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: a2a0f5019e9ccf84

Jump to content

Talk:Papilio paradoxa

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

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply



Papilio paradoxaPapilio paradoxus — to unify swallowtail butterflies; according to discussion. Page "Papilio paradoxa" is to be deleted because of erroneous gender. Sorry about the inaccuracy. Mithril (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I would remove back to the incorrect gender, the correct name must be Papilio paradoxa. The name has consistently been used as Papilio paradoxa, the correctly declined name paradoxus has not been used in published lepidopteran sources (). Wikipedia is not the place to judge for correct gender application in lepidopteran nomenclature. The endings of the names should be kept untouched and should remain consistent with their usage in the published sources. It is known that lepidopteran nomenclature follows its own rules in that gender agreement is not applied as required by the ICZN Code. -- FranciscoWelterSchultes (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply