Talk:Chrysopidae

pic of larvae

I took some pictures today of one: http://ctho.ath.cx/pics/new/2007-05-17/ Let me know if they're worth adding here. --CTho 03:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can add them to the Commons with a proper license. From there one of those images can be added to the en.wikipedia. JoJan 08:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biting insect category inclusion

Would it be OK to add this to Category:Biting insects? Both the larvae and adults bite humans. I'm not sure if there are any academic references to support this, but there are plenty of reports. Example: whatsthatbug.com discussion. You can also just Google lacewing larva bite. (I just caught one biting me.) —mjb (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pseudomallada edwardsi AF 1.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Pseudomallada edwardsi AF 1.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 10, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-07-10. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

Chrysopidae are a large family of insects commonly known as green lacewings. This group consists of about 85 genera and 1,300–2,000 species, spread worldwide. The most common in North America and Europe are Chrysopa and Chrysoperla.

This unidentified specimen was photographed in Austins Ferry, Tasmania.Photograph: JJ Harrison

Archive – More featured pictures...

Japanese Lacewing (Neuroptera, Berothidae) catch prey

Would it be fine to include how the Japanese Lacewing catches paralyzed termites via silk webs used for hunting. Compared to their North American relatives this is a neat adaptation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daquanhebron (talk • contribs) 12:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chrysopidae. 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/20110720164221/http://www.gmo-safety.eu/news/582.maize-pollen-poses-risk-green-lacewings.html to http://www.gmo-safety.eu/news/582.maize-pollen-poses-risk-green-lacewings.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 02:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Significant verbatim content

Almost the entirety of the article (apart from the last paragraph and a half of the "Use in biological pest control" section and from part of the last sentence under "Systematics and taxonomy" through the "Selected genera" subsection) is identical to a page hosted by the University of California at Riverside. Neither page cites the other, but the source code of the UCR page indicates it was originally published in 2001 by E.F. Legner so could be the original (though it was not archived by the Wayback Machine until 2015). Also, it looks like the majority of the content in question was added to the Wikipedia page in a single edit in 2008. This may also explain why the article doesn't follow a typical style for insect pages on Wikipedia as well as the general lack of cited claims, several of which read like original research or opinion.

I do have a number of scientific papers and books that could be used to effectively re-build the article, if that's needed. That would, however, be a fairly lengthy task, especially tracking down relevant taxonomic changes and maintaining a comparable scope. In any case, there are a few statements that could use clarification, several junior synonyms that probably no longer need to be listed, and misidentified photos that I already have on my to-do list. Lhikan634 (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]