Talk:Tineola bisselliella

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tineola bisselliella article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Lavender

I have added lavender to the the list of control measures. However, lavender is more a means of prevention than of control, such as cedar. Once you have the little bastards in your closets, it cannot help much, as the larvae cannot run away well no matter how much they hate the scent. Maybe it would be better to add a "Prevention" category and put both into it? I have no routine as a Wikipedia editor, therefore I ask... Eric75 02:00, August 2009 (CET) —Preceding undated comment added 01:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Clothing Moth.jpg

Image:Clothing Moth.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar

Cedar is NOT an effective deterrent. I speak from my own experience, and a number of online resources concur:

[1] [2]

--Ericjs 21:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dry ice fumication

While dry ice itself is cold, dry ice fumigation does not work by freezing, it works by virtue of the carbon dioxide into which it subliminates. I'm separating this into its own item, as it does not belong under freezing. --Ericjs 22:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silk

As Silk does contain Keratin I wonder if Clothing Moths do feed on silk. It should be mentioned in the article. --84.177.32.82 (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Size

The article does not mention the size of the moth nor do any of the photos have a legend or scale. It seems customary to have this type of information included. Arbalest Mike (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swatting

Although apparently indifferent flyers it is almost impossible to swat them, either in the air or at rest. You aim a good blow, or grab at them in the air, and then look at your palm and they are not there - either they are so light that the induced air current blows them away, or they jump downwards, or both. I find the only reliable way is to use one of the new 'tennis bat' electrocuters - the electrified grid mesh lets the air through and doesn't have a 'wash'. 217.38.77.41 (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Size?

Someone should edit this entry to indicate the size of these moths. It is very hard to identify them without knowing size, and this information does not seem readily available on the web. WLohe (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

agree strongly, need wingspan, given for other clothes moths, plus add any other descriptive info distinguishing this from other Tineola spp. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. sources exist, I will update when I get to desktop

Done --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to cryofumigation

This phrase appears three times but cryofumigation itself is not explained in the article. Can someone with more knowledge than me on the topic add it? -- Hux (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation number 8 is broken, a wayback machine link works

Citation number 8 does not work, here it is working as a wayback machine link, don't know how to edit the reference tab to insert it myself. https://web.archive.org/web/20150321212241/https://museumpests.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Webbing-Clothes-Moth.pdf --79.11.109.71 (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done [3]. Invasive Spices (talk) 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Image

The insect image os not correct. This is not the Tineola bisselliella. 2804:18:18F5:F78A:1:0:729E:1502 (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing, contradictory information about feeding

Under the heading "Life cycle", the first paragraph states "These [larvae] hatch between four and ten days later into near-microscopic white caterpillars which immediately begin to feed. They will also spin mats under which to feed without being readily noticed and from which they will partially emerge at night or under dark conditions to acquire food" (emphases added). This is confusing because the eggs are generally laid on wool, which is their preferred food. So "emerging...to acquire food" is nonsensical. Can anyone make sense of this, or suggest how it might best be edited for clarity? Bricology (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information about egg susceptibility to cold treatment

The current text implies only larvae are killed by cold treatment, while eggs survive, giving an article as reference for the latter claim that doesn't say that at all; the linked study is about adhesive products and mentions temperature treatment only in passing, saying that eggs survive brief exposure to up to -22,6 degrees, which is the reason why exposure times of 2 or more days are usually given in advice for freezer treatment. According to another study that actually tested cold exposure, 99,9 percent of eggs are destroyed by exposure times of 15 hours at -20 degrees (with somewhat higher exposure times at higher temperatures), so that in practice, 3 full days in the freezer at -18 are a well working remedy against eggs. Unfortunately, I am unable to edit the html, so would someone else please correct this. The study on cold treatment is this: https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/48274703/0022-474x_2892_2990008-e20160824-23323-va89ll-libre.pdf?1472027900=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DA_model_for_time_temperature_mortality_r.pdf&Expires=1716972877&Signature=UWiGbaW8-lUhym-6U4wDBJxh2Ux63REgc4iepH8Wvh2XNB5nXYHL6w4MqtZp~~JWgJKZhfJ0tMbNPBA7thb8b6q~4ZxHns7VpwQWriE4wjfS8qwefXLHAm1VKtwzx7-ga12u4zRB6Kxt2mBIgtbib0GtWvGgsTTarFI4RJaS3zxVl-4s9~pfYZT1HjpN~bFYbxbtbdfUyNWeP63yMMcJzMZM52jSSVQiyOX79g3REYvqynl1~KGmCpIGNzJ93TnFfLNtXqWfmYfGOWluHYh4cYivQXL6AewszUpLL0JxFxrkAmHRqfN61W-dESotk3uvD-mBfG-9dpErAMCPbS24eQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA