Jump to content

Talk:Cockroach/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Termites

Considering that Termites are apparently now considered an epifamily of Blattodea, shouldn't the termite families be listed here too?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

What is going on with the archives?

Okay, the archives of this page are seriously wonky. Archive pages 1 through 4 are listed, but Archives 2 and 4 are redlinks, and Archive 3 redirects to Archive 1. Furthermore, there are sections on the main page that are much older than sections in the archive. What the heck is going on? Is there a glitch with some archiving bot? —Smeazel (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

what?

what is the best way to get ride of them completely and do they come in homes in the summer time how do hummans bring them from one place to others and is it hard to see the egg sack like on furniture etc. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.152.151 (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

termites2

It appears this page hasn't caught up with the Blattaria or Blattodea order which now includes termites as an infraorder (isoptera). Pages of some lower taxonomic ranks are current but it seems cockroaches don't want to be modernised. I propose a separate taxonomic rank page of Blattaria as the order.(perhaps they should make Blattodea a separate infraorder covering cockroaches). It is impossible to find the taxonomic structure below the order. Pavorder Euisoptera and Nanordo Neoisoptera have no pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.246.60.63 (talk) 10:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I was just about to point this out myself. Dictyoptera only links with Blattaria, which is a redirect to Cockroach (which calls itself Blattodea; which one is preferable?), and there is no reference to Isoptera in the taxobox. Someone needs to find out what the generally accepted hierachy is and implement it. I draw your attention to Template:Blattodea (which is a confusing mess; and the Blattodea species file calls Polyphagoidea a junior synonym of Corydioidea) -- cf. BSF Blattodea, and to wikispecies [1] and [2] which still uses the paraphyletic lumping approach. I don't care which is used, but it ought to be consistent, and supported by proper references. At the moment everything's all over the place. 90.245.17.247 (talk) 11:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

proper name is Blattaria, evidently

I found the following quote online[3]: "We suggest the recognition of Blattodea and Mantodea as valid orders and Isoptera as a sub-order within Blattodea. The term Blattaria, which is sometimes used interchangeably with Blattodea, is used more properly to refer to both extinct and extant roach lineages; a group which is most rendered paraphyletic by to both Isoptera and Mantodea (Grimaldi, 2001). All extant exemplars of the blattarian lineage are more commonly referred to as Dictyoptera." This seems to indicate that Grimaldi is one of the authorities drawing the distinction between the paraphyletic and extinct Blattaria and the modern order Blattodea, which is synonymous with Cockroach. A such, the contents of this article should be moved to Blattaria if they are to be retained anywhere, with proper citations to indicate the usage of the name. Dyanega (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's my source (Grimaldi, D. & M. S. Engel, Michael (2005): Evolution of the Insects, Cambridge University Press, p 227:
"The common ancestor of the lineage that includes the modern families of roaches, termites, and mantises had a highly reduced ovipositor, as all species have today. This ancestor probably derived from one group of the Paleozoic roachides, perhaps sometime in the Jurassic (Grimaldi, 1997b). Names have been proposed to distinguish these orders: Order Blattaria for modern families of roaches; Dictyoptera for the orders Blattaria, Isoptera and Mantodea and Paleozoic roachids; and Blattodea or Blattoptera for the parafyletic assembelage of Paleozoic roachids (Henning, 1981; Grimaldi:1997b)"
The cited sources are:
  • Henning, W. (1981): Insect Phylogeny. Wiley, Chichester, Britain
  • Grimaldi, D (1997): A fossil mantis(Insecta: Mantoidea) in Cretaceous amber of New Jersy, with coments on early history of Dictyoptera. American Museum Novitates No 3204, pp 1-11.
The problem here could be solved by using Grimaldis name (Blattoptera), but in science the older name has priority. To me it seems the correct usage of names would be Blattaria for the paraphyletic order of cockroaches, and Blattodea for the paraphyletic order of paleozoic "roachids".Petter Bøckman (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Those would definitely seem to be more authoritative sources than the one I found, and it's the opposite interpretation. My apologies for the confusion, then. The problem with using Blattodea that way, however, is that it is very commonly used for the living group, as is Blattaria. As long as both those names directed readers to the Cockroach article (which was the case up until you created the new Blattodea article), it didn't matter which usage was correct, or which one people were familiar with. Now we're confronted with having to apply a narrow and specialized definition to a name ("Blattodea") that has a different and much broader common usage - and deal with a large number of wikilinks which will need to be redirected. HOWEVER: The point about older names having priority only applies when the two names are applied to groups whose definitions are the same, and I doubt that the original definitions of Blattodea and Blattoptera were the same; frankly, then, I think the solution may indeed be adopting "Blattoptera" (a name which I'm reasonably sure was not coined by Grimaldi) to refer to the more-inclusive grouping involving the fossil taxa. A quick Google search reveals that Blattoptera is in widespread use, and very commonly used in papers referring to fossil taxa. We can make sure that the explanation for the historical and present usages of the names is spelled out in the Cockroach and Blattoptera articles, and then there would be very little in the way of link management required to incorporate the new article seamlessly. Does this seem to be a practical solution? Dyanega (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think the solution you suggest will be the best one. All I really need is a place to put the palaeozoic "roachids" without adding to the problems the somewhat hapzard naming in this group has presented us. I'll move the article to Blattoptera, leaving the discussion here for further reference. Thank you for taking the time to help me!Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Notable species section - what's notable?

The current section "Notable Species" seems a bit arbitrary; all have articles, but the notability for many is just that it's a common pest, and others don't seem notable at all. I'm listing some tentative groupings and descriptions. Any ideas on better organizing this section? Better served with paragraphs than list? Feedback on notability?

Domestic Pests

  • Blattella germanica, German cockroach: The most common domestic pest cockroach worldwide
  • Blatta orientalis, Oriental cockroach: Common domestic pest worldwide
  • Periplaneta americana, American cockroach: Fairly big, very quick, tropical but survives in cooler climates in domestic or peridomestic heated habitat
  • Periplaneta australasiae, Australian cockroach: Cosmopolitan pest similar to P. americana
  • Periplaneta brunnea, brown cockroach: Circumtropical pest similar to P. americana
  • Periplaneta fuliginosa, smokybrown cockroach: Similar to P. americana, primarily outdoors, agricultural pest
  • Supella longipalpa, brown-banded cockroach: Small like B. germanica but lower water needs allow indoor habitat farther from water source
  • Blaptica dubia, South American/Peruvian Dubia cockroach: Easy to raise, nutritious protein source
  • Blaberus discoidalis, discoid cockroach or false death's head: Easy to raise, nutritious protein source

Other notable species

What's notable?

  • Blaberus craniifer, true death's head cockroach: Great name, fairly big, maybe popular as a pet or feeder?
  • Eurycotis floridana, Florida woods cockroach or Palmetto bug: Floridians don't call it a cockroach, and it freaks out Florida newcomers?
  • Laxta granicollis, bark cockroach: Article is two sentences, nothing notable...aesthetic appearance?
  • Parcoblatta pennsylvanica, Pennsylvania woods cockroach: Occasional household pest, often carried in with firewood?
  • Ectobius spp.: No articles about any species, very little info in genus article

--Agyle (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Which classification to use?

I have some questions about which classification to use in cockroach articles. There are two main styles, summarized below, both of which are supported by various recent sources. Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects#Taxonomy and references does not provide specific guidance; it mentions ITIS, but notes that it's often out of date, and omits many lower taxa (definitely true with cockroaches).

Itis.gov (ITIS) shows

Catalogueoflife.org (COL) shows:

A third classification is used for the genus Cryptocercus, which lists the order as Dictyoptera (it's often considered a superorder), and Blattaria as a suborder (it's often considered an order), suggesting that other classifications that preceded it are obsolete. It was added in 2009 by user:Kaarel without a reference, saying "modern classification" in the edit summary. ITIS considers Dictyoptera invalid as an order, and lists it only as a genus; I assume its use as a superorder is consistent with COL's classification, as it appears in Cockroach's taxobox.

  • 2. Should we always use order Blattodea rather than order Blattaria in taxoboxes (they seem to be synonyms)? How about in article text – prefer one over the other, or mention both? Blattidae, as an example, uses Blattaria in a taxobox, while both ITIS and COL use Blattodea. Polyphagidae uses Blattaria in a taxobox and in a sentence.
  • 3. Is there any opinion/guidance on which (if any) taxa between the main ranks should generally be listed in cockroach species article taxoboxes? (E.g., taxa between class and order, order and family, family and genus, genus and species?)

I suppose how to classify things could be left as a matter of personal preference to an article's initial author, the way MOS:DATE styles or British vs. American spellings are, but the inconsistencies can be confusing. Agyle (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Bush Cockroach.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Bush Cockroach.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 8, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-10-08. 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! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Bush cockroach
The bush cockroach (Ellipsidion australe) is a cockroach of the order Blattodea, of which about 30 species out of 4,600 total are associated with human habitats. Living in a wide range of environments around the world, cockroaches are among the hardiest insects, capable of remaining active for a month without food and able to survive on limited resources.Photograph: Cyron Ray Macey
Archive – More featured pictures...

Uses section

From the article: "Professor Li Shunan...studied the medical potentials of the cockroach at Dali University and extracted three key chemical compounds from the cockroach.[56][57]" So "medicine" here means Traditional Chinese medicine, not medicine.

The first reference is to an article from the LATimes that reports that cockroach farms are proliferating in China and that unnamed "pharmaceutical companies are using cockroaches for traditional Chinese medicine" whatever that means exactly. The article further reports that "South Korea's Jeonnam Province Agricultural Research Institute and China's Dali University College of Pharmacy have published papers on the anti-carcinogenic properties of the cockroach." How exactly an institution as opposed to actual scientists publishes papers is not explained, nor are the papers describing "the anti-carcinogenic properties" cited, named, or linked to.

The second reference is to an article from the official newspaper of the Chinese government and lauds the discovery of "three chemical compounds" in cockroaches that kill HIV (whatever that means -- HIV is a virus that infects living cells but isn't an organism itself), cure heart disease, and something called "fester".

"The process of extracting from the farmed cockroaches and usage of the medical compounds has been patented, and shown to have promise in remedying burns, heart disease, hepatitis, trauma, etc.[58][59]" So also burns, hepatitis, and trauma in addition to cancer, HIV, and whatever "fester" is? The first link is to a Chinese patent which also claims the these mystery compounds treat senile dementia, "may be used in tissue cell regeneration and repair" and "strengthening sexual characteristic and sexual capacity." The second link is to a pretty awful study from an alternative medicine "journal." This whole paragraph reeks of pseudoscience and nationalistic promotion. I'm going to remove it. Inoculatedcities (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

An Observation About Roaches

I would like to make a few observational points regarding roaches. I have live with roaches for 16 years.

They are in the walls and the sewers.

According to the fireman that I interviewed a while ago, the roaches are all over the sewer here in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. They are also in the walls in the thousands. The only way to kill them all is to tent the entire building in this apartment complex where I live.[1] So, there seems to be nothing I can do about this.

They seem to be able to disappear.

I would follow the bugs on a table. When I try to get them, they seem to disappear as though they walk through a time portal. I do not find the bug even after searching after the attempt. This baffles me.

They are blind.

I am sure that they do not see me. I sometimes can get close enough, given enough space, and when the bug is distracted. Then I am having a 95% success rate at killing them. It is like target practice for me.

They have no Memory

I figured out that roaches do not have memory. I would swack one and it would come back to be swacked again.

No awareness

They are not aware of each other. They only seem to be aware of vibrations. So, I would believe that the article is wrong when it states that there is a "collective intelligence" insinuating that they behave like bees. I have not observed this in this apartment.

-- Michael Flower (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Cockroach Blood

We need to explicit the physical unit used here

"Female cockroaches are sometimes seen carrying egg cases on the end of their abdomens; the egg case of the German cockroach holds about 30 to 40 long" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.106.230.131 (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

American English

I have decided to tag the "use American English" template in regards to this revision, since it is the earliest known edit that uses American English first, not British English. Therefore, this article should be American English by default. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Tammany Hall Apartments".
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cockroach/Archive_2&oldid=1144305409"