clumsy On a relative scale, I expect very few 'scientists' have visited this ant colony. And why 'previously visited Nothomyrmecia?' In fact, I don't feel this statement is supported by the reference. , which states: "An intensive and continuous programme of studies on Nothomyrmecia is in progress, involving Australian, American and European ant specialists". Maybe they all cultured the specimens in their own countries? And can one visit a species?

Done, better? Considering this reference is over 30 years old, I don't think there would be some ongoing programme of studies. Did some tweaks.

• After Nothomyrmecia was rediscovered, the town of Poochera became an international interest to myrmecologists, perhaps being the only town in the world with ant-based tourism. suggest: After Nothomyrmecia was rediscovered at Poochera, the town became of international interest to myrmecologists, and is perhaps the only town in the world with ant-based tourism.

Done.

• Looking at the references in general, many of them are missing required information like publisher or date or date accessed (for web refs), and I am still finding some online which you haven't linked to in the reference, like this . (I've had a similar issue with my own FAC work, and need to check each one, line by line for all relevant fields before I submit it. I suggest you consider doing the same)

Well, that's probably all from me. Let me know when you've dealt with these. Regards Parkywiki (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

All site and news sources have access dates. Books and journals don't need publishers or access dates (if they are linked). Burklemore1 (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Final comments from Parkywiki

• I'm not quite satisified with the wording of this final section, so have done a bit of reworking, and would like to suggest you consider using the following which I think rounds off the article more effectively: Nothomyrmecia macrops is widely regarded as the most primitive living ant and, as such, has aroused considerable interest among the entomological community [57]. Following its rediscovery it was the subject of a prolonged and rigorous series of studies involving Australian, American and European ant specialists and it soon became one of the most studied ant species on the planet. <ref name="Schultz_2000"/> Nothomyrmecia can be cultured with ease, and could potentially prove a useful subject for research into learning in insects as well as the physiology of nocturnal vision.[14][57] Since its chance discovery at Poochera, the town has became of international interest to myrmecologists, and it is possibly the only town in the world with ant-based tourism. Promoting it as a tourist attraction, Nothomyrmecia has been adopted as the emblem of the Poochera community.[61] Pictures of the ant have been stencilled onto the pavements, and a large sculpture of Nothomyrmecia has been erected in the town.[58][59][60]

Done.

• In humans, the sting has been described as "prominent and effective" with moderate pain. -I'm afraid this is a misinterpretation of the source. The wording here suggests that the sting is prominent and effective in humans, which doesn't make sense, and isn't the case. So I've edited it out from here and more correctly inserted it into the description section - I trust you're agreeable to this.

So I see, looks better! Thank you.

• External Link: Finally, you might like to consider inserting either this YouTube video of the ant from the Arkive website, or this overview page and video from the same well-respected website.

Done.

I think if you incorporate these last few bits of feedback we will definitely have got this article up to a really good standard, and certainly much more comprehensible than it was a few weeks ago. You've clearly put a lot of work into it - as I have now (!) - and I thank you for taking on board all my criticisms in such good spirit. I've enjoyed it. Moving forward, the one thing I might suggest for future ant articles and nominations that you work on is that you take just a few more moments to look critically at the statements you extract and reword from sources. Perhaps just being a bit more self-critical and considering carefully the readability and the implications of the way you word things - especially the really technical, jargony stuff which you clearly enjoy, but which isn't always necessary - will ensure you produce more great nominations in the future.

Although I have to admit to no previous experience of contributing feedback to FA reviews, I think with all that we've now done, plus you acting on the last three comments above, I can:
strongly support this article for Featured Article status.
It is:
well-written Yes
comprehensive Yes
well-researched Yes
neutral Yes
stable Yes
follows style guidelines concise lead/hierarchical section headings/consistent citations/acceptable images and alt-text. Yes
length Yes - we've backed it away from being WP:NOTJOURNAL, got rid of some more jargon, and all technical terms now have wikilinks and/or are briefly explained.

It would, of course, be appropriate to invite @J Milburn: and @Jonkerz: back to give their opinion once more. Parkywiki (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I sincerely thank you for your impressive, comprehensive and detailed review, I'll definitely take this on board next time when I nominate more future articles for FA. Your final comments will be addressed very shortly. I'm rather surprised you haven't contributed to FA reviews, your feedback was one of the best I have seen. Your suggestions will definitely be taken on board, it's just hard to not closely paraphrase from the sources themselves, hence different meanings. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Of course, being able to paraphrase correctly is a huge responsibility and a great challenge of Wikipedia, plus a useful skill in life, too. The more technical and complex the subject, the harder that task can be - and so the responsibility to fully understand something and rephrase it correctly is also greater. (If in doubt, leave it out. Got it right? Cite!) Parkywiki (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, this was a great struggle during my early days in Wikipedia, but it's getting a lot better. Perhaps Nothomyrmecia was a lot more complex than most other articles I worked on, hence the many points you raised. Will definitely take your considerations, cheers! Burklemore1 (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Sainsf

I highly doubt if any more issues would be left after the thorough reviews above, but I am too interested in this. Will post all my comments soon. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 08:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• Just curious, why is old growth in quotes?

Not sure, did some tweaks.

Jonkerz (below) notes some inconsistency in this. Whatever style you use, you must use it consistently throughout. Presently I see only one instance with a hyphen (old-growth, with the quotes, in Distribution and habitat) while others do not have a hyphen. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I think all instances have been fixed now.

• At places "Nothomyrmecia" is not in italics.

Done.

• Potential threats to its survival include habitat destruction and climate change; Nothomyrmecia is most active I think the two parts of this line are unrelated enough to be split into two separate lines.

Done.

• Link "nocturnal" to nocturnality and add "(active mainly at night)" (repeat in Description, first para)

Done both instances.

• "Described" can be linked to species description

Done.

• Dubbed as the "Holy Grail" of myrmecology, the ant was subject to great scientific interest after its rediscovery, attracting scientists from around the world. This line could be controversial, you may consider adding a few citations to support this in the lead. Same for Nothomyrmecia is regarded to be the most primitive ant alive and a 'living fossil' .

Done.

Description

• I would suggest short inline explanations for clypeus, scape (link?), occipital (link?), funiculus, gaster (link?), calcar (is it the same as "calcariae" that you mention and link later on?). I would have liked the same for the terms in the line The node, pronotum...long as it is wide, but it might get too wordy.

Doing.... Done, couldn't really find a meaning for "occipital" though, and calcar and calcariae are the same.

Thanks, now loads friendlier for non-experts like me! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• and reasonably long and abundant Not sure why you say "reasonably"

Removed.

• Can compound eyes, segment, stinger, palp, hydrocarbon be wikilinked?

Linked.

• triangular in shape "in shape" looks redundant

Removed.

• Link "primitive" to Primitive (phylogenetics), and "Hymenopteran"

Done.

Taxonomy

• Wikilink syntype

I believe this has already been done.

Oh, didn't see that. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• Who are Baroni Urbani and Archibald?

Entomologists, don't know the nationality of Baroni Urbani because he has published articles in German, Italian, English and is situated in Switzerland. Well, he could be Swiss, since two of the three mentioned languages are official there.

It would be fine to say just "entomologists" then. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• I think in "Naming", the line on the meaning of the specific epithet should be swapped with the one on the generic epithet.

Done.

• "Living fossil" should be linked

Done.

• the age of the most recent common ancestor for Nothomyrmecia and Myrmecia is 74 million years old I think "the age of" should be omitted

This makes sense, but it would probably also be wise to say common ancestor ... is approximately 74 million years old. I seem to remember from the source that there was a 95% confidence in this figure, but an estimate age range somewhere between 55 million to 100 million years - worth checking. Parkywiki (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, good point. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I have changed it to "approximately 74 million years old". Burklemore1 (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• internal phylogeny of Nothomyrmecia: The subfamily "the".

I assumed you wanted "the" removed?

Yes, it looked somewhat weird, and "T" should have been "t" I think. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Distribution and habitat

• It is possible that it occurs in Western Australia, too. In fact, the first ever description of the species was from a specimen collected from Western Australia in 1931 As this is discussed in the earlier section, we could shorten this to "It is possible that it also occurs in Western Australia, from where it was first described".

Done, but I changed "described" as "collected", because it was only collected there.

Thanks, better. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• However, doubt has since been cast over the accuracy of the labelling of that original specimen, and subsequent surveys have failed to re-find it. Can be omitted, looks like repetition. I don't feel it is necessary to include it in this section.

Removed.

• "Mallee" should be wikilinked, and perhaps 'old-growth' too.

Done.

• In 1998, however, Nothomyrmecia colonies were located in 18 areas along the Eyre Peninsula, a stretch of 400 km (250 mi) Given that many authorities had not managed to trace this ant till so long, it might be interesting to add what authority finally came across these 18 areas. Some survey team supported by the Government of Australia?

Done.

• I don't know about ant articles, but I like splitting the facts on Distribution and Habitat into two separate paras. You may like to start a new para from Nests are found in degraded limestone soil with Callitris trees present, I think it would look clearer.

Done.

• A single nest gallery is found inside a Nothomyrmecia colony Active voice would look better here.

Done?

• "Subelliptical" might be difficult to visualise.

Did change, but linked to a "wikt" link.

Foraging, diet and predators

• They search for prey in piles of leaves Who are "they", larvae or adults?

Worker.

• other sexually reproductive ants Not sure about ants, but is there some asexual reproduction involved as well? This line may seem to imply this. I would have gone with "other sexually active/breeding ants".

I think only one ant has no male caste and clones itself.

• Here you say "strictly nocturnal", but not in Description. Perhaps word them similarly?

Done.

• Workers from other Nothomyrmecia colonies I would say "different" instead of "other".

Done.

• Wikilink pheromone

Done.

Life cycle and reproduction

• Inline explanations for nuptial flight, overwinter, brachypterous (I see this is first mentioned in the last para of Description, so add it there, and can it be linked?)

I believe it already linked/explained, but I have done this now. Doing....

• In one tested nest, eggs are laid by late December and develop into adults by mid-February, although pupation did not occur until March Must be in past tense throughout.

Done.

• Adults are either defined as juveniles or post-juveniles "...are defined as either juveniles..."

Done.

• they swell up and later buried by workers "... and are later..."

Done.

• The last para, on vestigial wings, appears to belong more to Description.

Moved.

Conservation

• Entomologists such as E. O. Wilson and William Brown, Jr., made attempts to search for it, but neither were successful Would look better in Discovery. Also, say "neither was successful"

Not sure where I'd exactly put it though, hm. Moved + changed.

• due to the ants' habitat preference for living in old growth mallee woodland A bit clumsy, say "due to the ants' preference for old growth mallee woodland"

Done.

• In the nearby Ceduna area nearby to?

Did some changes.

• local populations of the ant were almost eliminated after the area was bulldozed and burned When was this?

Date isn't exact from the source, but definitely early 80s or so because of its publication date.

• Wikilink bushfire

Done.

• Nothomyrmecia is also dependent on cold temperatures to forage and collect food, so climate change is a threat to its survival "Climate change could be a threat to their survival, as they depend on cold temperatures to forage and collect food" would read better (I have tried not to repeat Nothomyrmecia).

Done.

• allow Nothomyrmecia to benefit from the cool temperatures it needs for night-time foraging I think "it" should be "they", as Nothomyrmecia has been referred to as "they" almost everywhere.

Done.

• where in one case the owner intends to conserve them Could not understand this.

Decided to remove the sentence, so no particular significance on keeping it.

Rest looks good. It was an interesting read. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the excellent review, I think I've addressed your points. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Splendid! I am happy to support this now. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, your reviews have never disappointed me. I'm happy that you are satisfied with the article! Burklemore1 (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

• support when other points cleared up. A rather dense read, but seems to meet the criteria to a non-specialist. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the support (after all points above are addressed that is), I'm very appreciative. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Johnbod, just letting you know all the points have been addressed with the reviewer expressing support. I'm sure you're a lot more satisfied with the recent changes? Burklemore1 (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

[resolved] Comments by jonkerz

• Shouldn't it be "old-growth mallee woodland" with a hyphen and not "old growth mallee woodland"?

Done I think.

• "Holy Grail" is formatted with double quotation marks, but 'living fossil' with single.

Done.

• There's still quotes around 'old-growth' in "especially 'old-growth' areas populated".

Done, what about now?

• Move the old growth link closer to the first mentioning; doesn't have to be the first as that would introduce a WP:EASTEREGG-y link ("old growth mallee").

Done.

• "The ant is monomorphic, meaning that there is little morphological differentiation between castes" this makes it sound like workers are morphologically similar to queens and males, but according to AntWiki, in ants, "monomorphic" means "In many species, the worker caste does not vary in body size or form" and "polymorphic" "Refers to variability in body size and/or shape within the same caste. Individuals of distinctly different proportions occur at the extreme ends of the variation range, and they may have different functions in the colony."

Done.

• From Taylor (2014): "The absence of caste polyethism has been previously reported in only one other ant species, the 'sociobiologically primitive' Stigmatomma pallipes". This seems important but it's not mentioned in the wiki article.

Added in.

• "In 1944, British myrmecologist Horace Donisthorpe moved Nothomyrmecia to the subfamily Ponerinae." Also mentioned Parkywiki, but the 1944 Donisthorpe paper is about a paper that reviewed another Donisthorpe article (perhaps this one?), and it only corrects a typo in that publication where Donisthorpe by accident listed Nothomyrmecia in Myrmecinae instead of Ponerinae. See also 2b in the source review.
  • Done.
    • Changed to "In 1943, British myrmecologist Horace Donisthorpe moved Nothomyrmecia to the subfamily Myrmicinae, but this was an error. He subsequently placed it back into Ponerinae in 1944." which I'm still not happy with because my point is that Donisthorpe didn't move Nothomyrmecia at all. How I read Donisthorpe (1944) is that "Myrmecinae" was a typo that any myrmecologist, including Donisthorpe himself, would have fixed if they noticed it. From Donisthorpe (1944): "the tribe is given correctly as Myrmeciini, but the subfamily, by a slip, as Myrmecinae instead of Ponerinae. Everyone knows the 'Bulldog' ants are Ponerine." Imagine the typo was "Donerinae", would you write "Horace Donisthorpe moved Nothomyrmecia to the subfamily Donerinae"? edit: More succinctly, it should be removed.

Whoops - well I decided to remove such instance if it had no meaning altogether. Burklemore1 (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

All the above issues have been solved, now for a long one, so grab a coffee or two.

"In 1951, Clark proposed the new ant subfamily Nothomyrmeciinae for his Nothomyrmecia, based on morphological differences with other ponerine ants. With this proposal, Clark assigned Nothomyrmecia to the newly established tribe Nothomyrmeciini. This proposal was rejected by American entomologist William Brown Jr., who would place it into the subfamily Myrmeciinae with Myrmecia and Prionomyrmex."

I'm confused by the sources/taxonomy myself, so this may be the rambling of a madman, but I think Clark (1934, p. 8) put Nothomyrmecia in the tribe Nothomyrmecii and subfamily Ponerinae and then Clark (1951, p. 16) erected Nothomyrmeciinae for Nothomyrmecia without (this is the first part I'm unsure about) mentioning the genus name Nothomyrmecia or tribe Nothomyrmecii/Nothomyrmeciini (because they are implied by the subfamily name), and then Brown (1953, p. 23) disagreed with the new subfamily placement and placed it in Myrmeciinae instead which meant -- due to some updated/magical rule in taxonomy (the second part I'm really not sure about) -- that the tribe was automatically-ish renamed to Nothomyrmeciini from Nothomyrmecii to conform with the new rules for taxonomy. As you can tell, I do not really know this for certain and my interpretation is mostly based on assumptions I've picked up reading articles, and a lot of that may be incorrect.

Doing some changes. The 1951 source is quite obvious and doesn't need any changes, equivalent to someone saying "that source doesn't say the sky is blue". Burklemore1 (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Taxonomic history from AntWeb:

• in Ponerinae, Nothomyrmecii: Clark, 1934 <-- wiki does not mention Nothomyrmecii at all

Added in.

• in Myrmicinae, Myrmeciini: Donisthorpe, 1943 typo, not important
• in Ponerinae, Myrmeciini: Donisthorpe, 1944 correcting typo
• in Nothomyrmeciinae: Clark, 1951 + others <-- AW does not mention Nothomyrmeciini here, but the wiki article says the name was first used here

Did some changes

• in Myrmeciinae, Nothomyrmeciini: Brown, 1953 + others <-- looks like the name Nothomyrmeciini was first used here, according to AW

Done.

• in Nothomyrmeciinae, Nothomyrmeciini: Bolton, 1994 seems like this was not generally accepted
• in Prionomyrmecinae: Baroni Urbani, 2000 not generally accepted
• in Myrmeciinae, Prionomyrmecini: Ward & Brady, 2003 + others <-- current placement which isn't included in the body of the wiki article (taxobox only)

Done.

• as junior synonym of †Prionomyrmex: Baroni Urbani, 2000; Baroni Urbani, 2005 not generally accepted
• as genus: all authors except the two Baroni Urbani entries above redundant if we exclude not generally accepted placements

TL;DR: there may be some small issues with the taxonomic history in the current article, and it doesn't mention Prionomyrmecini except for in the taxobox.

Okay, what about now? Burklemore1 (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Fixed and fixed. Thanks a lot Burklemore, for all your hard work on this article. I've switched to full support, but note that some captions may need copyediting.

And I thank you for your comments, image and source review, they have been deeply appreciated. I'm feeling confident that this article may face promotion, which is excellent. I can now work in full efficiency now that I have fixed my computers lag issues, heh. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.