Talk:Moduza procris

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lepidoptera Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of butterflies and moths on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LepidopteraWikipedia:WikiProject LepidopteraTemplate:WikiProject LepidopteraLepidoptera articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

oh I didnt know frass meant droppings. Cool --Viren 06:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this has been later reclassified as Moduza procris as per KK's Butterflies of Peninsular India. Common Butterflies of India by Gay, Kehimkar and Punetha also lists this as Moduza procris. http://www.flickr.com/photos/sets/d_momaya 19:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Dhaval Momaya.[reply]

This was moved from Moduza based on LepIndex, NHM [1]. Shyamal 01:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Limenitis procris → Moduza procris — ToL and Savela (default sources) consider Moduza a valid genus well distinct from Limenitis — Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• That seems like a debate position (i.e., this may not be an uncontroversial move). Scientists very frequently disagree about taxonomic classifications. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything goes as long as the redirects and synonymy are included. Shyamal (talk) 04:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Administrator note Since no one has raised any real objections, I've gone ahead and moved the page.--Aervanath (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Perhaps the issue should be discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera. I've raised it there. Andrewa (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]