Talk:Phengodidae

Insects Low‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects 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.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Beetles Low‑importance

	Insects portal Phengodidae is within the scope of WikiProject Beetles, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to beetles. For more information, visit the project page.BeetlesWikipedia:WikiProject BeetlesTemplate:WikiProject Beetlesbeetle articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

"Glowworm" is the uncontroversial common name for this family, so it should be used instead of Phengodidae - I don't understand what possible rationale there could be for using the Latin here. Stan 02:52, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Glowworm may be uncontroversial as a common name, but it is not unique. I would be content with "glowworm beetle", as long as the note about the lampyridae is prominent enough, but glowworm by itself is too ambiguous. WormRunner | Talk 03:42, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm sitting here looking at American Beetles, and the entry just says "The glowworms" with no qualification, no "beetle" etc. We don't have to give "equal time" to multiple meanings if one is unequivocally predominant - we just use the commonest usage directly, and push the minor ones off to disambigs or wherever. I looked at this already when deciding what to do with the article (didn't it occur to you that maybe I did just such an evaluation? I always review name alternatives before doing a move), and non-phengodids as "glowworms" were the exception rather than the rule. Stan 04:08, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Removal of Rhagophthalmids

Crowson (1972) placed Rhagophthalmids in the Phengodidae, but they were removed in 1994 to their own family, by Wittmer & Ohba. O'Keefe incorrectly followed Crowson's classification, which is unfortunately perpetuated in the Tree of Life website (which also includes two misspellings of O'Keefe's). Therefore, the entry in the TOL is NOT an authoritative source.Dyanega 02:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]