Talk:Boxelder bug

References?

It seems this article does not cite any references. This seems unwikiepdia-like.--Catch153 (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found this---(http://www.boxelderbugs.net/category/prevention-and-control)---brings me to this--- (http://www1.boxelderbugs.net/), and there is a bunch of words in another language. Broken link i would suppose but im not smart, ill move along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.146.161 (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biting

These statements that "They rarely bite humans" and cause "enormous swelling of the infected area" need substantiation. The sources I've seen online say they don't bite ([1] [2]) or cause minor irritation, [3]. Did the user have an extreme, but atypical, reaction?

They bite?! no "Box Elder bugs do not bite, but their piercing-sucking mouth parts can sometimes puncture skin, causing slight irritation."

http://www.pestproducts.com/boxelderbugs.htm

Who reverted it back to the way it was? Why? The old version is obviously not true. I guess I'll change it back.

I have had a personal experience with box elder bugs "biting"...and have been observing them for approximately 15 years (so this is nothing scientific, merely my personal experience). The site where the bugs pierce the skin (or "bite") swells, is very itchy and red...and lasts for many days if not treated. The best thing I have found to treat these "bites" is a paste of baking soda reapplied heavily for several times consecutively. The sooner the treatment is begun, the less trouble it causes me. I'm assuming that whatever the bug uses to break down the tissue of the plant it is sucking juices from when it pierces it may be the cause of my reaction.

The bugs at our house not only clump together on our siding, but they make huge bunches on our box elder trees (usually the younger bugs show up this way....they're much redder since their wings haven't developed fully).

When we first began sharing our home with them in winter, they were interesting and sometimes amusing...and seemed more like "pets" since they did no harm. They moved slowly and often swam in my coffee cup. Approximately 5 years into this "sharing" of our home, I was awakened one night with a painful "bite" on my hand. I searched for a spider....found none. What I DID find was a box elder bug (and didn't believe it was the culprit since I didn't think they would DO such a thing! I put up with it for about a week of itchiness taking Benadryl and applying Campho Phenique. The next time it happened, I actually smashed the bug in my hand to capture whatever it was...so KNEW it was a box elder bug. After several of these encounters I finally tried some baking soda on the area and it seemed to provide the most relief. I'm sharing this because hopefully it will help somebody else deal with this weird bug behavior when they get "bitten". This is where I looked....but only heard they don't bite....ha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.119.107.142 (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They pierce the skin since this is how they feed. This year was the first time I've ever had one do this to me. Just itched for a few minutes. They are certainly pests if they get into the house, crawling on you at night while you are trying to sleep. If someone deems there are too many outside the home it's easy to mix one part dishwashing detergent with 100 parts water in a spray bottle with which to spray them. The alkalinity of the detergent is deadly to them. Of course it's a contact 'poison' and not persistant. You must wet them. Doesn't take much.

Something else I've seen this year is them feeding on their dead. There would be several of them on one dead insect and this is common. Also have seen them feeding on pears that have dropped on the ground. Perhaps this behavior is due to the drought or perhaps I've simply never noticed it before.

I have been bitten by a Boxelder Bug. It is like a big mosquito bite but remains irritated longer - several days. The itching sensation is short, sharp and periodic for the several days. I was bitten under a bed cover on my hairy chest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.9.157.49 (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename?

This page needs to be free-standing under the title "Box Elder Bug." "Maple Bug" should redirect there. I'm not sure what corner of the world calls these beauties "maple bugs", but it's an obscure colloquialism at best.

A google image search for both terms in quotes turns up a ridiculous amount more for Box Elder Bug. Hazelorb 03:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have only ever heard these called "Boxelder Bugs". Jpwrunyan 20:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed here as well. The citations on the page give "boxelder bug" as the primary name. Bill Holm's book is "Boxelder Bug Variations," not "Maple Bug Variations." I'll make the change, if I can figure out how. !melquiades 20:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The formally recognized common name given to this species by the Entomological Society of America in its "Common Names of Arthropods and Other Organisms" hand book (now a Web site) is "boxelder bug." It is also the name given to this species on the Integrated Taxonomic Information System Web site at http://www.itis.gov/index.html. Trfasulo (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Maple Bug' is a common name preferred over 'Box Elder Bug' in the areas of Canada where the bug is present (i.e. prairie provinces). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.181.222.12 (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename / redirect

As soon as I can figure out how to do it, I'm going to make a free-standing page Boisea trivittata and have "maple bug" and "boxelder bug" redirect to it. I think this "democrat bug" designation is incorrect an unsupported by any literature or cites, and I'm removing it. (It's been tagged for long enough as needing cite). Please let me know if anyone objects to my plans.Nickrz 12:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Keith, Extension Entomology Specialist, May 23, 2001, gives Democrat Bug as one of its colloquial names. He also says, "While the bugs can and do bite people, this is very unusual." He does not call it a maple bug, but that is what I was looking for when I wound up here. Also, Carla Offenburger says, "Chuck, incidentally, calls box elder bugs by the name they have always had in Page County, where he grew up in southwest Iowa: “Democrat bugs.” If indeed they’re Democrats, I’d be happy if they could all vote in the upcoming election." Pawyilee 17:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC) I first heard "Democrat bugs" from my father-in-law in SW Iowa, born 1898, Fremont County to be specific, near page. I always wondered why that name too. That part of Iowa goes way back to pre-Civil War days so the name's association is likely buried there somewhere.[reply]

I believe the term 'Maple Bug' comes from Canada. At least that's what we call them in Southern Alberta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.181.222.12 (talk) 02:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is common knowledge in the central midwestern states that these insects are called democrat bugs. This name is very commonplace in Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, and possibly other states. I live here and know this first hand. There is a lot of discussion about it on the web, but not sure if there are any official works of literature citing the name. That being said, since it is so commonly used in the midwest, I feel that omitting it from the boxelder bug Wikipedia entry is doing a disservice. A simple web search confirms that democrat bug is a common name for the boxelder bug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayelcey (talk • contribs) 03:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do [not] fly away when approached

"These bugs have good eye-sight, and tend to run, fly or disperse when approached.

...

A small strip of duct tape can also be an effective way of killing these insects, as they seldom will fly away when approached."

So, which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.252.126 (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stink?

Odd that there's nothing mentioning the sickly sweet smell they give off. - Dave C.^{talk | Esperanza} 03:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They stink 2601:8C0:C000:6080:3110:1D22:D340:D2B5 (talk) 08:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

It surprised me to find an article about an insect for which over half of it was how to kill them. I think this pest control aspect should be separated out from the rest of the article into a new section. Also, it would be nice to incorporate some control methods that didn't involve killing them. Perhaps, measures that would prevent the box elder from entering the building or using it as a hibernation location.

Samcapasso (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Samcapasso[reply]

Murder

This page is mostly about the innocent slaughter of the insects and how to go about doing it. I know these bugs are not that important and a large article isn’t necessary, but “infestation treatment”—as I so crudely titled it—is a bit cliché in the sense that the article explain very little about the bug, and a lot about how to murder it. We need an expert on Box Elder Bugs! Haha! I suppose we need more information about the bug itself. This page is bug genocide. Andrew Colvin (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Honestly, if you have to live with these pests, all you can think of is how to murder them. I think the focus of the article is therefore completely appropriate. The only species I would advocate total planetary removal of is the Box Elder Bug.

I thought these bugs were called "Barf Chickens." --71.205.219.29 (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tis true, but really, so what? Kevin (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love how someone is flipping out about the 'murder' of these bugs. They are shitting all over the stuff in my storage shed. If you came to my house and started shitting all over my stuff, I would probably want to murder you too (this is by no means an actual threat to any human being so don't freak out).

Lifespan

I would like to know how long Box elder bugs live. From just reading the articale, it sounds like they live for atleast 1 year.

Feel free to research this and add to the article citing your sources. Andrew Colvin (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved to Boxelder bug. Consensus was clear about a move, the target was somewhat open. But from what I think the facts in the discussion were, this was the most common name. However it seems that those supporting the move were generally open to either spelling. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boisea trivittata → Box Elder bug — "Box Elder bug" is the most common name. According to WP:COMMONNAME we should be using it. Joja lozzo 17:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Oppose, per the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Scientific_Names, a much better title would be Boisea tribittata (Boxelder bug) or Boisea tribittata (Box Elder bug). Based on the Consistency criteria in WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA, having some insect articles titled with common names and some with binomial names violates the consistency policy. Nom contends that Box Elder bug is the most common name but its not according to Google: Box Elder bug-580K, Boxelder bug-878K. Google books gives the edge to Boxelder, while google scholar gives the edge to Box elder. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Scientific_Names is interesting but I don't see any consensus arising from that discussion. I'm surprised Boxelder is so common. I didn't think to search for it. E. Britannica uses box-elder bug [4].

I have no objection to Boxelder bug, Box-Elder bug, Box Elder bug or whatever may be decided is the most common name. If there is policy to use bionomial names for articles about species I'll withdraw my proposal but I have been watching and gnoming this article for a while and still Boisea trivittata means nothing to me when I see it. Joja lozzo 20:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remember we write articles for WP readers, not its editors. If you searched for Box Elder bug and through an ingenious redirect ended up at Boisea trivittata whose first line says Boisea trivittata is a North American species of true bug, commonly known as the box elder bug, the zug, or maple bug. would you be confused and disappointed? --Mike Cline (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point, speaking as a lay reader. Do you think I'm suggesting this move because of some editorial goal other than meeting readers' needs? Boisea trivittata won't mean anything to anyone except a specialist, certainly not our target reader. Who (but a bug expert) does it serve to give anything but the most common name to an article? Joja lozzo 03:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using that logic, then shouldn't all the orders, suborders, families, genera and species be entitled with a common name if one exists. Above the genera level, common names exist for just about every living thing. Why are we not using those? Currently there are 12 entries in Category:Rhopalidae. None of those articles are entitled with a common name. Are you claiming that 100% of the articles in this category don't mean anything to anyone but a bug expert? I find arguments that readers (there a millions of them) won't like or understand an article if it has a particular title awful presumpious, when in most cases the article content explains all the potential names for the entity being described in the article. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rhopalidae??? What is that? I think you have very high expectations of the general reader's understanding of taxonomy. Maybe others here know what you are talking about but you have lost me. Insect taxonomy is just so much gobbledygook. If your position relies on Rhopalidae, it seems untenable.

Furthermore I don't agree with your arguments for the implications for the titles of other articles if we change the title of this article. I suggest you review WP:ALLORNOTHING. Joja lozzo 21:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support—Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) supercedes some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles that got very little traction, I would think. These are pretty commonly known as boxelder bug, as far as I can tell. The title should probably be Boxelder bug, though. Or possibly Box elder bug, note the lowercase "e". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As there are multiple vernacular names for the species.--Kev min § 11:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are any nearly as popular as "boxelder bug"? I thought boxelder bug was far and away the most common name, but if you're right then it should stay where it is per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Boxelder bug" is significantly more frequent in books. (see google ngram) Joja lozzo 18:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support As long as "there is a most commonly used common name in English," Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) provides that such name is to be used as the article title, even if there are "multiple vernacular names" as well. It appears that Boxelder bug (including minor spelling variants) is the "most commonly used common name" and that consequently is the appropriate name. Ecphora (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Comment Hasn't this been addressed, and resolved, in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)? That states:

If there is a most commonly used common name in English, use that: Lion, Cheetah, Giraffe, Koala, Yak. … If there is no common name, or if the only common name would be taken by a higher-ranked group, or if the only common name is needed for another article or a disambiguation page, use the scientific name.

This rule rejects "consistency" in titles of articles about animals. Ecphora (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. It's even more applicable policy that COMMONNAME. Seems pretty conclusive. Joja lozzo 21:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only remaining issue is to decide what common name we should use for the title. Joja lozzo 21:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Distribution

I would like to see a map of their world distribution. — Anita5192 (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate external links

The following links might make good sources for article content but they are inappropriate for the external links section:

Joja lozzo 03:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boisea trivittata and Boisea rubolineata are both Boxelder bugs

'The boxelder bug is sometimes confused with Jadera spp., or its western counterpart, Boisea rubrolineata.'

The Boisea rubrolineata (The Western Boxelder Bug) is still in the same subfamily as Boisea trivittata (The Eastern Boxelder Bug), and is also called the Box elder bug. How can one confuse a Boxelder Bug with a Boxelder bug? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attelabus (talk • contribs) 03:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology guidelines?

Maybe i'm being mildly alarmist, however i'm concerned about the reading level of this article. It seems that an encyclopedic entry on something as commonplace (in parts of the world) as the boxelder bug perhaps shouldn't contain words that are only likely to be found in higher level reading sources. Perhaps i'm poorly educated, but i needed to reach for the dictionary twice perusing this article.

Once for "redolent" and once for "conspecifics". Conspecifics is perhaps worse, as it's a link to another article where it was essentially a sidebar to the main article and thus I needed to read quite a ways down to find that it meant "other members of their species". I judged even that interpretation as possibly inadequate until following another link in the article on Biological Specificity to Sperm precedence.

I'm all about falling down the wikipedia hole, but usually it's motivated by interest in related subject matter, not the lack of easily understandable writing. Do i need to go down that hole to understand that the boxelder bugs might come into my house looking for food, water, and mates/friends?

--Takophiliac (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Wikipedia guidelines state an article geared towards the general public needs to be worded in a way the general public (i.e., general reader) can easily comprehend. A lot of text within Wikipedia animal articles is simply copied and pasted from research papers (plagiarized...) Situation remedied. – Down time (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Box elder bug in My Home

I live in Dayton Ohio, it is very cold, 43° daytime 27° nighttime. I would like to know what I can do to help this Boxelder bug.

I have some plants in my home, Ivy’s, Christmas, cactus, small, OXALISO, philodendrons.

Your help would be welcomed or any suggestions.

Sincerely Beverly Houck 2603:6010:B223:3600:F46D:AA28:2B63:D2B8 (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]