Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a25951c3ae0cf689

Jump to content

Talk:Green darner

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Cmadler in topic Size

Anax junius

[edit]

This article should be about the species Anax junius and the common name "green darner" should redirect there. I intend to intitiate this change pending discussion.Nickrz (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is no need to move the article. According to the Arthropods Project Guidelines on naming: "In cases where common names are well-known and reasonably unique, they should be used for article titles. Scientific names should be used otherwise." DGERobertson (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Size

[edit]

The article says that "The Green Darner is one of the largest dragonflies existent: males grow to 76 mm (3.0 in) in length with a wingspan of up to 80 mm (3.1 in)." Is the female significantly larger? Or is it possible that the length is only the body (excluding tail) and the "wingspan" is actually the length of a single wing? I'm asking because this weekend I saw (and photographed) what appears to be a green darner -- it looks just like the two photos used of females -- but it was certainly larger than 3 inches long with a 3 inch wingspan. I will try to go back and measure the flower I photographed it against to get a firmer idea, but I'm guessing it was about 4 inches long with a 4 inch wingspan, or maybe even a little bigger. Of course, it's possible that I saw the largest green darner in the world, but it seems more likely to me that the numbers in the article are incorrect. cmadler (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply