Talk:Pseudothryptus

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pseudothryptus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 00:03, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: SnowFire (talk · contribs) 20:05, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Nice work. Usual disclaimer goes here that I am not a beetle expert. For such a narrow topic, I suspect we're already pretty close to GA, but some feedback.

• This is more of a vibe than an explicit problem.. but..
  • The beetle can be found in portions of northeastern India, including the states of Sikkim and Assam.
  • No females were investigated prior to the genera's circumscription.
• I think this is misleading. If I understand the articles correctly, we've examined precisely three of these ever in one collecting batch from 1922 or before. This makes it sound like we're sure of the range and that females exist in the collection, we just haven't bothered to look at them. A more accurate rendition might be something like "the one collecting event from Stevens found 3 males in Sikkim and Assam, and we have no freaking clue what the current status is or what females look like, fund your entomology department more pls." (Well maybe don't write it exactly like that... but that's my recommended "vibe".)
  • Reworded the part about the species' location; I don't know if there's a better way of writing the females part without going against what the source says, though.-G
• Pseudothryptus can be differentiated from other genera through genital characteristics, as the parameres of the aedeagus are laterally fused. If I read the source properly, p. 135 says that:
  • "Caccothryptus seems to be related to a group of genera formed by Euthryptus (...) and Mandersia (...) in what could be called the “Mandersia group of genera” (...). They share the following characters: a non-articulated aedeagus, with laterally or ventrally fused parameres;"
• So I don't think this is quite fair. The source is saying it's related to other genera with this, not differentiated from them. (Well, it is differentiated, but just from Caccothryptus, Resachus and Simplocarina? I think?)
  • Oops; my mistake. Fixed.-G
• a male specimen in the collections of the Natural History Museum, London, collected in 1922 Hypernitpick: If I read this correctly, the accession number is 1922 to the collection. That means Stevens could have collected the beetle at any point prior to 1922, and just checked it in in 1922. Do you have a source on when precisely Stevens' expedition was? If not, maybe go with a safer claim here.
  • Changed to "by 1922".-G
• Related to the above: This is a GA review, not an FA review, but did you check the cited in the 2005 paper Champion, G. C. 1923. "Some Indian Coleoptera (12)". Entomologist's Monthly Magazine 59: 219–224; ? That might answer the above question and be a useful if dated source on when precisely this expedition was.
  • Thanks for the note; I checked this and realized I had the wrong Champion (though the other Champion probably collected it).-G
• While on the above note, Wooldridge, D. P. 1990. "Lectotype designations for some oriental Limnichidae". Coleopterists Bulletin 44: 89–93. is also cited. This one I'm skeptical has much to offer, but maybe worth a check. Not blocking.
  • Well, it gives a date for lectotype designation.-G

I'll do a GA criteria rundown after the above is looked into. SnowFire (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

• @SnowFire: Responded! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:28, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply. Looked at the 1923 source as well.

• The 1923 citation links to Harry George as the author. HathiTrust seems to say it was "G. C." i.e. George though.
  • Fixed.-G
• using specimens collected by his sons in India. The 2005 paper cites "Bengal / E. Douars / H. Stevens"; "H. Stevens / Brit. Mus. / 1922-307" for the lectotype and paralectotype. The OG 1923 paper says on 3. Caccothryptus multiseriatus and cites "Hab. E.Douars,Bengal (H.Stevens, in Mus.Brit.)." It sounds like this was collected or examined by Herbert Stevens instead? The bit where he mentions his sons mentions a different species in Byrrhus subverrucosus with "Hab.Dwali, Pindar Valley, Almora, alt.9000ft.(H.G.C.: vi. 1920). H.G.C. sounds like Harry George Champion and would fit with the "sons" bit, but H.G.C. is NOT in the parens for our multiserratus. George also adds "supplemented by a few allied forms contained in the British Museum" to the bit about his sons. Stevens's WP article says he returned from India to Britain in 1921, which would be perfect timing to dump off a load of specimens that get tagged 1922 at the British Museum. Champion Sr. then examined the specimens that Stevens collected while at the British Museum (and stamped his name on the Infobox as a result). (And this might be original research, but would also imply collection by 1921, for a stricter upper bound... but whatever.)
  • Oops; corrected. Good research there. I think we can just use the museum tagging date for them though.-G
• it was circumscribed as the genus Pseudothryptus in 2004 Nit: Can I ask where this is referenced? Sounds plausible but the paper is in 2005 and searching for 2004 doesn't turn up anything, but maybe it was said casually like "last year."
  • Oops; 2005 is right. Dunno why I said '04.-G
• No females were investigated prior to the genus's circumscription. If you feel strongly you can keep this, but I still think this is misleading. The 1923 paper mentions a whopping two specimens collected (plus a tentatively assigned third). I think the current wording implies that females exist but nobody bothered to look at them. The 2005 source just says "Females unknown" on p. 134. We haven't found any females yet (even if they obviously exist), and I'd be blunter about this.
  • Made this more blunt.-G
• The Afrotropical genera Tricholimnichus and Cyclolimnichus are close relatives of the Mandersia group Nit: The 2014 source says "This group is probably closely related..." I'd keep the uncertainty, since as noted, my preferred vibe would be "we have no idea what we're talking about this is still understudied."
  • Hedged it.-G
• You say you "Reworded the part about the species' location" above - did that get lost in the shuffle? I don't see a difference. And I think we can't stress enough that we just don't know their current habitat or their habitat in 1923. We know that two specimens were collected in "East Dooars" (original term is probably worth including somewhere) before 1922, and that's about it. THey could be extinct. They could be in Nepal. We don't know.
  • Reworded; hope this works well enough.-G
• Nit: Even if it's not a differentiator, you can still mention the laterally fused parameres as just a general fact about the species, rather than removing it entirely. Up to you. SnowFire (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
• Re-added, good point.

@SnowFire: Thank you! Made some changes. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:58, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Formal GA review:

• Well-written: ✓ Looks good. My one remaining bit of feedback: I know I've harped on the point above but I think the fact that we've only analyzed three specimens is of critical importance to an accurate summary of the article / knowledge of this beetle, and thus should be in the lede. Something like "It is known only from a few specimens collected in northeastern India before 1922."
• Verifiable: ✓ Looks good, matches the 2005 paper which is the most important source by far. My one complaint is the inclusion of Category:Endemic fauna of India - again, the status of this beetle is that we do not know its habitat or range or if it's even still alive. Maybe it's from Bangladesh or Bhutan or totally extinct. But not sure we have a category for "Fauna collected in India a century ago and of unknown status" so the existing category isn't totally off beat.
• Broad in coverage: ✓ Yes, for such a narrow topic, the sources are consulted.
• Neutral: ✓
• Stable: ✓
• Illustrated: N/A. If you want to, maybe email the professors who wrote the article, and see if you can convince them to open-source their illustrations... but moot until then.

Anyway, looks good to me. I'm happy to call this review passed. Nice work! SnowFire (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Side note: I'm probably gonna boldly stick Stephens in but just as a normal editor after promotion. It's unfortunate that clipped 1920s writing sometimes just abbreviated people, but I think I can make a 99.99% accurate guess as to who H. Stephens was here. SnowFire (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2026 (UTC)