Talk:Tarantula hawk

The sting aside

I noticed there is a very similar article on pepsis grossa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsis_grossa. The scientific classification is not really matching. Is this the same species or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:12AF:1C01:2070:7130:1679:3588 (talk) 07:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The stinging quotes

I suppose it would be too much to ask for attribution for those three "stinging testimonials" in the article? They sound like they were lifted out of an article in a children's magazine. --Ardonik.talk()^* July 3, 2005 11:10 (UTC)

How so? Simply because they may sound immature does not mean that they are useful quotes? They DO emphasize how painful the sting must be. After all, they ARE quotes. - Xer0X 13:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also particularly love the explanation of larva feeding on the spider 216.79.252.71 10:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sting aside

The sting comments aside, the description is thorough and pleasing, though a picture would be nice, they are spectacular wasps - I was especially pleased to read of their nectivory, an important point in assuaging fears of encountering one of these invertebrate gods and goddesses 69.3.185.112 01:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find the whole sting being super painful dubious. I was strong by this wasp in Africa and I know it was this kind of wasp because I watched it bury a spider, anyways the sting was not any worse then a bee or paper wasp sing. 216.105.224.110 (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live or dead spiders?

Obviously the spider dies at some point, but the following unsourced sentence seems self-contradictory:

"After the larva grows a bit, the spider dies and the larva plunges into the spider's body and feeds voraciously, avoiding vital organs for as long as possible to keep it fresh."

The part about 'avoiding vital organs' seems meaningless if the spider is already dead, and is, in fact, a hold-over from a version where the spider's death was not mentioned. I'll try researching the life-cycle a little bit more, if no one else comes up with something that's more consistant. Marieblasdell 04:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of invertebrates body may still function after they're dead; the heart may still pump even though the spider can't possibly move anymore, for example. Does that mean it's still alive? It's hard to say. 66.75.246.149 00:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you die, your skin doesnt rot right away. The larvae will try to keep its food freash even after it dies. It avoids the vital organs because they still may function involuntarilly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.208.69 (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of large stinger?

I don't trust the following unsourced sentence:

"Their large stingers are considered defensive adaptations for living in the open, where they are prone to predators."

Considering that they use the stinger on a very large creature--the tarantula--it seems plausible that the stinger might be large for that reason. Again, if no one else comes up with something, I'll try to research it. Marieblasdell 04:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice for avoiding being stung?

Would experts really advise people to swing at these insects and throw objects at them to avoid being stung? All the advice I've heard for other stinging insects (and admittedly, I'm no expert) has boiled down to a variation on "don't bother them and they won't bother you." It almost seems like someone's trying to get people stung with the advice in this article. But I could be wrong.

Thanks for bringing that up. Taking a fast look at the article, I think people have been vandalizing, or at least, editing irresponsibly. I'm going to go through and weed out some of the more dubious stuff.Marieblasdell 23:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assorted edits

I'm running through the article and removing unsourced things that don't seem believable. Here's a list, just in case I've been too skeptical about anything. 1: Reference to tarantula hawks as being called 'Flying Cougars'. 2: Reference to tarantula hawks attacking lots of people in July, 2007. 3: Very counter-productive advice against getting stung. 4: The idea that their large stinger is to protect them from predators. 5: That bullfrogs are a tarantula hawk predator. Marieblasdell 23:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm late to the party here, but I just wanted to confirm all the above changes. None of those have any validity as far as I have researched. Tanthalas39 (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bullfrogs may not be predators of tarantula hawks, but there are at least two videos on YouTube showing black widow spiders in the process of subduing tarantula hawks in spider webs. To be fair, the videos end without showing the actual killing of the tarantula hawk, but someone might want to do some research to see if black widows are considered legitimate predators of these wasps. It seems possible, at least. 2602:306:B866:5510:85DE:F768:87D5:298D (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not the most painful sting

This article says that the sting from Tarantula hawk is the most painful sting. This is incorrect according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmidt_Sting_Pain_Index —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zybez (talk • contribs) 23:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting case. I went through some references and I can't find any definitive answer. On the Schmidt Sting Pain Index, the tarantula hawk (Pepsis) is listed as 4.0 (the current limit of the scale), and the bullet ant is listed as 4.0+, which I suppose is meant to imply that the pain of a bullet ant sting can exceed the limits of this scale. I think we could change the current text to something about how it is "one of the most painful" or "is at the top of the Schmidt scale", until we have a more definitive reference. What do you think? Tanthalas39 (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity

However, during the insect's reproductive season male tarantulas are usually emaciated from ignoring food while searching for females.

Why would tarantulas be searching for females during the wasp's reproductive season? Why should their mating seasons coincide? Or is the word "insect" here meant to refer to tarantulas? If that's the case, arthropods are not insects. --75.63.48.18 (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the statement makes perfect sense and is scientifically correct. However, during the insect's reproductive season male tarantulas are usually emaciated from ignoring food while searching for females. Explaining, during the insect's (the tarantula hawk, the focus of the article) reproductive season male tarantulas (the actual spider) are usually emaciated from ignoring food.... Tanthalas39 (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarification. Why should their mating seasons coincide? This question has no bearing on the actual facts at hand. You can ask why most of the information here happens, and there's larger, more unknown knowledge that is needed. However, per the references at hand, this is the way it happens. Tanthalas39 (talk) 09:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)they also like to poop in the air when they mate they leave eggs[reply]

Only diurnal?

"While the wasps tend to be most active in daytime summer months, they tend to avoid the very highest temperatures."

Are these insects strictly diurnal, or are they also nocturnal? 24.255.25.146 (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy needs attention

The lead says it's a species, but then says it's in two genera. Later on the article talks about 250 species. The taxobox focuses on tribe Pepsini. The wikilink to genus Pepsis redirects straight back to this article. --Stfg (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Alien"?

Is this the specific critter that was the inspiration for the movie "Alien"? There are references on Wikipedia and elsewhere to several possible candidates, but this one seems the most likely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.177.192 (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

photo

Hi, you can use this photo if you want… some folks in the science desk liked it… and as it show a tarantula haw struggling with a tarantula in the act …

Also someone ask me for a location in order to identify the wasp… it was taken in Cuba, Artemisa, a country town… this was the position: 22g 48'39.98"N 82g 44'55.05"W

Iskánder Vigoa Pérez (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Docile or aggressive?

Currently the article says that the Tarantula hawk is "very aggressive" and that it is "relatively docile". Clearly a contradiction. Which is it? Jason Quinn (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Northernmost range

The article formerly stated (and had for quite a while, to my memory) that the northernmost range was in Kirkland, Washington. I believe an older version said Lakewood, Washington. The linked source states the northernmost range is in Utah, which is very far south of Washington. Is there a non-Wikipedia source somewhere placing them in Washington State? The closest I could find was this KIRO news article from Lakewood, but even that says it was identified to be a hornback wasp, not a tarantula hawk. --Bristlemouth (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I had tagged that section as needing sources last year. If no new ones have been found, I would recommend that you go ahead and change it to what the current sources actually say. Scr★pIron^IV 14:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry?

Has there been any investigation of the chemistry of these creatures' venom, that could be added here?

Also, I strongly suspect that "Eighteen species of Pepis ..." in the "Distribution" section ought to be "Eighteen species of Pepsis ...", so I'll change this. Rt3368 (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tarantula Hawk Sting at Third Place Not Second Place

It's known that the Tarantula Hawk is the third most painful insect sting in the world, only behind the Bullet Ant and Warrior Wasp, making the Warrior Wasp the most painful. ^[1]

While the Warrior wasp sting is agreed to be the most painful, though only lasts up to 2.5 hours, and the Bullet Ant sting pain lasts up to 24 hours. And while the top of the page says the Tarantula Hawk pain is third behind the Bullet Ant and Warrior Wasp, the line on the lower part of the page says the Tarantula Hawk is the second most painful, only behind the Bullet Ant, and doesn't say the Warrior Wasp top. There's no way the Tarantula Hawk can be second most painful and third most painful for insect stings at the same time. It's one or the other, it can't be both second and third.

Yet after Justin Schmidt got stung by a Warrior Wasp in 2016, he put it on the top of the list, putting the Bullet Ant at second place.

There's really nothing to do about the list, unless Schmidt decided to change the list, but it takes him experiencing stings to do that.

If the Tarantula Hawk is third place in insect stings, it's third place.

So there's a loophole on the middle of the page, it clearly states in reality that the Tarantula Hawk sting is the third most painful in the insect world, only behind that of the Bullet Ant and Warrior Wasp. His list is official.

And his list, which is not "official" in any sense, is the Schmidt Sting Pain Index, published in 1983, and it does not include Synoeca - the person who reported on Synoeca stings and rated them as a "4" was Christopher Starr, who copied Schmidt's list and added to it, calling his version the Starr sting pain scale, in 1985. If you are trying to cite anyone regarding Synoeca stings, you are citing the wrong person, and the wrong pain scale (so much for anything being "official"). Both scales are a single person's subjective opinions regarding how they personally perceive the pain. They're for the popular press, and not scientific. Furthermore, the popular article you cite has misidentified photographs (the wasp IDed there as Synoeca is not even in the same family) among other errors, and is not a reliable source. Dyanega (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change of Species Name: Should the Article Include an Explanation

This article references the fact that the binomial name for the subject Tarantula Hawk species was renamed from "Pepsis formosa" to "Pepsis grossa", but includes no explanation for why this took place or the story surrounding the process (for example, who proposed the change and for what reason, how the request was evaluated, and what body ultimately accepted the change and why they did so.) I think that this information would be desirable and useful for Wikipedia users. It is the main question I took away after reading this otherwise informative article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.253.142 (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, there are many other tarantula hawks species besides Pepsis grossa. Second, that species has its own article, and the explanation for the name change is linked there. This is the article for ALL the different tarantula hawks, and details about individual species are not generally going to be relevant here. Dyanega (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]