Talk:Armadillidium

Isn't this the same as Armadillidiidae

There's another article called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armadillidiidae that looks like it's for the same critter! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.189.161 (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, let's merge the articles and put in a re-direct to the Armadillidiidae page since it is more comprehensive. Daniel De Mol (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have had second thoughts. According to this website http://www.uniprot.org/taxonomy/1166565 Armadillidiidae is a species or sub-group of the genus Armadillidium.

Basically I think that the confusion arises because the one picture of a pill beatle such as the Armadillidium Granulatum would fall into the species Armadillidium, which is part of the genus Armadillidiidae, which is a sub-group of Wood Louse. Thus since the same creature falls into all it's parent categories, seeing similar pictures on all three articles leads one to believe that the three articles are a reference to one creature, when in reality they are broader parent levels and thus are as different as an article on General Motors is from an article on Chevrolet or Corvette.

It may (possibly) also be unhelpful that editors of the articles have perhaps not realised this distinction. Daniel De Mol (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve realized this was over 10 years ago but Armadillidae and Armadillidiidae are both taxonomic families. Armadillidium is a genus. Very confusing Major Wd (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also "doodle-bug"; dialect areas for various common names?

In some places in the southern U.S.A. Armadillidium vulgare is also called "doodle-bug" as well as "roly-poly". I had not previously heard it called "woodlouse" or "pillbug". I'm aware that "doodle-bug" is also a common name for the ant lion.

I'd like to get some feedback from others about the dialect areas where these names are used and eventually add that to the article. I think I might have picked up the term "doodle-bug" as a child living near New Orleans or I might have learned it earlier while living near Atlanta, but I'm fairly sure "roly-poly" is the more common term in Georgia. --Jim Henry 15:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, I've always called them slaters. 61.69.177.124 09:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are interested in whether roly-polies are nocturnal. Btw - In Colorado, Wyoming, and Minnesota they are known as "roly-poly". 67.176.54.198 00:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Susan and Aloha Churchill[reply]

Armadillidium vulgare are also found in northern regions habitating as far north as Canada.

Are these bugs worldwide? In Idaho I've only heard them as roly-poly's or pillbugs. It's good that I came to this article, I always thought they were a negative effect on gardens and yards. DavimusK 20:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In northern Indiana/southwestern Michigan, they're commonly referred to as roly-polies and pill bugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electric jellyfish (talk • contribs) 11:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are mainly called Roly-Polies here in Texas, and less often Pill Bugs. I have not heard them called anything else except online. LokiClock (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also live in Texas, and we always thought they ate SHIT! That's why we sometimes called them "dodo-bugs" but "roly-poly" and "doodle-bug" are pretty common too.

I live in Ohio, and I always called them doodlebugs, but it could be because both my parents come from the south. I'm not sure what other people around here call them, they don't really come up in conversation that much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.103.147.57 (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic spike

If anyone can explain the enormous traffic spike for this article on April 27, 2012 (> 150,000 page views), I'd love to find out the cause (please drop me a note on my talk page). --Stemonitis (talk) 08:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So many species

Why are there so many listed species with practically no info on the web, besides "it exists"? Does anyone have access to these obscure resource sources? MDaxo (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found one of the older ones, but it's in Latin. Each species (in this source at least) has a brief description and categorization information that might be useful for anyone who both speaks a dead language and wants to make sub-pages so I'm leaving it here... maybe someone can track down an English translation? https://archive.org/details/crustaceaisopoda00budd --A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armadillidium nasatum?

We should probably verify all of the pictures in the gallery. I can say for sure that the Armadillidium nasatum picture is not of the correct species. I've been breeding and trading different species of isopods for about a year and they are often misidentified. There are plenty of examples here: http://bugguide.net/node/view/55219/bgimage Oddjobhat (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)oddjobhat[reply]

Why are there so many species with no articles and no info about them?

I tried to make articles but I couldn't find any information about these hundreds of species besides listings in taxonomic databases. MDaxo (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Try to find more popular ones, I just made an article for Armadillidium maculatum or “Zebra Isopod” which is incredibly popular among hobbyists. Major Wd (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamaïed / Hamaied, sourcing, listing

just looking on https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=148672#links , I find it curious they spell it both ways? Unless they're different people? Should wikipedia fix this error, or keep it like it is?

secondly, with listings like "Armadillidium depressum Brandt in Brandt & Ratzeburg, 1831", how should that be formatted? previously it was formatted like

Armadillidium depressum Brandt, 1832

But should the extra stuff be included? In my latest edit I did, but really I'm not sure

Thirdly, I didn't update the number of recognized genus of Armadillidium, in my list I'm pretty sure I have 190, but not sure if that number is higher or lower. Especially given one of the sources being from 2003

Thank you! JonathanChilius (talk) 05:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]