Talk:Hemiptera

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Traveler460.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Malpigian tubules: anatomical terminology

The article says, "However, in larval Cercopoidea and Membracoidea, the far ends of the tubules secrete proteins, while the near ends produce both proteins and glycosaminoglycans for the cocoon." Far and near to what? Does this refer to ventral/distal? Coelomic/exterior?

OK, checking [www.omicsonline.org/open-access/review-malpighian-tubule-an-essential-organ-for-insects-2161-0983.1000122.php?aid=25337 the reference], the authors say "distal" and "proximal". May I suggest that "far" and "near" are not good ways to simplify that technical terminology? If someone else doesn't fix this, I will (try to remember to) replace with distal/proximal and make those links to the Anatomical terms of location article. IAmNitpicking (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. Great username, btw. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Challenged source

An item in the article is from a publisher whose integrity is questioned. This seems to me to be (possibly) a reason for seeking a better source, and for tagging the source as unreliable, but not at all a reason for deleting text which can very likely be sourced elsewhere. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

While OMICS publications are a controverisal topic right now, I'm not seeing a major issue with it's usage in this particular case. For non-controversial non-medical topics like Hemiptera, primary sources are ok (though not preferred) as long as the information is not original results or conclusions from the study (thrice so if it's from OMICS). Pulling non-controversial information from the introduction should be ok even if it's an OMICS publication with the understanding that the source is not as comprehensive as a true literature review. I'd have a preference for just not using OMICS publications though, so we maybe could find a better source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, basically all we need to do is to take care as always, and perhaps replace the sources. If people are really twitchy and want dodgy sources removed rapidly, then we can use a CN tag but even that seems over the top to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Could editors please hold off from deleting text before the appropriate action has been agreed. There is an ongoing discussion both here and on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard so it is both irresponsible and disruptive to try to force a point of view on the matter through. It is already clear from the Noticeboard that "a number of" editors do not agree with deletion of either citations or text. I take a middle position here but am opposed to removal of text, especially (as has already been stated on this talk page, yesterday) when consensus has not been reached. I will however look for other sources today to close the matter peacefully. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that predatory journals need to be flagged and removed but it would help if the text is retained with appropriate tagging. In this case several bits can be substantiated by other sources. Shyamal (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I did some online digging and have not found any source the defines the Malpighian tubules as something inherently important to the order as a whole. Most articles are just species specific, which would seem to indicate we mention their cases in lower taxonomic articles. As it stands right now, we are technically engaging in WP:SYNTH to make some of these comparisons, especially dealing in Hemiptera vs Orthoptera. Aphids also don't have Malpighian tubules, so we'd want a more authoritative source giving a broad overview as we right now just have single studies saying species X has Y tubules, etc.

That all being said, this kind of information is usually covered more in textbooks rather than research articles and reviews. I've got a few of the big name insect anatomy books on my shelf at work, so I'll browse through those on Monday before I start working on new potential edits. That's largely why I'd hold off on deletion just for now, but I'm potentially leaning that way now that I've had time to dig a bit. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This kind of discussion, analysis, reading, editing and referencing is infinitely preferable to blanket deletion. I had already found that some claims were purely primary, and should probably not have been used without caveats however reliable the journal, so I was happy to remove those; the others are basically non-contentious and could be cited from many places. Many thanks everyone for their efforts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the section. Looking through books I have, they either say insect species can vary from 2 to more than 250 tubules, or go on to give examples of specific species while mentioning groups like Collembola and aphids that have none. To me, it's more a matter than that sources don't specifically address Hemiptera for us, so we should either mention the tubules in insect broadly as we do, or leave mention of the specific number for more specific groupings such as aphids that are specifically mentioned in sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Things have become rather overheated. I have restored the one indisputably Hemipteran claim, that spittlebugs use their glands to make the froth that defends them: this fits perfectly into the Antipredator defences section. Perhaps the moral of the story is that looking for the cosmic one-rule-to-rule-them-all kind of approach to sources works incredibly badly; looking at each case on its merits works a whole lot better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hemiptera. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/rcen/v34n1/v34n1a01.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hemiptera/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

I think that this article could do with a complete rewrite. It is very messy and unclear for non-specialists, and the structure isn't appropriate. Here is what I propose: The sections should be something like "morphology", "feeding behaviour", "diversity", "taxonomy", etc., not just a list of suborders, that can be done (and is done) just as well in the taxobox. In accordance with this, the emphasis should be less on the taxonomy (of very little interest to most readers), and more on the critters themselves (what do they look like? what is their behaviour and ecology like? What is their economical importance?) The article also needs REFERENCES, as always. IronChris | (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Well, I've re-written it from scratch. I hope I have answered all the points you raised. I still think the economic importance is too short, but I'm not a specialist in agricultural pest control by any means, so I didn't want to say too much on that. --Stemonitis 14:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Numbers

As usually numbers are totally throw up (and with comas, instead of space, as reading facilitator. Comas are, as points, decimal separators)... 50 000 to 80 000. Total bullshit.

I estimate about 7000 species. And I dare anyone to prove me wrong. I always knew this. Never took those bullshit invented numbers serious. Finally some one else thinks the same: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3106107/Number-animal-species-worldwide-greatly-exaggerated-scientists-new-method-counting.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.80.22.126 (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please be civil on talk pages. It is entirely acceptable to use commas as separators: there are different varieties of English (e.g. British vs American usages) on Wikipedia. The Daily Mail is often an unreliable source on scientific matters - see Ben Goldacre's Bad Science for examples. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"true bugs"

True bugs redirects here, but there is inadequate description of that phrase. I am no entomologist, but my guess is that something like this should be added to the article:

   The term true bugs is neither scientific nomenclature nor is it from common usage. Rather, it reflects that "bugs" has become a term of art among entomologists who understand it to mean specifically the genus Hemiptera.

Of course, a true entomologist should write that up and add it as I am not qualified. Ben (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

True bugs are actually a common name for the order, or at least the suborder Heteroptera as mentioned in the lead already. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Not really so "common". In American general usage at least, a "bug" is any insect. Therefore, to an American ear, "true bug" is saying that the subgroup is more truly an insect than all the other insects, which is a circular nonsense statement. So the "term of art" (WP:jargon), when used without explanation becomes ridiculous fallacy, non-communicative, and unencyclopedic. Also, yeah you don't need to be an expert to add in that explanatory text, you just need a reliable source. 2604:6000:1115:585:803D:D785:C36D:96B3 (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Source number 3

Source number 3 doesn't appear to load for me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumbleton (talk • contribs) 22:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Reason Hemipterans came to be known as bugs

I recently read something interesting about the origin of the term 'bug'. In a general field guide by the name of Insects and Other arthropods of Tropical America the beginning of the section on heteroptera states:

The word 'bug' derives from the Middle English 'bugge,' meaning spirit or ghost. Back then, waking up in the morning with itching red welts meant a visit from a 'bugge' or factually, a bed bug.

I'd like to insert this backstory in an etymology section of this article. I suspect many who look up true bugs--not being terribly knowledgeable about insects--are curious as to what makes them the truest of all the bugs. But I'm unable to find many sources to back up this claim, though none seem to offer an alternative explanation for how the term fell into such usage. From what I can tell, bugge did once mean evil spirit, but I can't confirm that the correlation is that straightforward. Does anyone know if that anecdote is true?

~~~~ Ackqwattikk Phfisch (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not this straightforward at all, especially as the term evidently was derived from the word for beetle and then later used for hemipterans. See here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bug#English Dyanega (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, yeah, I was worried it might be wishful thinking on the part of the author.

Ackqwattikk Phfisch (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Massive essay on the word "bug"

An IP added a lengthy and chatty discourse on the word "bug" to the article. That is at best only tangentially relevant here, as the word has multiple senses Inc insect, arthropod, leggy pest, small vehicle, and possibly hemipteran or some subset of that.

The other obvious point is that a word is the subject of a dictionary not an encyclopedia, see WP:DICDEF.

I've therefore removed the additions as a WP:COATRACK, if not simply as off-topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)