Talk:Beetle/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Beetle. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

COLEO- Shield (?) or Sheath (?)

in the section "Description", "The name "Coleoptera" was given by Aristotle for the hardened shield-like forewing (coleo = shield + ptera = wing).[1]" is it true?. Because coleos (κολεός ) is not "shield", it's mean "sheath"! -- Kmoksy (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

@Kmoksy: you are 100% correct. This is a rather common etymological mistake. Slats Naair 13:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Slats Naair. Four days after the change of this mistake. Welcome! :) Kmoksy (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Umm there is something weird about this article. There is a huge space in the description area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.77.29 (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Number of species

In the Harvard Medical School textbook Sustaining Life: How Human Health Depends on Biodiversity, it is said that some 350,000 species of beetles have been described (ch.1; pg. 3). This wiki article says that 1,000,000 is a likely figure. How do we deal with such an astonishing descrepancy of information? Personally, I would tend to trust the textbook. --Bentonia School (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The 1 million figure includes undescribed species (i.e., those that are unknown to science). The article actually says there are 400,000 described beetle species, which is a lot closer to the figure in your textbook. (I wouldn't trust it too much, by the way; I also have it, and I noticed several errors while reading it.) Ucucha 22:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

References much??

Why does this page lack so much in line citations? Its going to be really hard to add that many, but if I must... Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 14:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sections to be added=

~~Ecology~~
~~Behavior~~
Polymorphism (sexual)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: rough consensus not to move. Andrewa (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Beetle → Coleoptera — As a suborder reflecting different species of insects, not all called directly beetles per se (Includes beetles, weevles, and fireflies). For example, fireflies are beetles yet it is not common vernacular to call them beetles. So far I have found no reason to call any species by its common name, as there are many names for certain species, and no common names for others. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 20:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Wikipedia is written for the common reader, not for bug experts. The common term is Beetle. Nobody in common language uses Coleoptera. There is a reason why we don't call the car the Volkswagen Coleoptera! Skinsmoke (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

An extension of this for wider consensus on all orders of insects is at this talk page. Other encyclopedias use the scientific name, are they not to for the common reader? Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 13:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Very strongly oppose. We are written in English, and for lay readers, not for specialists; even specialists use generic and English terms when speaking to the generality. J. B. S. Haldane spoke of God as "having an inordinate fondness for beetles", not for Coleoptera. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: WP:COMMONNAME. –CWenger (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Very strongly oppose What next? Moving Birds to Aves?? Chaosdruid (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to be offensive, but the sarcasm in that comment is not productive. Maybe it would be better if you can elaborate, and consider that birds are universally excepted in English as the a vernacular term while beetles may not be as it does not convey all the species per se. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 23:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not sarcasm, it's reductio ad absurdum. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Grammatical Error

Under the section "Parasitism", on line 2, just after Platypsyllus castoris, I believe there is a grammatical error. I did not change anything, because I could not tell what it was trying to say. Could someone please look into it?

thanks, Ogel6000 (oct.10, '11) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogel6000 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Metriorrhynchus

I'd like to get this to "start" level so it can be listed at WP:DYK. Can anyone help? Bearian (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I will try. Gug01 (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Gug 01

"As beneficial"

I'm not a biologist, but is it common to title something "As beneficial"? Colipon+(Talk) 20:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm not too favourably impressed myself, but in context with the surrounding titles it is not really wrong. The wording has nothing to do with the discipline of biology as such though; it is just supposed to fit in with "Relationship to people as beneficial", "Relationship to people as pests" etc. If anyone could suggest a more felicitous and meaningful change I'd back it (the original titles were not mine!) though I understand that changing titles is frowned upon. JonRichfield (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

So it's just a dogmatic adherence to parallelism that we are maintaining that title? Would it be more apt to say something like 'Use for beneficial purposes'? Colipon+(Talk) 14:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

No good looking at me mate! I agree that it is awkward. It is a lot easier to create an unfortunate heading than to change it without causing a kerfuffle. (Blush to admit my own culpability on occasion!) Trouble is that if someone else has linked to that section then changing it causes problems. Our next generation will have a lot of cleaning up to do. I don't know what options exist for cleaning up such items right now.

Hmmm... again. I am not technically very competent in these matters, but while I was replying to you, I did a "What links here" to Beetle without spotting any direct references to those few subsections. Should you and I feel adventurous, do you think? ;-) If it works without our knuckles getting rapped, it might stop putting our teeth on edge. JonRichfield (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not an expert, but I changed it to a less awkward, but probably still somewhat questionable title. Let's see if anyone responds. Colipon+(Talk) 18:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, there was no change since last night, so I gave it a bit of deep thought and decided that greater uniformity and something more explicit would read better in isolation as well as in the TOC. Do you think...? Incidentaly, your handle caused my subconscious to do some pratfalls; I kept thinking: "Colipon? Colophon? Calipee?..." Oh welll! JonRichfield (talk) 08:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jon, thanks for your work here. I looked at the new TOC and it looks much, much better. What interests you about beetles anyway? They are fascinating creatures for sure! Colipon+(Talk) 13:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

For that much thanks; I find it very hard to evaluate my own work realistically. Interest in beetles specially? Nothing really; you see, I am formally an unfrocked entomologist, but by vocation more of a biologist. If there is a living creature that does not become fascinating, and often beautiful, on deeper investigation, I cannot think of an example offhand. Many beetles are cute, many are superbly beautiful, some scarabs, some tiger beetles, some tortoise beetles... but hell, the other day I photographed a dull grey Culicine mosquito in the jaws of a jumping spider, and her eyes were iridescent emerald! Don't get me started! All the best! JonRichfield (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a full polar ice deck...

I agree that your informal source spoke of "polar ice packs" instead of "polar regions", but I cannot agree that it is appropriate, so I am reverting. There are large regions of ice-bound land where the only beetles are frozen specimens that blew in. If you can find an adequate reference with specific reasons for limiting the exclusion to marine ice packs, I'll happily accept it, but this one is not nearly that one. JonRichfield (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The sentence as is has no refernce at all and I think that it is confusing the difference between polar region and polar ice packs. The second is only the multi year ice, which may include some of the High Arctic (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/265105/High-Arctic) islands, that usually does not thaw. The polar region extends further south, in some cases as low as the 60th parallel north which is the border between Nunavut/Northwest Territories and their southern neighbours. However, I was looking at the frigid zone or the region as shown in the map, File:LocationPolarRegions.png.

The reason this came about now is that there have been beetles inside and, in the summer, outside the house, in Cambridge Bay, for the past several years. I had always thought that something brought up from the south contained the beetles, especially as this article says they don't exist here, and they had found a way to survive. However, yesterday we went slightly further north on Victoria Island (Canada) and saw three beetles. One of these I was able to get onto a blanket so as to take some pictures, only one of which looks slightly reasonable. Of course a slightly blurry image and me saying that I found this in the Arctic is not really going to work as a RS. So I put the source in that you saw earlier.

Since then I have found the following;

A Google Books hit called Insect Biodiversity: Science and Society (p142) which talks about beetles in the Arctic. It's not a great example as it is not too clear how the author is defining the Arctic.
Beetles — Class Coleoptera, this is probably not a very good source but was one of only two that mentioned the possibility of beetles in the High Arctic.
An abstract from the Arctic Institute of North America and the full pdf, Bioclimatic Implications and Distribution Patterns of the Modern Ground Beetle Fauna (Insecta: Coleoptera: Carabidae) of the Arctic Slope of Alaska, U.S.A., which talks about ground beetles on the Alaska North Slope which is not the Arctic islands but is within the Arctic.
Family of Ground Beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in the Arctic Fauna: Communication 1 which is mainly, but not exclusively, about beetles in Eurasia.
Perspectives on Beetles and Climate Change states on the first page that beetles are able to survive in the High Arctic summer during below freezing temperatures.
The Canadian Encyclopedia says the range of beetles extends into the Arctic but not to the morst northern islands.
Dytiscid Water Beetles (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) of the Yukon is probably the best one. Although it is about species in the Yukon it also includes several maps. The map is labelled Fig 3, page 495 and shows the distribution of Agabus moestus (Agabus (beetle)). These have been found throughout Baffin Island, on Banks Island, the Boothia Peninsula and Victoria Island.

I noticed that none of them really state where beetles can't be found but all indicate that they are in the Arctic, which means the sentence is incorrect. I also came across Cucujidae, Asaphidion and Upis ceramboides all of which may live in the Arctic. Polar ecology is unsourced and mentions beetles in the Arctic. I have a question as to what you mean by "ice-bound land"? Do you mean the few islands that are surrounded by the permanent ice pack or ones like here which are normally ice free in the summer? Sorry about the length. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Beetles as Pests

How does one rid themselves of these creatures? They are ruining my Figs Candy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candyyates (talk • contribs) 21:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio concerns

Having casually spotted and fixed an almost certain copyvio, I posted a message on the talk page of the user who appears to have originally introduced the content. This user ( Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= ) has also assumed responsibility for verification of sources on this page, but no longer seems to be very active on Wikipedia. On further investigation, I have found at least one other instance [1] attributable to the same user, along with several other possibly suspect passages (eg [2][3]) written in a style not characteristic of some other contributions by this editor (including a passage beginning "Popular interpretation in modern academia theorizes..." which does not seem to be directly verifable from the web source subsequently added [4]).
86.161.251.139 (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this.

Most of a paragraph on beetle diversity (all but a single sentence) comprising most of the second paragraph of the Distribution and diversity section was lifted from this source.

I have removed it, which may leave a hole in the narrative.

Robert G. Foottit; Peter H. Adler (3 March 2009). Insect Biodiversity: Science and Society. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 266–. ISBN 978-1-4443-0822-8. Retrieved 31 August 2013.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 19:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, good work, and thanks. Now, would it be helpful if someone (myself if necessary) were to paraphrase at least this offending passage to plug the hole? If anyone else were already on the job, s/he is welcome to it, but if not, I don't like holes. JonRichfield (talk) 06:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

References

I'm not sure on this one, but I think there are way to little references. This article has 78 references, while articles of similar length, maybe a tiny bit longer (such as Bird) have well over twice that amount. I think there should be more references until this article could be nominated as a good article. Gug01 (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Gug 01

Distribution

The current article has the following two sentences.

"They are found in all major habitats, except marine and the polar regions." (Para 2 of Overview) and
"Coleoptera are found in nearly all natural habitats, including freshwater and marine habitats,…" (Para 2 of Distribution and diversity).

Does anyone know more about marine habitats? I've found this New Zeeland government page which says "Few species are true marine-dwellers, but several inhabit rocky shores or sandy beaches". Few species sounds like more than no species to me. Thehalfone (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The answer is: there is a problem with the article. There are a few hundred Adephagan species of beetle that are truly freshwater-dwelling, and are even found in subarctic conditions, but they are not oceanic. So please change the sentence Para 2 of Overview to say "They are found in all major habitats, except for the ocean and polar regions." Also, please change the sentence Para 2 of Distribution and diversity to say "Beetles are found in nearly all natural habitats, including freshwater but not marine habitats . . ." Gug01 (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Rework

I have noticed this article has been listed as a vital article, and it's very comprehensive at its current state. However, it will need some work;

Are overview sections appropriate for an article?
I'll try and find a couple of references to increase the quality of the article
We need an etymology section, unless there are some sentences in regard to that subject
Consider fixing the 27 citation needed tags
Lead does not summarise the entire article and it should be expanded
Perhaps we should look at the Bird article and possibly model this article from it?
I'll try and find some more info about the eusocality and distribution
Copyedit is in mind, even if the article seems reasonably well written. Burklemore1 (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Under the mating heading it states that "pheromone communication is likely to be important in the location of a mate". First, this is only true for some beetles and it cannot be generalized for all, so I would say the statement is false. Secondly, statements of this sort should have a reference. Barcodeplane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Beetle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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} 21:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beetle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Fiddler beetle morphology diagram-2.svg

This scheme is terrible. The first segment of thorax is assigned as entire thorax, while the other two segments are ignored. Hereby, wings, second and third couple of legs look to like being attached to either abdomen or nowhere, what is complete nonsense. If anyone has objections, i would like to discuss. Otherwise i will just delete this pic from the article and replace it with any more relevant one. --CRTmatrix (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's not very good, but the task is difficult as the first segment of the thorax covers the rest, and if the wings are open the elytra cover the legs, as in the Eupatorus photo.

A side view might be better, as in the Cetonia photo. Here we can see elytra, wings, and legs, but the different thoracic segments can barely be discerned in this or many other beetles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

So, I'm sorry for protracting with the response, but thought, this Melolontha scheme is still much better, due to it's demonstrative quality! CRTmatrix (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, go with that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)