Each boat manufactured has been custom-built to meet the special ideas and demands of the owner. The Dragonfly 1200 has been designed for safe bluewater cruising and sailing. The boat accommodates 7 people in 3 cabins and is easy to sail - even singlehanded.The Dragonfly 1200 occupies no more space than any conventional yacht of the same size in the marina, yet you retain the advantage of the features that a trimaran can give you at sea. Folding even this big trimaran is very easy with help from the standard electrical winches.Dragonfly 1200 Swing Wing was built between 2000 - 2007. In total 18 boats were built. The cabin offers the finest Danish furniture design and craftmanshiop.
- Life Dragonfly 2007 Manual Pdf
- Life Dragonfly 2007 Manual Download
- Life Dragonfly 2007 Manual Instructions
Going into the boat, you will find a nice roomy center cabin with full standing headroom of 1.95 m. On your port side, a well functional galley with good storage, stove and oven, which is covered when not in use.The roomy dinette area easily seats 8 persons and also be converted into bunks, if needed, offering a total of 7 berths. On the starboard side of the main cabin, we have placed a nice navstation with horizontal surface for better general use. Behind the navseat, the fridge is built into the bulkhead.Going forward, you will find the spacious toilet/shower room with plenty of lockers. Further forward, the owner's cabin features a very comfortable kingsize V-berth with windows in the hull.The aft cabin is separate, located back aft, and offers a nice doublebunk and a separate toilet, or, as an alternative, two single bunks with a head between.The center cockpit is spacious and secure with 2.10 m seats in teakwood and wheel steering. Below the whole cockpit lies the engineering compartment, housing the engine, tanks and other technical devices. Access is very easy for servicing and most importantly, it is isolated from the cabins.
The Dragonfly 1200 is for the top of the line cruising as regards comfort in all aspects - quality - and easy handling, even for one person. To inform and illustrate recommended service, maintenance, and refitting on an older Dragonfly, we have drawn this general information sheet. Rough elements, like strong winds and wave conditions, strong saltwater and UV do have some impact on the boat after a long sailing life.We strongly recommend servicing and changing vital parts on your boat according to our recommendations.
This information overrules any other former information you may have, as the following is based on updated knowledge.RIGGINGVisual check of all cables is still required when changing the rigging. When trailering the boat, we strongly recommend focusing on side stay cables, as these easily bend when stepping the mast.
Bended side stay cables near the terminal may cause the side stay cable to break.On all Dragonflys, please regularly check the forestay cable in the top by the terminal. When furling, the spinnaker halyard may block the forestay, which can cause failure of the forestay.TRAMOLINESOn all Dragonflys, we recommend re-stitching (sewing) along the seems of the trampolines every 6-7 years (in climates with strong UV, every 5 years).
Normally, our clients change their trampolines after 10-12 years use.FLOAT DECK TEFLON PAD RINGSOn Dragonflys built after 1989, the white 5 mm Teflon pad rings on the float deck need to be changed every 13-15 years – this is neither critical nor structural. For easy change of these pads/rings, you just bolt off the floats from the wings.QUICK-LINKSOver the years, Quorning Boats has used the riggings links, so-called Quick-Links, in the Dragonfly production. When replacing these, it is of utmost importance to purchase links of same high quality or similar products carrying same strength (working load). Many products look the same, but do not carry the same strength.ORDERING PARTSOriginal parts can be ordered at Quorning Boats atCommon spare parts can be shipped within two weeks, whereas special parts and/or custom-made parts usually are served within 6-8 weeks.For orders below EUR 100.- excl. VAT, we charge a handling fee of EUR 15.-IMPORTANTParts ordered at Quorning Boats Denmark, will be produced in originally designed materials. Should you choose to order from other suppliers, please check that the same kind of materials are used – especially on the waterstays and other rigging parts, where stronger Dyeform cables are needed.DRAGONFLY 1200 (built 2000-2005)Waterstays – every 7 years, or by max 15,000 NMSide stays and forestays – every 5 years, or by max 10,000 NMDiamond spreader stays on the mast – every 15 yearsForward safety cables – every 7 yearsRudder downhaul cable – every 5 yearsSteering cables – every 5 years.
Contents.Grammar StuffI really like this article! There were two points I couldn't understand, as a lay person. One was -'The oldest known species of dragonfly is the 320-million-year-old Delitzschala bitterfeldensis.
Another old genus is Namurotypus.' Why is a species linked to a genus here?
I wasn't sure what to do with this (and I don't know the italicization rules for order-genus-species, but this might be worth checking throughout).The other was the use of 'caudal' in -'Also, the hindwing of the dragonfly broadens the base, caudal to the connecting point at the body. 'I've got no stake in 'dumming-down' articles, but I thought this one word might be defined or described, as it was the only part of the page I really couldn't understand.Great work - very nice piece, this. 21:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Is caudal even used correctly here? I thought it meant 'posterior' or 'tail-like', but in this article it is used more like 'perpendicular'.
00:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Culture'In ancient mythology, Japan was known as Akitsushima, which means 'Land of the Dragonflies'.' I'm not an expert, but the kanji that is used to write Akitsushima (秋津島) has absolutely nothing to do with dragonflies. It actually means something like autumn port island. Does anyone know where this came from? —Preceding comment added by 07:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)'In East Asia and among Native Americans, dragonflies have a far better reputation, one that can also be said to have positively influenced modern day views about dragonflies in most countries, in the same vein as the insect's namesake, the dragon'The name for dragonfly in East Asia language is totally different than the name for dragon.
Does anyone know where this comes from?– 09:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)PictureToo bad I haven't gotten a picture yet that shows the wings, the head, the body, and the legs all in the same picture (I'd take one of these two down, so as to unclutter the article).Maybe I should sharpen the tail of the lower one in Photoshop or something, and remove the top picture? 17:43 Aug 24, 2002 (PDT)I've drawn and added a high res (3000 x 3000 pixel!) image illustrating the morphology (layout) and anatomy of a typical dragonfly. I feel this adds immensely to the scientific factual information presented in this article.
I would support removing one of the pictures of dragonfly's as several are basically just pics of dragonflys from different angles. Theres only so many images one can have on an article before they simply start to repeat what they're showing without adding any new information to the page. Perhaps one of the bottom two illustrating specific species could go? Other option is to add more text to fill the page out?- 23:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Only one suborder?Opps! Looks like there is a second suborder, the zygoptera. I will input them now.Opps again.Well, how about this one?Odonata, Isophlebioptera, Parazygoptera, Euparazygoptera, Triassolestoidea, Triassolestidae, Triassolestinae, Wing venation: no antefurcal crossveins present in the space between RP and MA basal of the midfork; (only reversed in † Italophlebia gervasuttii) Reig (1963) / Tillyard (1918).
I found this data looking for a nomen-dubium in the dinosauria. The Dragonfly won with the 1918 date.The characters you mention are for. In any case, you may want to check out. Seems a robust and reliable site, might be backchecked vs molecular data (is there indication of in the characters among the living odonates?). In any case, the are the other (entirely extinct) lineage of odonates.
The early odonates (and were on the dragonfly side, szie-wise, but they were neither dragonflies not damselflies in fact. 02:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Merge Odonata with Dragonfy?KQOther than the HTML issues (which you already fixed), the major problem with this table is that dragonflies are a suborder and you were using the order table. Now there are duplicated family lists both here and at. As a general rule I don't like articles on sub-orders becuase they lead to messes like this. But since dragonflies and damselflies are sufficiently differentiated in the average person's mind, I see little reason for doing the strictly logical thing (that is a merge of the two suborders into ).
Perhaps it would be best to not have family lists at Odonata and only have direct links here. You're talking over my head; I'm not very strong in biology.:-) Take whatever action you think is best-except I'd very much like not to merge this one with the article at, simply because people do recognize a dragonfly on sight. Was your proposal to move or shorten the table or to move the article itself? I was just noting that there is some duplication between the tables in the order and the suborder.
As I said above, I don't think it would be good to merge. I will make the needed changes to the Odonata table.Ok, thanks.:-) -KQI would certainly concur that merging is not a good idea. However, it seems overly redundant to include in this article on dragonflies, various facts on damselflies, given that damselflies have their own article and the article exists for compare/contrast information. 18:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)Optical illusionThe 'recently discovered optical illusion' has been long known to those of us who photograph them! I could never have taken my photos with a 55 mm lens otherwise.
Feel free to use any of my photos any time.Flight speedI'm dubious about the speed quoted. I have never seen anything faster than around 40mph quoted, and the link is not exactly to a rigourous academic source! In fact Silsby (op cit) quotes 70 Kmph which is 43mph. 12:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)I'm also skeptical. I'm not happy with the source provided either.
When running a google search for information, at least include parameters like site:edu. I'm not saying everything on a.edu domain is gospel, or that.coms are always full of shit, but it can't hurt to weed out the cruft.
I ran a search incorporating that term, and came up with this quote: 'Most people think that dragonflies can fly at speeds of 60 miles per hour but that's simply not true.' From I'll leave editing the main article to someone else who may have more time or interest in the subject to check further.
16:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC). I seem to recall that when someone added the speed in, I did a google search and found a few sources that were reasonable, but no authortative sources. If we can find a good source that has a top speed of less than that we should cite it and change it to something like 'at least XX mph'. 17:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Some editors are having difficulty with the flight speed information, and currently have made some very poor edits.while I am not currently knowledgeable enough, I seem to remember reading about this in some of the late Ross E. Hutchins work. 01:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)WalkingI've read that although dragonflies have six legs, they cannot walk. I actually read it on the top of a Snapple bottle.
I have never seen one walk myself and seems to suggest this is true. Is this true of all species? —Preceding comment added by (. ) 15:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC) They very rarely move step by step for short distances. Mainly to turn on a perch. But they don't really walk. I have put this to use as a child (and still do now sometimes) to catch damselflies; you can gently pick them up by the wings if your fingers are dry, and study them up close, and then release them again.
If your fingers are wet you should not do it as you will damage their wings. Won't work with dragonflies either, as they have better all-around vision and will see your hand approaching. 02:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)I think 'cannot walk' is too strong, so I removed it from the article.
Finnish Wikipedia article says 'most of them cannot walk very well'. What is walking is maybe debatable, but I shot some videos and I think this is walking: (Not a windy day, so not pushed by the wind. It's searching something using it's behind and gradually walking quite a long way). It would be interesting to know what this 'fact' was based on? —Preceding comment added by 11:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Range of quoted speciesIt might be nice if someone authoritative could add a note of the range of the various species mentioned in the text. For example, is the Green darner a North American or European species? - 20:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)I agree.
I'm not a biologist, and I would like to be able to browse some of the listed species pages and some idea which ones are found in Europe/Britain would be useful (ditto North America for those folks living there). How about changing the list into a table with columns for North America, Europe, West Asia, East Asia and entries in the table to indicate range?
19:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)VandalismDeleted vulgar vandalism, not sure how to restore the page to its original form but I hope someone can. 02:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Deleted further vulgar vandalism (quote: gay gay gay) from General Facts - Record Breakers. 11:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)I've stuck a short (48 hr) block on the vandal, 14:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC) Deleted Folklore sectionSomeone deleted the folklore section outright. That may have been too drastic. There has hardly been any discussion either pro or con, and the text did give some 'references' (Feynman and Mr. Stout), although incomplete and hard to trace.
Anyway here is the deleted text for the record:FolkloreDragonflies seem to evoke a particular kind of terror in some people.
United States?-All the best, 20:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Answer to 'where? United States?' By Joseph Stout. While growing up in Fayetteville, Arkansas, United States. (Anon user 70.178.23.137) OK, I have restored the second paragraph.
What about the first one - do we have references? 12:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC) While the quote from Stout is interesting, I'm not sure it's appopriate: for one I'm not convinced it's notable, and secondly it sounds like it's original,. 00:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC) I'm from Ontario, Canada, and I've never heard about anyone being afraid of dragonflies.i'm writing an article on dragonflies for a class i'm taking. Last night i was reading about many myths/folktales involving dragonflies and different names people have given them.1. Devil's darning needle or darning needle - it was believed the dragonfly could sew the ears, mouths, eyes and noses of sleeping people - especially children - closed.
This naturally caused fear of the dragonfly.2. Snake doctors - dragonflies were thought to attack snakes and other reptiles. So, i would assume mr. Stout's claim could be valid.3.
Horse stingers - horses grazing near water, with millions of flies buzzing around, attract dragonflies. People originally thought the dragonflies were after the horses - as we know, they were actually after the flies!4. Mosquito hawk - origin unknown.
Thought to be from their hawklike flight and the fact that they prey on mosquitos. Where were you reading it? Can you provide a? 16:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC). the book Dragonflies, by Heather Amery. Is that Dragonflies (Creepy Crawly Collection) by Heather Amery, Tony Gibbons (Illustrator)?
17:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC). yes.
18:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)joThis would really belong here, as it only seems to pertain to true dragonflies (I don't know if there is such folklore about, the enigmatic relict dragonflies). Anyway, it's a Western thing apparently; the belief that dragonflies sting viciously is also common in Germany at least. Even rural folks who usually know wildlife quite well often believe it. Complete nonsense of course, but from growing up in the countryside I would say that a certain irrational uneasiness about dragonflies seems widespread.
They're not considered pests or dangerous, but they definitely were avoided by many people who had no rational reason to do so. 03:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC) PictureIs the picture suitable for the picture? I don't have a classification for it though → ( ) 13:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)What about this questions about dragonflies?Usually how many animals live together? 2What's the scientific name of the dragonfly?Is it a incomplete or complete metamorphis, how long the animalWhat parasite and/or diseases does the dragonfly carry?What effect does the dragonflies have on the area in with lives?Further questions: What function does their elongated body serve? Stability/aerodynamics?I'd like to have some information added about UV lights and dragonflies.
After camping in Ontario's wilderness multiply times with a bunch of techno freaks, we've noticed that they are attracted to the blacklights. Unfortunately, they'd fly into them so fast sometimes that they would die in the process. This may have contributed to especially high concentrations of mosquitoes at our camp site, since we seemed to have killed a hell of a lot of dragonflies. It's disappointing mosquitoes don't do the same thing.-afxgrin@gmail.comDecent field observation. It should be in the literature; if by any chance it isn't, next time you might want to bring along a few jars and methylated spirits and collect the dead dragonflies for ID and take notes how many were attracted during which time. If nobody has published such observations (somebody ought to, but occasionally it really hasn't been done) it would make for a nice short scientific field note.
03:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC) NaiadsNaiad (an old greek name of a type of water nymph)is the correct term for the water bound larval dragonfly, rather than nayad. A quick search gave 154 its for 'dragonfly naiad' and none for 'dragonfly nayad', for example hereand here 15:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)NicknamesThe new information in the most recent edit (sometimes called 'snake doctors') can, I think, be put into some sort of nickname area. 'Snake doctor' is apparently used mainly in southern U. , so I don't think it's appropriate for the introductory area of the article. What does everyone else think of this? I also found, which lists additional nicknames for the dragonfly.
Are these two links valid sources for some sort of nickname section? 19:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Suborder conflictThis article explains that the suborder of dragonflies is, and that is an infraorder. Well, I had never heard of Epiprocta, so I thought I'd look into this business. So I start off with a google search, and here's what I find: 'suborder anisoptera' gets 18,700 hits, and 'suborder epiprocta' gets 865 hits. But google tests never were a totally reliable source, particularly when it comes to taxonomic names which change so often. So I thought I'd try a biology database, and, connecting to though my university, I try again 'anisoptera' (938 results) and 'epiprocta'.
Now this is rather surprising, that the suborder of dragonflies is not mentionned in any scientific article!Just to check some more, I looked in several books: Steven A. Marshall's ' Insects, their natural history and diversity' (Firefly Books, 2006), Triplehorn and Johnson's ' Borror and Delong's introduction to the study of insects' (Thomson Books, 7th ed., 2005) and the field guide by Michael Chinery ' Insectes de France et d'Europe Occidentale' (Flammarion, reprinted 2005). None of these books (the two first at least are reliable and less than a year old) don't even mention Epiprocta anywhere, and put the dragonflies in the suborder Anisoptera.It would be great if someone could clarify this mysterious situation. As far as I'm concerned, it seems that Epiprocta is a term used only by a minority, and I can't seem to find any reliable sources for it. Exactly how recent is this new classification? Could someone provide examples of scientific articles that use that term? Thanks22:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Epiprocta is simply new, based on revised knowledge.
You'll find it increasingly often, and also note that many who use it - if not most - simply don't call it 'suborder'. Of course, a suborder it logically is, but the ranks of Linne are not used in very often.
03:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Could we please get some references for the new taxonomy. I don't think anyone is comfortable without a verifiable authoritative reference on this. 02:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)The section on classification describes Anisozygoptera as 'paraplegic', along with a link. Unless someone can think of a good reason to keep this, I'm changing it to 'paraphyletic'. 12:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Removal of imagesHi,Just commenting on the recent removal of the majority of images and placing them in the gallery - I think it would have been better to leave them as a 'strip' going down the RHS as it is less likely someone will scroll down to the bottom and see them there. Some people may just have a quick look, see there are no other pictures immediately visible and give up - which would be a shame.- 06:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Bite or StingI don't believe dragonflies can even bite or sting.
Any other knowledge of this?? 11 Jan 07 mh —The preceding comment was added by 20:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC).Looking around the Internet, the consensus seems to be that dragonflies do not sting and indeed do not have a sting. Some confusion creeps in with the morphology picture in this article; the picture shows a sting and labels it as such. Other sources suggest that this is not a sting but a hook used during mating. I'm no expert but perhaps someone who knows more on this could clarify.
14:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)The bite reference should be taken out, according to dragonflywebsite.com, they may try to bite (presumably in self dedence as stated) but cannot even break the skin. 20:43, 07 September 2007 (GMT)then, why anyone has taken it out yet? I will not do it, because I'm not very familiar with rules and everything from wikipedia. 20:41, 05 December 2007 (GMT)still not altered, needs a source. 03:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)I have actually been bitten by a dragonfly, one of the large ones found in Florida.
It hurt but did not leave a mark. As a note for future reference, if you need to grab a dragonfly, grab it by the wings, not the tail. Its mouth can't reach you if you grab the wings. —Preceding comment added by 18:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC) TerminologyIn the second paragraph and in the 'Life Cycle' section, the term 'larvae' and 'larval' are used to describe juvenile dragonflies. Those terms refer to creatures that undergo complete metamorphosis. The term 'nymph' should be used when discussing creatures (e.g., dragonflies) that undergo incomplete metamorphosis.If someone were to click on the links to read the definitions, they would certainly be confused since the terms are mutually exclusive. —The preceding comment was added by 04:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
Would this image be suitable for the article? I think I can get a classification from the list in the article, but I wouldn't bee 100% sure.Inaccuracy in linkingThe article links to when referring to the 'nomad' dragonfly. The linked article, of course, talks of nomads instead of 'nomad' dragonflies. —Preceding comment added by 13:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC) MatingThis article doesn't seem to have any information about the mating rituals of dragonflies. It has a few pictures but it is hard to tell what is going on. Does anybody have any sources? 16:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Speculation?'
An aptitude which could easily have been more common in ancient times when terrestrial predators were clumsier'This seems somewhat speculative and is not referenced. How long ago is 'ancient times'? Is it known that terrestrial predators are now more agile than they were then?
19:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Need Giant Extinct Dragonflies of the Dinosaur AgeNeed Giant Extinct Dragonflies of the Dinosaur Age —Preceding comment added by (. ) 09:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC) 'Griffinflies', not 'dragonflies'. 15:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Merge Epiprocta here?Since the are monotypic (only ) and have no article yet anyway, we could simply merge 'Epiprocta' into 'Dragonfly', expand the family list with the suborders or move it out to 'Classification (Anisozygoptera)' (which probably should be 'Systematics and taxonomy' then) - I usually would do the latter in such cases, since it ties in nicely with the discussion at Epiprocta.
Then we can simply bold Anisoptera in that list; Epiophlebioptera will become a redirect-to-genus anyway as soon as that article exists, and being monotypic it would not be linked in such a list.This will be helpful, because there are extinct taxa too (, and whatnot) and they, being truly 'dragonflies' by anyone's account, can be conveniently included in this article to make it a account of all 'true' dragonflies (as opposed to etc) living and extinct. 16:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)I dissagree, just simply create the article, as they are not exactly the same topic why merge. 22:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC) I lean towards merging the Epiprocta article with the dragonfly article, but I'm not a dragonfly expert by any means. 14:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC) There are around 6.000 species of odonates in the worldWhile it is written in the article: 'in Texas, where 225 out of a total of 457 known species of odonates in the world'. I guess, 'in the USA' was the intended location? Someone can check it out?WarriorfliesIt has been suggested by two of the foremost authorities on the insects that the term 'dragonfly' be used to encompass all members of the order Odonata (including ), and that the term 'warriorfly' be used to distinguish the 'true' dragonflies of the Anisoptera Corbet & Brooks 2008, Dragonflies.
The New Naturalist library 106. Harper Collins, London. ISBN-13: 684. This article therefore concentrates on the warriorflies.What this would imply is that there should be a main page for dragonflies (Odonata) linked to a page for warriorflies (Anisoptera) and another for damselflies (Zygoptera). It seems to me that would make things less confusing. It is certainly confusing that 'dragonfly' can mean at least two different things.
—Preceding comment added by (. ) 10:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC) The term 'warriorfly' is not in common usage and a quick Google search did not show any association with dragonflies on the first couple results pages. To those of us in the United States, dragonfly' always refers to the Anisoptera, although I have heard that in Europe it may be used for all of the Odonata. A more common way of distinguishing Odonata from Anisiptera is to use the term 'odonate' (already mentioned on the Odonata entry), or the verbose but unconfusing 'dragonflies and damselflies'. 16:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC) upward, downward, forward, back, and side to sideDoes this mean it can fly in an arbitrary direction, or that it can only move in straight lines in six discrete directions? If so, why is this, and can it turn during flight or does it only do so while hovering?
08:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)as any moving mass, it must first come to a full halt before turning to and moving to the exact opposite direction however, i have seen both damselflies and dragonflies move in arbitrary diagonal direction based upon their current heading, and not just sideways or up or down, and even when they are mating. — Preceding comment added by 20:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC) Image gallery tagI realize Wikipedia has a policy against gallery images (as well as lists) - but since there are so many beautiful species of dragonflies, I think in this instance the image gallery is appropriate, and I think it adds to this article. I favor removing the tag complaining about the 'gallery images'.- 14:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)I second that motion! — Preceding comment added by 20:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC) Merge (redux)'I dissagree, just simply create the article, as they are not exactly the same topic why merge.' Well, the article on those 'other Epiprocta' would be created anyway, but it would be the genus article of.
Would redirect to there (as per 'the most common name' rule). Being the same topic is not relevant for a merge. Merging means that the topics of one page have to be included in the other, which is only problematic if the subjects are too remote (but nobody would then propose a merge) or when the pages are too large (which is not the case here). Here, it would simply mean put all text of into the section Classification '(Anisozygoptera)' of, and change a bit in the taxobox. The new page would simply cover Epiprocta and Anisoptera in one (and technically also Epiophlebioptera). The relevant question is: In how far is Epiophlebia not a 'dragonfly'?
Epiprocta contain at present Epiophlebia + Anisoptera, and the latter is covered by our article 'Dragonfly'. Check out pictures of Epiophlebia on Google or so. (If you know it, you can tell that it does not have dragonfly wings. But this is simply a. Added bonus: merging would make both dragonflies and damselflies correspond to a monophyletic taxon, whereas the dragonflies were an unnatural assemblage under the old system. 01:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)'I lean towards merging the Epiprocta article with the dragonfly article, but I'm not a dragonfly expert by any means.'
Well me neither, but I think I can read phylogenies well enough. The sources at do justify merging, and I dresay one would find a modern study that favors the old phlogeny (with a three-way split of. (Also, I think I shall ask our Japan team to get some pix. It is flight season now.) 01:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC) And lastly, it is inconsistent if we'd have redirect to Dragonfly and Epiprocta as separate article.
Either merge Epiprocta or split Anisozygoptera. I'd say the former, because one OK article is better than one doubtful one and two stubs. 01:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Dragon or damsel?The picture of a green 'dragonfly emerging as an adult' seems to fit the description of a damselfly rather than a dragonfly. Are we sure it's a dragonfly and not a damselfly? —Preceding comment added 05:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC).EDIT: Actually, comparing the eyes again, I guess it really is a dragonfly.
05:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)identificationI am wondering if anybody here could identify the type of dragonfly in this. I took it in my backyard last summer. — Preceding comment added by (. ) 05:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Since nobody answered you yet, let me try my best. Looks quiet close. — Preceding comment added by 01:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Would be useful to add:Speaking as a casual, uninformed reader who is curious about dragonflies after a walk in the woods, this article has great information, but it could usefully address the following questions:-Do some dragonfly species bite or sting? (This is mentioned in discussion above, not currently addressed in article.)-Which are the most common species in North America (and other regions)-Why not break 'Northern Hemisphere' list into North America and Eurasia?
(Or does Wikipedia have a well-defined convention for this?) 16:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)I too (also a a casual, uninformed reader) was missing some information in the article, particularly regarding dragonfly (not damselfly) behavior in winter. We have a tiny 'pond' (probably not more than 200 liters) in my yard (in Munich, Germany) which occasionally attracts dragonflies including a rather large one yesterday which landed on some overgrown iris leaves in the pond and scratched its abdomen on them. I was wondering what it could be up to and also whether it or its eggs/nymphs would survive the winter (it's October) especially if/when the 'pond' freezes or dries out. I found the information in the life cycle section interesting, but of course it's quite a broad description and since I don't know the species I was observing, I wasn't sure where to read more.To summarize: main question - what do dragonflies do in winter? 06:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)I guess it's only implied in the Life cycle section.
It says the adults live only five or size months - so most are dead come Winter. (. ) 08:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC) List of species includes many damselfliesThe article contains a section that details the differences between dragonflies and damselflies and talks about how they are commonly confused.
In the very next section ('Common Species'), over half of the common species listed for the Southern Hemisphere are damselflies: the entire left column and the first species on the right column. I'm going to remove them, but I don't know enough Southern Hemisphere dragonflies to replace them with appropriate dragonfly species.
03:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Maybe you should move the list to. (. ) 15:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Diet?I see they are reputed to eat ants. Ants are high in formic acid and very few creatures eat them.
I have never observed them eating ants. I suspect eating an ant might kill a dragonfly.
Life Dragonfly 2007 Manual Pdf
Anyone know for sure? — Preceding comment added by 03:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Some questions the article doesn't answerThe article doesn't say whether a narrow, cylindrical body is characteristic of dragonflies, damselflies, or both. It also doesn't say what organs are in the narrow tube, as opposed to the thicker part of the body where the wings and legs are attached.
David Spector (/) 14:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)Guess it could do with a section on anatomy but I suspect most of the internal structure is covered in the anatomy sections of. (. ) 08:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)how long is each individual part of the egg nymph and adult — Preceding comment added by 23:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC) ReproductionAfter seeing the Commons' 'Media of the Day' I wondered how or actually reproduced. Turns out, neither article here explains it. Has a brief one-sentence mention, as does. Probably more such one-sentence mentions similar to these two could be found in various dragonfly/damselfly articles.
The mating and reproduction behavior of these insects appears to be quite interesting and to be similar across the various species, so maybe a general overview article could be done and be linked from the species' articles and from the two general articles about damselflies/dragonflies.A good understandable general description is; has some more details about that lock-and-key mechanism when the male grabs the female ('tandem'). Such information should be included in Wikipedia.Looking around further, I stumbled upon. That description appears to be wrong or at least imprecise; 'mating and laying eggs at the same time' (or 'mating while egg laying' as the caption reads at ) doesn't describe the image well. Merriam-Webster defines 'to mate' as 'to copulate', and that's clearly not what's going on in that picture. They're in tandem, but not copulating. 07:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Capitalization of common namesAre there any guidelines on capitalization?
I would like to make redirects to the scientific names for some articles I've been involved with. 01:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)Yes there are. 02:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC) Excessive lists, gallery?We seem to be sliding here into listing all reasonably common dragonflies worldwide, whether for decoration or for identification (or some other purpose).
There is a list called 'Common dragonflies', divided rather roughly into Northern and Southern: but by no means all European species are common in N. America, or vice versa, so the basis seems wobbly, as does the intention. Many of the same species recur in a gallery, again for no obvious reason.We could hive off these things into a list, or more than one (say, etc); make or enhance such pages over on Commons, where they probably belong; or simply delete them. It's hard to see how they comply with (currently entirely uncited) or, really. 15:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)GA Review GA toolbox.This review is from. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.Reviewer: ( ) 19:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Many thanks for taking this on. I'll address your comments at once.
19:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)RateReview Comment1. Well written:1a.
The prose is clear, concise, and; spelling and grammar are correct.Y1b. It complies with the guidelines for, and.Y2. With no original research:2a. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with.Y2b.
All are from, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the.Y2c. It contains.Y3.
Broad in its coverage:3a. It addresses the of the topic.The 'Distribution' section can be expanded. I'll give the nominator two weeks to expand that section. Otherwise, everything is good. It stays without going into unnecessary detail (see ).In the 'In poetry and literature' section, I don't think there is a need to extensively quote these poems books, as I am sure they are three of many. Otherwise, everything is okay. Y4.: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.Y5.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing or content dispute.Y6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as, or:6a. Media are with their, and are provided for.Y6b. Media are to the topic, and have.Y7. Overall assessment.I've reduced the poetry and the prose quotations a bit.
Life Dragonfly 2007 Manual Download
19:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)@: I've extended the Distribution section as requested. 20:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)I see. Since it meets the GA criteria, I'll pass it. Clarification needed.The article states 'Thirdly, their reproduction, unlike that of any other group, involves indirect insemination and delayed fertilisation.' This surely is incorrect: millipedes practice similar behavior, and likely other invertebrates do as well. Does the statement perhaps only apply in the context of insects?
00:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Good point. 07:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Largest insect?So, how big was that largest ancient dragonfly? The lead says wingspans 'up to 750 mm', while the body of the article says 'about 710 mm'. These should agree. 13:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)OK, here's a ref for 'about 750 mm',l let's go with that. 13:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Alaska dragonfliesA quick search online brought up, which shows five dragonfly species occur north of the arctic circle in Alaska.
Life Dragonfly 2007 Manual Instructions
Please don't add the statement about there being no Arctic butterflies again — that old reference (1950) is no longer valid! 13:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)You didn't say that before/when you removed it. 15:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Actually, I didn't remove it. I just looked online to see what was available when someone else questioned the editor who removed it — which anyone else could have done too!:) 17:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Sorry about confusing editors - mea culpa. 17:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Thanks, and no problem; I just wanted to be sure everyone involved could see that new info was available, that's all. 18:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC).