Talk:Lytta vesicatoria

Spamming

There's been a little bit of spamming going on, IPs adding spamlinks to a ".com" and a ".co.uk". It isn't enough to semiprotect the article and there have been productive IP edits so I'd prefer not to cut that off. But, if it gets to be problematic, drop me a note at my User Talk and I can deal with it, possibly with a spam blacklist entry, or you can of course go through any of the usual venues for those sorts of requests. 03:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

pop culture

should we mention references like when Bill Cosby mentions putting it in women's drinks in a 1990 Larry King interview? 174.92.134.248 (talk) 09:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 04:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Scientific name shouldn't be bolded.
  • Fixed.
• Meloidae shouldn't be italicized.
  • Fixed.
• Perhaps integrate some more of the uses of the insect into the lead.
  • Done.
• Add some info about distribution, appearance, and ecology into the lead.
  • Done.
• If Cantharis is in an unrelated genus, then why would the species be put in it? You need to add info about its disputed taxonomy. This is also not in the body and should be added.
  • Added, and moved refs out of lead.

• The description contains just the coloration and size, but there appears to be much more information available.
  • Extended.

• I'm going to stop my review at this stage, as this article lacks a lot of info that is available and which would be needed for this article to be comprehensive. I will fail this article for now, it can be renominated after the information has been added or if you think my review may have been mistaken. AryKun (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @AryKun: - I've addressed the main points, happy to do more. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Okay, quick work, I'll review again.

More

• Blister beetle doesn't appear to be a name for this species specifically, but rather a more general name.
  • Removed.
• Link Eurasia.
  • Done.
• "It and other such species" → "The species and others in its family"
  • Done.
• Does Cantharides need to be italicized?
  • Roman it is.
• Link generic name and specific name.
  • Done.
• Add Johan Fabricius's nationality and occupation.
  • Done.
• Perhaps mention that the Spanish fly is the type species of Lytta.
  • Done.
• Be consistent in using either common or scientific name (I'd prefer using the common name throughout).
  • Done.
• Maybe change the section title from Description to Description and ecology
  • Done.
• The first sentence in description is overcited.
  • Fixed.
• Ref order after the second para in Description.
  • Done, we're well down into the weeds here.
• Figuring out where exactly the species is distributed is hard to understand from the range section. Just mention its entire range first and then say that it is mainly found in southern Europe.
  • Fixed.
• "willow tree while occasionally" → "willow tree, occasionally"
  • Reworded.
• The Description section states that only males produce cantharidin, while the Cantharidin section states that "males produce significantly more". Which is it?
  • Both are correct. The article also states that females acquire it from males. I've edited the Cantharidin mention to say "having".
• Replace "vesicant" with "blistering agent".
  • Done.
• Link tubular necrosis and glomerular destruction.
  • Done.
• The 1954 manslaughter case is mentioned twice.
  • Fixed.
• Was epiglottis the cause of death or Spanish fly poisoning?
  • Epiglottitis.
• Refs 2 and 3 have broken links.
  • Updated. Unbelievable, UChicago have just broken every single link in all their dictionaries.
• What makes English Word Information a reliable source?
  • Replaced.
• Refs 13 and 14 have broken links.
  • Updated URLs.
• Could the Encyclopedia Brittanica ref be replaced with a better one?
  • Removed (proving that "nothing is better than the EB").
• What makes UK Beetle Recording a reliable source?
  • The UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology is a major research centre.
• Ref 23 broken link.
  • Removed.
• Nice work here, passing the article. AryKun (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Entry evaluation

This article provides information on the Spanish fly’s taxonomy, a brief section on its life cycle and habitat, and an interesting section on the toxicity of its defensive chemical. A strength of this article is that it provides a unique and detailed section on the historical collection of this beetle’s defense chemicals and explains its biochemical mechanism in causing poisoning to humans. One really interesting thing I learned from this entry is that in some regions of the world, such as Morocco, this beetle is used in making spice blends. Another fact is that this beetle was used to make the first stink bomb in the world in Ancient China. Although this entry does provide very useful categories such as habitat and ecology, these sections can benefit more from more content. For example, it would be useful to understand what the climate is like, conservation efforts, and the impact of humans on their habitat.

Some categories in the outline missing about behavior include how they mate, their predators, and adult socialization. Although this entry provides information about how the larvae act as parasites by feeding on bee larvae, it is also important to understand the behaviors of male and female beetles during their mating process. The article does a good job of explaining the beetle’s predator behavior on bees but would benefit from information about who preys on the beetles. This would reveal more behavioral information about the beetles, such as how they use their defensive chemical. Finally, it would be helpful to understand how adult Spanish flies interact with each other, such as when competing for food or mating partners.

From the talk page, I noticed that this beetle is rated as high-importance in the WikiProject beetles community which could be justified by the usage of its secreted chemicals, which is used as a starting compound to synthesize a treatment for warts. I also noticed that this was a good article. I had initially thought that this entry required more important sections on behavior and that this entry would benefit from including more details in other sections, such as habitat and ecology. One thing that I noticed would justify this as a good article is its strong use of many references. Justinxuje (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Physiology

I wish that the author included a section detailing the unique physiology of the Spanish fly that allows it to produce a chemical as dangerous as cantharidin. The beetle must have its own counter measures to prevent the toxic from harming itself. I found this fact about the beetle to be particularly interesting, so I would love to learn more about it! Oroblancos (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 2 May 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus to move to Lytta vesicatoria (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

---

• Spanish fly → Spanish fly (insect)
• Spanish fly (disambiguation) → Spanish fly

– It seems doubtful that people are looking for a particular literal insect species when seeking information about "Spanish fly". The earlier requested move discussion in 2006 seems to have been before other topics and naming conventions were as well established as they are today. See also the other discussions of the article title in the Talk page archive. I suggest there is no primary topic, as people could also be looking for the substance exuded by the beetle or the general notion of a folk-medicine aphrodisiac. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose aphrodisiac does not mention anything about being known as "Spanish fly", and I've removed it from the dab page for that reason. The insect article already links to the chemical article in the lead. If moved, suggest moving to Lytta vesicatoria instead, as less awkward then disambiguating the common name. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, the aphrodisiac article does mention a film of this name (and there are four other films of that name discussed on Wikipedia – and all five of those films appear to have a plot focused on an aphrodisiac). Adding a further mention is another way to deal with the absence of discussion in that article, as "Spanish fly" is certainly a term used for an aphrodisiac (both one specifically derived from this insect and also the more general notion). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Weak support Cantharidin has 8,908 views compared with only 8,839[[1]] for the insect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. I want to do some digging later on this topic, but I don't know if I'd support the proposed move to a disambig. However, I do agree the the case for Spanish fly being the WP:COMMONNAME for this species seems on shaky ground. I don't see the case for that being really apparent in the article (and have come back to it a few times over the years). It's also in part because spanish fly often seems to be used to describe the aphrodisiac prepared using beetles from throughout the insect family rather than this one species.

Instead, it makes more sense for Spanish fly to redirect to the Canthardin article or especially Cantharidin#Aphrodisiac_preparations. The aphrodisiac does seem to be the WP:PRIMARY topic when it comes to Spanish fly. If this species truly also has common name of Spanish fly outside of the "product", then it's a debate between species and canthardin articles being the target. I plan to look at more sources, but it doesn't seem like that's the case right now at least, so I'd be more prone to just use the specie name here and have Spanish fly references go to cantharidin instead. KoA (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Would it be feasible to have an article about a products marketed as aphrodisiacs under the name "Spanish fly" as with herbal viagra? A Google Shopping search yields various such products. Several have images of a fly on them (but there is at least one with an image of the beetle). Arginine seems to be a common ingredient (when ingredients are listed), and I doubt any of them have cantharidin. Finding reliable sources is difficult. There is this (a recall of supplements with undeclared drugs for treating erectile dysfunction including one product called "Spanish Fly") this (which says "Spanish fly, which is really a catch-all name for an aphrodisiac formulation"). There's also a criminal case where a man dosed a woman. While I don't think this is a reliable source; it does use "Spanish fly" as a catch-all name (it's a review of 5 products, two of which are NOT named "Spanish fly"), and has a safety warning that products should NOT contain cantharidin. Plantdrew (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I've been picking away at this a bit. At least in sources about the insect, it looks like the common name is variable, and this species is sometimes more specifically called Lytta Spanishfly with others just calling it Spanish fly. This is a case where I'd be more comfortable just going with the species name for the title.

As for what you mention, I wouldn't really use Google Shopping as a metric. There may be "mainstream" Spanish fly in reliable sources, but without similar sources for non-cathanaradin uses with the same namesake, especially since a lot of snake oil products aren't really WP:NOTEWORTHY, I'm not seeing a strong case that that aspect needs to be considered right now. It could be there is a case for it hiding in the background, but I think I'd just be more apt to have a sort of split with the Spanish fly/aphrodisiac topic at cantharidin for now and then the species article that would have a section linking to the cantharidin article too. If there gets to be a stronger case besides a sentence or two saying some products are sold that don't have cantharidin, then maybe it would be worth having a Spanish fly (aphrodisiac) article. KoA (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The body of that source has "Lytta spanishfly", not "Lytta Spanishfly". Even though it is derived from a place name, the "spanishfly" should be lowercase, like Lampropeltis californiae, for example. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The aphrodisiac is actually better known. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support per above. It is too unclear whether Lytta vesicatoria is the primary topic here, the DAB page should be at the base name. Walsh90210 (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I could also support moving this article to Lytta vesicatoria (rather than Spanish fly (insect)), as suggested by KoA. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I gave some general comments above that eventually led me to this, but after looking at more sources, it's pretty clear the WP:COMMONNAME Spanish fly is for the aphrodisiac when following the guideline's criteria. So instead the current search/article title being discussed here should redirect to Cantharidin#Aphrodisiac preparations. That section can also have a natural disambiguation that this species (and others) are often used in preparation. The name Spanish fly is usually in the context of this or other species being used for the aphrodisiac product rather than a typical species common name.

This article should instead be renamed/moved at least to the species name Lytta vesicatoria since that is our baseline preference for species names. Technically this could be called Lytta Spanishfly as an unambiguous common name, so I'd be ok with that, but this is a case where the species name seems to have a slight edge for me. KoA (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Lytta vesicatoria is OK with me as well. "Lytta Spanishfly" / "Lytta spanishfly" does not seem as common (and indeed, those are red links). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Move this article to Lytta vesicatoria. I'm not sure if the disambiguation page should be moved to the base title, or if "Spanish fly" should redirect to cantharidin, but am leaning towards putting the disambiguation page at the base title. Plantdrew (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. See page data [2]. If it's the case that most people who land on Spanish fly go on to Cantharidin, then assuming there's no primary topic and putting the disambiguastion page at the base name isn't going to help (since it's not proposed here that "Spanish fly" is redirected to Cantharidin). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  FYI, in terms of since it's not proposed here that "Spanish fly" is redirected to Cantharidin, I did propose that just above. KoA (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Move per Plantdrew. ThatRandomEditorAgain101 (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(edit conflict) In April 2024, out of 12.7 views incoming to Cantharidin, 1289 out of 3.5k views outgoing views go to Spanish fly (the insect article). Just for reference, there were 13.7 incoming views to Spanish fly the insect; out of 3.2k outgoing views from that article, 799 went to Cantharidin, 561 to the Spanish fly dab, and 351 to aphrodisiac. For completeness, there were 997 incoming view to the dab, most of those (561 views) are from the Spanish fly insect article. 498 of 590 outgoing views go to Cantharidin. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)