Talk:Strigiphilus garylarsoni

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.

Comics: Strips Bottom‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Bottom	This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Comic strips work group.

Untitled

It seems there is an inconsistency here...the article describes the organism as a "member of the Mallophaga order," whereas the taxobox lists the order as "Phthiraptera." Can someone resolve this problem? G-my 04:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the article on Mallophaga, it is quite clear that it is a suborder (chewing lice) of the Phthiraptera (lice) order. I'll make the change. Fishal 01:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

So... many... Links

This is quite possibly the densest article (link to non-link) on the entire Wikipedia. Does "come" really need a link? It makes it look as though it's been pulled from Uncyclopedia...

There are way too many links, yeah. I'll remove some of the most unnecessary ones. G-my 10:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-quoted source?

The article identifies the 'swan' quote as originating from the Pre-History book, page 171. I am certain, being almost perfectly familiar with the book in question, that this quote does NOT originate from that page, which is a picture of the louse (the scientist's letter is opposite) or from any page. It may be from one of Larson's other books (I don't have any of them, just the basic cartoon collections), but somebody ought to check up on this. 72.131.11.47 20:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation does appear in some early copies of the book next to the letter, but for some reason, has been omitted in later printings. (Later printings are also missing a credit for the designers of the nerd sculpture which appears on the book's front and back covers.) Mobo85 20:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency w.r.t. type host / location

The original species description writes of the holotype: "Holotype ♂, ex. O. leucotis granti, N. Rhodesia, N'dola, 20-III-1955, ML/131, British Museum (Natural History)".

But what's labeled as the holotype in the Natural History Museum, London reads: "Bubo c. coromandus, Bharatpur, Rajputana. 4.I.1952. 19687."

These are different species of owl and different locations; I'm deferring to the species description but ideally this discrepancy would be resolved or at least explained.

Umimmak (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]