Talk:Dragonfly/Archive 1

Archive 1

Grammar Stuff

I 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. IngaRea (talk) 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". Squirrel9000 (talk) 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 unsigned comment added by 75.41.181.219 (talk) 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?–Vegesua (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Too 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? --KQ 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?--WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 23:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Only one suborder?

Opps! Looks like there is a second suborder, the zygoptera. I will input them now. --mav

Opps again. Suborder. Grumble. --mav

Well, how about this one? Odonata, Isophlebioptera, Parazygoptera, Euparazygoptera, Triassolestoidea, Triassolestidae, Triassolestinae, Triassolestes [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 Euparazygoptera. In any case, you may want to check out doi:10.1016/S0753-3969(02)01049-2. http://www.bernstein.naturkundemuseum-bw.de/odonata/phylosys.htm seems a robust and reliable site, might be backchecked vs molecular data (is there indication of homoplasy in the characters among the living odonates?).

In any case, the Isophlebioptera are the other (entirely extinct) lineage of odonates. The early odonates (and Odonatoptera were on the dragonfly side, szie-wise, but they were neither dragonflies not damselflies in fact. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge Odonata with Dragonfy?

KQ
Other 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 Odonata. 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 Odonata). Perhaps it would be best to not have family lists at Odonata and only have direct links here.... --mav

Hm, ok. 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 Odonata, simply because people do recognize a dragonfly on sight. Was your proposal to move or shorten the table or to move the article itself? --KQ

I was just noting that there is some duplication between the tables in the order (Odonata) and the suborder (Dragonfly). As I said above, I don't think it would be good to merge dragonfly and Odonata. I will make the needed changes to the Odonata table. --mav

Ok, thanks.  :-) --KQ

I 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 Odonata article exists for compare/contrast information. - Marshman 18:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Optical illusion

The '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 (http://sankey.ws/odonata.html). Feel free to use any of my photos any time.

Flight speed

I'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.Harasseddad 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 http://www.ohiou.edu/southeastohio/marchives/dragon.html

I'll leave editing the main article to someone else who may have more time or interest in the subject to check further. Newsmare 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". Wikibofh_(talk) 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.jacona fire (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Walking

I'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 this seems to suggest this is true. Is this true of all species? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kc8tpz (talk • contribs) 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. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 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: http://mika.letonsaari.net/dragonfly/ (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 unsigned comment added by 88.85.136.52 (talk) 11:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Range of quoted species

It 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? --APRCooper 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? Sangwine 19:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Deleted vulgar vandalism, not sure how to restore the page to its original form but I hope someone can. Bentobias 02:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted further vulgar vandalism (quote: gay gay gay) from General Facts - Record Breakers. Yuric Allison 11:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've stuck a short (48 hr) block on the vandal, jimfbleak 14:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Folklore section

Someone 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:

Folklore Dragonflies seem to evoke a particular kind of terror in some people.<!--Is this specific to the US? Never heard of it here in Brazil - nor in Europe--> One notable misapprehension is that a dragonfly will sew your mouth shut if you let it get too close. Noted physicist Richard Feynman chased dragonflies around a pool once to prove to his friends that they are in fact completely harmless. Says Joseph Stout (49): "I remember as a kid, living close to the countryside in the 1960's, we called the Dragonflies, 'Snakedoctors'. Anytime we saw them flying around, we started taking a cautious eye to the ground, looking for snakes."<!--Where? UK? United States?-->

All the best, Jorge Stolfi 20:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Answer to "where? UK? 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? Jorge Stolfi 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, and Wikipedia is not supposed to be an original reference. --Saforrest 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 citation? Wikibofh_(talk) 16:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• • the book Dragonflies, by Heather Amery.

• Is that Dragonflies (Creepy Crawly Collection) by Heather Amery, Tony Gibbons (Illustrator)? Wikibofh_(talk) 17:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• yes. Jobranham1964 18:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)jo

This would really belong here, as it only seems to pertain to true dragonflies (I don't know if there is such folklore about Epiophlebia, 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. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Is the picture (commons) suitable for the picture? I don't have a classification for it though → Elliot ^(T|C|W) 13:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What about this questions about dragonflies?

Usually how many animals live together? 2 What's the scientific name of the dragonfly? Is it a incomplete or complete metamorphis, how long the animal What 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.com

Decent 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. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Naiads

Naiad (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 here [1] and here[2]Felix-felix 15:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames

The 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. S. (http://www.bartelby.net/61/51/S0505150.html), 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 http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn, which lists additional nicknames for the dragonfly. Are these two links valid sources for some sort of nickname section? QueenStupid 19:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Suborder conflict

This article explains that the suborder of dragonflies is Epiprocta, and that Anisoptera 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 Web of Knowledge though my university, I try again "anisoptera" (938 results) and "epiprocta"... 0 results. 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? Thanks, IronChris | (talk) 22:45, 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 phylogenetic taxonomy very often. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 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. Thank you. Miglewis (talk) 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'. Swashed (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of images

Hi,

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.--Fir0002 06:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Bite or Sting

I don't believe dragonflies can even bite or sting. Any other knowledge of this?? 11 Jan 07 mh —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.137.245.199 (talk) 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. Bigbadg 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. not registered 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. not registered 20:41, 05 December 2007 (GMT)

still not altered, needs a source. 128.195.77.169 (talk) 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 unsigned comment added by 76.101.185.55 (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Terminology

In 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 unsigned comment was added by 24.32.93.100 (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Image

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 linking

The article links to Nomad when referring to the "nomad" dragonfly. The linked article, of course, talks of nomads instead of "nomad" dragonflies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.26.64.251 (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Mating

This 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? 128.122.24.43 (talk) 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?

Mcewan (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Need Giant Extinct Dragonflies of the Dinosaur Age

Need Giant Extinct Dragonflies of the Dinosaur Age —Preceding unsigned comment added by BindingArbitration (talk • contribs) 09:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"Griffinflies", not "dragonflies". See Protodonata. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge Epiprocta here?

Since the Epiophlebioptera are monotypic (only Epiophlebia) 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 (Erichschmidtiidae, Isophlebioptera 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 Protodonata etc) living and extinct. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I dissagree, just simply create the article, as they are not exactly the same topic why merge. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 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. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There are around 6.000 species of odonates in the world

While 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? User:EG

Warriorflies

It 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 damselflies), 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: 9780007151684. url=http://www.nhbs.com/dragonflies_tefno_127049.html]. 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 unsigned comment added by Benphalan (talk • contribs) 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". Gaberlunzi (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

upward, downward, forward, back, and side to side

Does 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? 82.139.87.148 (talk) 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 unsigned comment added by 91.0.65.34 (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Image gallery tag

I 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".--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I second that motion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.0.65.34 (talk) 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 Epiophlebia. Epiophlebioptera 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 Epiprocta into the section Classification "(Anisozygoptera)" of Dragonfly, 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. E.g. here. (If you know it, you can tell that it does not have dragonfly wings. But this is simply a plesiomorphy.

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. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 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 Epiprocta do justify merging, and I dresay one would find a modern study that favors the old phlogeny (with a three-way split of Odonata.

(Also, I think I shall ask our Japan team to get some pix. It is Epiophlebia superstes flight season now.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

And lastly, it is inconsistent if we'd have Anisozygoptera 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. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 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 ?76.113.104.88 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

{EDIT: Actually, comparing the eyes again, I guess it really is a dragonfly.]76.113.104.88 (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

identification

I am wondering if anybody here could identify the type of dragonfly in this photo. I took it in my backyard last summer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekidfromiowa (talk • contribs) 05:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Since nobody answered you yet, let me try my best. This looks quiet close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.173.202 (talk) 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?) 68.9.178.66 (talk) 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? 93.104.175.130 (talk) 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. Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 08:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

List of species includes many damselflies

The 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. Tennesseellum (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should move the list to Damselfly. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 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. Anyone know for sure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.197.163 (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Some questions the article doesn't answer

The 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 (user/talk) 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 Insect. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 08:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

how long is each individual part of the egg nymph and adult — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.7.117.73 (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Reproduction

After seeing the Commons' "Media of the Day" File:Sympecma fusca - 2014-04-25.webm I wondered how dragonflies or damselflies actually reproduced. Turns out, neither article here explains it. Common Blue Damselfly has a brief one-sentence mention, as does Sympetrum vicinum#Reproduction. 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 [3]; [4] 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 File:Australian Emperor mating and laying.jpg. 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 Sexual reproduction#Insects) doesn't describe the image well. Merriam-Webster defines "to mate" (mate⁴, intransitive verb) as "to copulate", and that's clearly not what's going on in that picture. They're in tandem, but not copulating. Lupo 07:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization of common names

Are there any guidelines on capitalization? I would like to make redirects to the scientific names for some articles I've been involved with. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes there are. See MOS:CAPS. Dger (talk) 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, Common North American dragonflies, Common European dragonflies, 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 WP:Lists (currently entirely uncited) or WP:Galleries, really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 19:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. I'll address your comments at once. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Y
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Y
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Y
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Y
	2c. it contains no original research.	Y
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The "Distribution" section can be expanded. I'll give the nominator two weeks to expand that section. Otherwise, everything is good. Y
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	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. Y
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Y
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Y
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Y
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Y
	7. Overall assessment.

I've reduced the poetry and the prose quotations a bit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gug01: I've extended the Distribution section as requested. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I see. Nice work. 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? --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 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. MeegsC (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, here's a ref for "about 750 mm",l let's go with that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Alaska dragonflies

A quick search online brought up this book, which shows five dragonfly species occur north of the arctic circle in Alaska. Please don't add the statement about there being no Arctic butterflies again — that old reference (1950) is no longer valid! MeegsC (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

You didn't say that before/when you removed it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 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!  :) MeegsC (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about confusing editors - mea culpa.GraemeLeggett (talk) 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. MeegsC (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)