Talk:Aphid/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

White oil

does white oil kill aphids? i have heard it does but am unsure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.68.165.192 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Getting rid of aphids

Could someone please explain how to get RID of these beasts? We have them in the laboratory - and no, it's not a zoology departments, we work in Botany - THANKS. massa 08:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

mix together a soap solution (preferably using a high posphate soap) and spray aphids. You will probably want to wash plants an hour after application. Do this a couple of times and your aphids will be gone. This is the approach we took to manageing aphids in our greenhouse when I was working at the Univ. of Wisconsin. JorjGaidin 14:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

this works vary good..david wise, va. 11-2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.4.65.136 (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Part of All of Their Life?

I was browsing through, and I stumbled upon the second sentence in the "Reproduction" section.

For part of all of their life, aphids are often found to be parthenogenetic.

I can't make heads or tails of what that means: Aphids are partially always often parthenogenetic?? Someone knowledgable should rewrite that so it makes sense. I'd fix it myself, but I don't know the first thing about aphid reproduction. - Rynne 19:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What I don't get: Most parthenogenic species' unfertilised eggs produce male offspring -> this would mean an increase in the number of fertilising individuals -> which would mean less unfertilised eggs -> which means more females to produce eggs -> increase in population.

But, aphids are the opposite. Unfertilised eggs become female -> leading to more females -> leading to more unfertilised eggs. So then why are there still male aphids?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.250.6.246 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of links

An anonymous user, User:75.117.87.140 (talk contribs) has removed a number of links from the article (diff) anyone who's more knowledgeable on the topic, please review the edit and revert what's relevant. -- intgr 07:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I checked it out, and I think it was unwarranted. I replaced all the links and images, and kept the updated information. --Iamunknown 04:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for restoring, I myself wanted to restore but had forgotten.. thanks again. --vineeth 13:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting fact section

whats mentioned in the "interesting fact" section is already mentioned in the article. 87.69.103.82 02:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

changes!

I made a few changes to the anatomy and the beginning of the reproduction sections of this article. I tried to clean up some of the wording and conjecture about what is most interesting or most typical of aphids (stylets are not unique to aphids). I was afraid to delete large sections, but I feel the long description about Aphis rosae is not really appropriate for a general article on aphids (it also sounds like it was taken from a gardening book not an encyclopedia).

The other two examples seem more appropriate for individual articles about particular species (the cabbage aphid mention is basically worthless).

The gallery is pretty limited, are there other pictures that display more diversity of aphids?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rddb (talk • contribs) 18:47, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone has vandalized this page (see "philip is awesome") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.102.38 (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Other sources

[1] appears to be worthwhile since many universities have linked to this page. --Filll (talk | wpc) 03:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
[2] Princeton university webpage on aphids.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
[3] USDA Aphid laboratory
[4] This Wikibooks contribution might not be a RS, but might have some good pointers to information.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Ontario government website on aphid predators--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
[5] University of Connecticut information on bacteria symbiosis.
[6] Section of professional text by Anthony Dixon on Amazon.com that is very interesting.
[7] From University of Vermont
[8] From University of Rhode Island.

"Most destructive"

I think McGavin is being a trifle parochial here. Aphids are arguably one of the most serious agricultural pests in temperate climates, but are extremely minor in most tropical climates. I reckon the sentence will read better if we remove the superlative, and just say they are a serious pest. That way there is no need for the ugly WP:ATTRIBUTE in the intro. Jefffire (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I will modify it so it is not quite so extreme, but I believe that footnotes even in the LEAD are sometimes necessary. For example, see intelligent design which has several of them. Part of the reason they become important is when people disagree with what is in the LEAD. And if an article is controversial (which I do not expect this to be, but it might become so), then footnotes for everything including the LEAD material become crucial.--Filll (talk | wpc) 12:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll check some of the more specialist aphid books and see what their opinion is. Jefffire (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

While the footnote may be appropriate, I think citing the name in the opening is clunky and distracts from what the article is really about. The opening few sentences should be about aphids, not what so-and-so scientist who works at so-and-so university thinks about aphids, which seems more appropriate for the body of the article, not the opening. Wouldn't something like "...are perhaps one of the most destructive..." or "...are arguably one of the most destructive..." be enough? I think it would make it much clearer. AlexDitto 16:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"Popular Culture"

Does anyone feel that these items have any particular relevance? If aphids are mentioned in a conversation among several people, it obviously doesn't warrant a wikipedia entry - so why does it if they are the topic of a minor, offhand remark or passage in a film, show, or book? I think these types of entries are relevant only to the film, show or book - not the insect page. How about we delete this and keep them there? Frivolous information such as this serves no purpose other than to gratify the writer's desire to show off his/her knowledge of a particular storyline or to try to popularize a favorite show.

If no one disagrees with me then I recommend deleting this section.

~anon May 13, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.232.211.130 (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you made the right move. Good cleanup work. Them From Space 05:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Defenses

This could be interesting to add http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/08/virus_and_bacteria_team_up_to_save_aphid_from_parasitic_wasp.php 190.232.124.45 (talk) 09:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Done Shyamal (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Osmoregulation

Hello dear community,

Aphids, as are most of the insects from the order Hemiptera, have to cope with the high osmotic pressure of their diet, phloem sap. To do so, aphids possess physiological (sucrose stomach concentration decreasing), morphological (water-transfer from the hind gut to the stomach), and behavioural (xylem consumption) processes, which enable these insects to regulate their osmotic pressure. All these processes have been documented in scientific journals. I am then thinking to add a section about osmoregulation on the aphid page. I am opened to comments and happy to involve more persons in the redaction of this section.

Please let me now what you think of the creation of this new section.

Julien two-pom (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Go for it and be bold, you could also consider adding a section to osmoregulation which has nothing about insects at the moment. 86.7.19.159 (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

An unknown insect found in Kendriya Vidyalaya Barrackpore (Army), West Bengal, India

An unknown insect found in the garden of Kendriya Vidyalaya Barrackpore (Army). What is this insect? Can anyone help. It looks like an aphid, but may not be one.Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

An immature heteropteran. Shyamal (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

CONTROL section should mention ladybirds and soap

The two most common cures for aphids I've heard are to dump a bunch of ladybird beetles on the plant or to spray it with soap and water (as mentioned above). However, the section on aphid control doesn't mention either technique, instead focusing on insecticides. Even if it is a misperception that those two well known techniques work, then that fact should at least be mentioned. I would change the section myself, but I'm no expert and would not know what sources to cite. Ben (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. But adult lady beetles don't seem to be very effective if released manually. Han-Kwang (t) 12:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments 09-19-12

Hi all. I am currently participating in a school project to contribute to Wikipedia. I am learning a lot and would like to leave some comments regarding this article. Please feel free to respond.

The Aphid article is currently rated as a B-class quality article of mid-importance. With more edits, it may soon achieve good article status. In terms of taxonomical classification, the article presents accurate information. A link, though provided in the image box, should be made to the Hemiptera article. The “Diet” section contains a high level of detail and is written in the style of a review, which may be difficult to read for those who have little science background. The section covering host life cycles could be moved to a separate article due to the level of detail and length of the section. The section containing “Aphid reproductive jargon” could also be represented as a table to improve presentation. A sentence implying the contribution of asexual reproduction to proliferation needs a citation and verification in text. The article mentions the presence of soldier forms in gall-forming aphids, however the text begins to mention the uses of gall in herbal medicine. I would suggest this portion of the article be moved to a new section that describes the relationship between aphids and humans, with mention of agricultural implications stated earlier. The predators mentioned in the third paragraph are duplicated in the section “Threats” and can be removed.

GenesBrainsBehaviorNeuroscienceKL (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

identical twins

identical twins in higher vertebrates including man zygote undergo cleavage.. when embryo is at two celled stage the two blastomeres instead remaining together may seperate and behave as independent zygotes each giving rise to a new individual.. thus they have identical genetic make up and are called identical twins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imad.younas (talk • contribs) 21:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aphid. 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/20090221223558/http://entomology.ifas.ufl.edu:80/fasulo/woodypest/aphids.htm to http://entomology.ifas.ufl.edu/fasulo/woodypest/aphids.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 10:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Aphid. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 23:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aphid. 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 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100909141631/http%3A//docserver.esa.catchword.org/deliver/cw/pdf/esa/freepdfs/0046225x/v34n4s26.pdf to http://docserver.esa.catchword.org/deliver/cw/pdf/esa/freepdfs/0046225x/v34n4s26.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 16:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 17:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)