Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Melo aethiopica 001.jpg

"Difference of M. aethiopica to M. broderipii: In Melo aethiopica the protoconch doesn't surmount the last whorl or only marginally, in Melo broderipii [1] it does significantly." In the depicted specimen the last whorl does surmount only marginally, and so it is aethiopica in my opinion. Which species is it in your opinion and which character(s) is it based upon? I miss both in the delisting article, the name of an alternative species and the character(s), which lead to it, and the characters, which exclude M. aethiopica. I would be glad, if you could tell me something about the correct determination. --Llez (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

chat} 18:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

There is a delisting-discussion caused by your removing of a picture of Melo aethiopica, see [2]. I please you to explain the reasons, why you removed it, especially the characters, your decision is based on. As far as I know, the only character is the protonch (and according to this it is a aethiopica; see also the link to M. broderipii on the description page of the picture of M. aethiopica), all others (shell form, colour and so on are variable and/or depending of age) are not suited for exact determination. If it is neither aethiopica nor broderipii, what do you think it is? By the way, we had a similar discussion on Commons about the same subject, and you can see the result: It is still listed as aethiopica. Please anwer on the page (see above), where the delisting is discussed. Greetings --Llez (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hello. Sorry to have caused a problem with this. I myself am not an expert on the family Volutidae and the genus Melo, and my decision on this species was based on advice from an editor who has since left Wikipedia, User:MerlinCharon.

[3] At the time I was convinced by MerlinCharon's argument, but of course my decision could have been incorrect. I would guess that only an expert on the genus could give an expert opinion, and even then it's hard to ID species from a photo rather than the shell itself. However, since this is a very fine photo and since it's unlikely that anyone looking at the photo could be absolutely certain of the species on this shell either way, I would be perfectly happy to see it go back in the article, so feel free to restore it. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So, are we adding it back into the article? --jjron (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that the article has any room for more pictures. It's a one-line stub with a huge infobox and 3 pictures already. —
    chat} 17:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Fair call. Unless someone can sort out the usage, preferably by expanding the article, I'm going have to support the delist. FWIW, why was this issue so happily ignored during the original nom - the 'article' was already littered with images then. --jjron (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]