Talk:Brown-tail moth

Poisonous

Isn't this thing poisonous? Fr0 10:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

We have on our terasse a great number of them. We live in Lebanon - Middle East - and more precisely in the mountain at 6xx meters above sea level. Should I spray them? and with what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.188.136.21 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Article now makes clear that the hairs can cause rash and asthma reactions. David notMD (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brown-tail. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061218123815/http://moineaudeparis.com/Insectes/Lepidopteres/Euproctis_Chrysorrhoea/ to http://moineaudeparis.com/Insectes/Lepidopteres/Euproctis_Chrysorrhoea/

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) 12:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Referencing failure

At the start of this major article overhaul, many of the references (existing as un-numbered list, at end) were not in Wikipedia in-line citation format. Working on fixing that. Many of the works cited were old or obscure, could not be found on-line as articles or abstracts, and the information appeared to be covered by newer publications, now incorporated into the article. The most interesting - for historical purposes - was Fernand 1903. This article was found on-line and a citation was created. David notMD (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

References deleted from the article's unnumbered list and not incorporated as numbered citations:

• Saccuman, G. (1963) Contributo alla conoscenza della Euproctis chrysorrhoea L. Bolletino del Laboratorio di Entomologia Agraria "Filippo Silvestri", 21, 271-322.
• Torossian, C., Torossian, F., Roques, L. (1988) Le bombyx cul brun: Euproctis chrysorrhoea, (1) Cycle biologique-ecologie-nuisibilite. Bulletin de la Societe d'Histoire Naturelle de Toulouse 124, 127-174.
• Arevalo-Durup, P. (1991) Le nid d'hiver d'Euproctis chrysorrhoea L. (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) comme estimateur de population en milieu forestier. Ph.D. Toulouse: Université Paul Sabatier.
• Schaefer, P.W. (1974) Population ecology of the browntail moth, Euproctis chrysorrhoea (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae). PhD thesis. University of Maine, Orono.
• Pantyukhov, G.A. (1962) The effect of positive temperatures upon different populations of the brown-tail moth Euproctis chrysorrhoea L. and the gipsy moth Lymantria dispar L.. (Lepidoptera, Orgyidae). Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie, 41, 274-284.
• Pantyukhov, G.A. (1964) The effect of negative temperatures on populations of the brown-tail moth Euproctis chrysorrhoea L. and the gipsy moth Lymantria dispar L. (Lepidoptera, Orgyidae). Review of applied entomology. Series A, 54, 434-436.
• Dissescu, G. (1964) On a new method of the forecast of the Brown-Tail Moth. Zoologichesky Zhurnal, 43, 1795-1799.
• Zeitgamel, Y.S. (1974) Population dynamics of Euproctis chrysorrhoea in the Central-Chernozem State Reservation. Zoologichesky Zhurnal, 53, 292-296.

Needs work

Nominated for Good Article review on July 17th, but work needed on Predation, parasites and diseases section and other sections, including more on extent and impact of this moth in its native range. David notMD (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Changed name from "Brown-tail" to "Brown-tail moth" because the old name did not make clear this is an insect. There are redirects for the obvious alternatives (Browntail moth, Browntail, Brown-tail, etc.). David notMD (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Brown-tail moth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 19:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• I propose to review this article and will start my review in the next couple of days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

First reading

• Leaving the lead for the timebeing, I will return to it later to see whether it provides a satisfactory summary of the rest of the article.
• Wikilink or gloss technical terms when you first mention them: palpi, frons, hydrolase, esterase, hemolytic and others.
  • Linked for some, others deleted.
• The Taxonomy section should be about this species. It is not relevant that other species in the genus have a wide distribution or that the genus was described by Jacob Hübner, but similar information about E. chrysorrhoea would be relevant.
  • Deleted section. I can not find a species-specific Taxonomy description. What remains is the non-scientific description
• "Where branches are long in males each with a spine to keep it in position with regard to the contiguous branch." - this sentence is pretty incomprehensible, but I hope you are going to rewrite this section.
  • Deleted. That was from taxonomy for the genus.
• In a similar vein, when reading the taxonomy section, you have not yet discussed skin rashes in the main body of text, so this is not the place to discuss other moths that cause similar problems.
  • Moved
• The first paragraph of the Description section, and much of the second paragraph is unreferenced.
  • Citations added.
• What do you mean by the "back of the abdomen"?
  • Description of winged adult entirely rewritten.
• "The species flies at night and is attracted to light" - This should not be in the "Description" section.
  • Moved to Detection and provided with a reference.
• A section called "Distribution" should be about distribution and range. what is its range in Europe? The invasiveness aspect could perhaps go in a different section, or at least a different paragraph.
  • Dividing Distribution into Native and Invasive. Have found a good reference for native distribution across Europe, some countries of eastern Asia (Syria, Iran, Turkey), northern countries of Africa, and then invasive to USA, Canada, possibly China and Japan (?!)
• The later sections, "Life cycle", "Predation, parasites and diseases" and "Causes rash in humans" are better thought out and better referenced than the earlier sections.
  • Thank you. Those are sections I created.
• "Causes rash in humans" is not an ideal name for a section. Maybe "Health issues".
  • Changed to "Health issues," which is better, because not only rash, i.e., asthma.
• The first paragraph of the "Host plants" section is a copyright violation of its source. You should rewrite the information in your own words.
  • Text in question was in place when I started on the article. Yes, it is close to word-for-word to Frago 2010. A problem I have with the list is that Frago did not contain a list, and the citation in Frago does not connect to said list. Revised the paragraph and deleted the list (saved in Talk).
• I like the image gallery of life stages.
  • All the images were in place when I started working on the article
• In the reference section, there are a number of citations where species names are not in italics.
  • Fixed
• Looking back now at the lead, it will need some rewriting when you have dealt with the matters I have mentioned above.
  • Will defer revising the lead until we are closer to completion.
• That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Second reading

The article is looking better now, in fact nearly there:

• Wikilink pheromone
  • Done
• As a matter of interest, many of the host plants mentioned are deciduous trees. If the larvae are overwintering in their webbing tents at the tips of twigs, how do they manage about leaf fall?
  • The leaves that are silk-bound to make the communal nest are anchored to twigs. I will describe this with a reference that has images, but I may not be able to add an image.
• The information about egg clusters appears twice.
  • Fixed
• Did you want to mention asthma in the article?
  • Wrote "similar to asthma." I could not find a scientific or government description of exposure causing asthma, per se, or exacerbating asthma in people with this condition, even though probably true. Also added that the toxins in shed hairs are still potent up to three years after being shed.
• References 4, 8 and 12 have genus or species names not in italics.
  • Done
• The lead section needs a rewrite so that it contains a summary of what is in the rest of the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Will do later today. Completely rewritten as three paragraphs.

It's personal

My interest in this article came after many people attending a conference in late May at a camp in Maine developed rashes, including my wife, but not me. I was the person who identified the presence of brown-tail caterpillars, not to be confused with eastern and forest tent caterpillars and gypsy moth caterpillars, which were also present.

There are a few mentions in the old literature of people dying after exposure (!), but too vague to incorporate into the article.

Also, where I live (eastern Massachusetts) was severely impacted by the initial invasive outbreak in the United States. Town annual reports from circa 1910-1915 report a significant budget committed to combating gypsy and brown-tail moths. In 1914 the budget for moth control was three times the budget for the town library! David notMD (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

That's interesting. How long did your wife's rash last for? Weeks

The lead is fine now and the whole article is much improved, well done! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

GA criteria

• The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout.
• The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
• The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
• The article is neutral.
• The article is stable.
• The images are relevant and have suitable captions, and are either in the public domain or properly licensed.

• Final assessment - I believe this article reaches the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Host plants section

Below, the Host plants section at the start of the GA review. Text will be revised, as taken nearly word-or-word from ref Frago 2010. List is problematic, as not in Frago or the ref Frago cited. Looking for other source. If not found, will shorten. David notMD (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

This univoltine defoliator feeds on 26 genera of non-resinous trees and shrubs belonging to 13 different families. Considering that it is unusual for an insect to feed on plant species belonging to more than two different families, the polyphagy of this pest is remarkable. Brown-tail moth polyphagy, together with its tendency to reach extreme outbreak densities, makes this species a major pest of hardwood forests, fruit orchards and ornamental trees. Recorded food plants:

• Acacia
• Acer – maple
• Arbutus
• Amelanchier
• Arctium – burdock
• Betula – birch
• Carya – hickory
• Castanea – chestnut
• Cotoneaster
• Chaenomeles – flowering quince ('Japonica')
• Crataegus – hawthorn
• Cydonia – quince
• Fagus – beech
• Forsythia
• Fragaria – strawberry
• Fraxinus – ash
• Geranium – cranesbill
• Gossypium – cotton plant
• Hippophae – sea-buckthorn
• Humulus lupulus - hops
• Juglans – walnut
• Malus – apple
• Myrica
• Parthenocissus – Virginia creeper
• Plantago – plantain
• Populus – poplar
• Prunus
• Pyrus – pear
• Quercus – oak
• Rheum – rhubarb
• Ribes – currant
• Robinia
• Rosa – Rose
• Rubus – raspberry, etc.
• Rumex – dock
• Salix – willow
• Sambucus – elderberry
• Sorbus
• Spiraea
• Tilia – lime
• Trifolium – clover
• Ulmus – elm
• Viburnum
• Vitis – grape
• Weigela
• Wisteria

References

Hair

This article repeatedly uses the words "hair" and "hairy" referring to the caterpillar of this moth. Is this proper terminology? I understood that only mammals have hair, and the filaments on insects are properly called "setae". CodeTalker (talk) 06:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

"Setae" technically correct, but the Wikipedia article Urticating hair supports the use of "hair" as a common-use terminology, and a Google search on "hairy caterpillar" yields almost 500,000 hits. Even the Seta article allows that "...setae may be called hairs..." I suggest the article either be left as is, or else in the Description section, a sentence be added to the effect that invertebrates have seta, plural setae, that can have the appearance of hairs and are commonly described as hairs or bristles. My preference would be for the continued use of "hair" and "hairy" throughout the rest of the article. David notMD (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)