 | Mimicry has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | ||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
| This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Types / Classes
edit@Chiswick Chap in this edit changed the heading "Classification" to "Types". The paragraph then talks about classes and classification. The source,
- Endler, John A. (1981). "An overview of the relationships between mimicry and crypsis". Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 16: 25–31. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1981.tb01840.x.
mainly uses "class" but also uses type. I don't care but I think we should be consistent. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- Also the main source for the table is
- Pasteur, G. (1982). A classification review of mimicry systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 13, 169-199.
- so that's another reason for "Classification: Johnjbarton (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- I don't particularly care either, nor for wooden "consistency", but I don't think starting hares running with a massive chapter heading that looks like Taxonomy is remotely a wise idea. As you say, the authors also use both terms. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- To save messing about, I've tweaked the text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- I object to your implied insults in "I don't particularly care either, nor for wooden "consistency", but I don't think starting hares running with a massive chapter heading that looks like Taxonomy is remotely a wise idea." Be nice. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- No no no. "Class" is a taxon, so the term is at best ambiguous in this context; actually, it's almost unambiguously taxonomic (as I indicated), and therefore almost wholly unusable for any other purpose in this context. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- What is this "no, no, no" business? Please review Wikipedia:Civility. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- It means I simply don't agree with your logic; I'm talking about the reasoning behind the edit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- And I simply don't agree with your tone. I offered two sources on the topic that used "class" or "classification". That is a reasonable counter argument to yours which was just an opinion plus some bombast. The topic here is not taxonomy so "classification" is perfectly fine. However so is types, and as I pointed out, I think we should be consistent. Now I have changed the article to be consistent around "types". Johnjbarton (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- Talk pages are for discussing content, not tone. Taxa are mentioned many times in the article; your assertion that taxa are irrelevant is simply mistaken, while your "an opinion plus some bombast" is simple rudeness, which comes awkwardly from someone who has repeatedly insisted on the opposite: indeed it's hypocritical. I'll check the changes to make sure they haven't changed the sense. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- OK, I've no objection to the wording changes, they're a sensible compromise. I've restored the attribution to Pasteur 1982 as the table documents his proposal for a typology: it isn't set in stone, but it's a major piece of work and his name needs to stay with it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- Talk pages are for civil discussions. Not optional. The name of the Pasteur work of 1982 is "A Classificatory Review of Mimicry Systems" not "A Typology Review of Mimicry Systems". Nevertheless my primary concern, consistency, has been addressed. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Glad to hear it. Applies to you too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Talk pages are for civil discussions. Not optional. The name of the Pasteur work of 1982 is "A Classificatory Review of Mimicry Systems" not "A Typology Review of Mimicry Systems". Nevertheless my primary concern, consistency, has been addressed. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- OK, I've no objection to the wording changes, they're a sensible compromise. I've restored the attribution to Pasteur 1982 as the table documents his proposal for a typology: it isn't set in stone, but it's a major piece of work and his name needs to stay with it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- Talk pages are for discussing content, not tone. Taxa are mentioned many times in the article; your assertion that taxa are irrelevant is simply mistaken, while your "an opinion plus some bombast" is simple rudeness, which comes awkwardly from someone who has repeatedly insisted on the opposite: indeed it's hypocritical. I'll check the changes to make sure they haven't changed the sense. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- And I simply don't agree with your tone. I offered two sources on the topic that used "class" or "classification". That is a reasonable counter argument to yours which was just an opinion plus some bombast. The topic here is not taxonomy so "classification" is perfectly fine. However so is types, and as I pointed out, I think we should be consistent. Now I have changed the article to be consistent around "types". Johnjbarton (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- It means I simply don't agree with your logic; I'm talking about the reasoning behind the edit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- What is this "no, no, no" business? Please review Wikipedia:Civility. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- No no no. "Class" is a taxon, so the term is at best ambiguous in this context; actually, it's almost unambiguously taxonomic (as I indicated), and therefore almost wholly unusable for any other purpose in this context. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- I don't particularly care either, nor for wooden "consistency", but I don't think starting hares running with a massive chapter heading that looks like Taxonomy is remotely a wise idea. As you say, the authors also use both terms. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Needs section on fungal pseudoflowers
editIt would be good to have a section on the phenomenon of fungi parasitizing a plant to produce structures that look like flowers but are not flowers, tricking pollinators into spreading fungal spores or spermata instead of pollen. Examples are Puccinia monoica and Fusarium xyrophilum. Llajwa (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- OK, I've added a paragraph. The P. monoica article was so badly cited that I've looked out the sources that it should have used... there is as you imply scope for an article on fungal mimicry, but it'll have to be better cited than the articles you mention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you Chiswick Chap - The references aren't mine - I'm not a mycologist or any other kind of scientist, I just stumbled on it and thought it was fascinating. And disturbing, having watched The Last of Us! Llajwa (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2026 (UTC)