Jump to content

User talk:Dyanega/archive4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Photos of unidentified species

I have a lot of photos of insects that I've never uploaded because my identification was uncertain. Would you be willing to help with these? Pollinator 17:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have established a location at User:Pollinator/unidentified species, and will be adding images there, as time permits. Pollinator 02:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Glad you could use those. I added a larval squash borer and more info on that page. I'll be putting up more photos as I have time. I took the day off from work today and did some photography, including some bank bees, a ladybird larva eating wooly apple aphids, and a honeybee buzz pollinating (there goes that myth!). I have years of photos that are not catalogued, with many unidentified species, so I'll be putting more up on that page, as time allows. Right now my "digital darkroom" computer is down, so I can't process photos. Pollinator 04:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
You might want to review a whole bunch more photos I've put up on my page, as well as some at squash borer and squash bug. Thanks. Pollinator 17:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
This image has been up awhile, but I've always wondered if the red objects are parasites?

Pollinator 03:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your latest IDs, I guess I need to change some filenames. I can't believe I was so far off on the cuckoo wasp! The sharpshooter thing bugged the daylights out of me. It looked strangely familiar but I had a mental block. When you said "sharpshooter," it was an "aha" experience, as I recalled the grape growers problems with it. I watched the critter for quite awhile in the first sunlight, and it seemed to have a strobe on it. Eventually I realized that it was the sun on droplets of liquid. Then I got at a different angle, and could see the droplets shoot off under pressure, and drop. Amazing!
Can you tell if this is the glassy wing one giving California such fits? I've done some reading, but can't find any reference to it being a pest on apples, although the glassy wing one seems to be native here. I am experimenting with growing apples that don't require a lot of chilling (the Gulf Stream plus the downslope effect of the Appalachians moderates the majority of the cold air that occasionally pushes in during winter; the upshot is that we rarely have much cold). I haven't been forced to spray the apples yet this year, as the only significant problem so far has been aphids and the ladybugs have pretty much taken them out. Will a couple sharpshooters on the apple trees give any problem?
I'll have another batch of photos, as soon as I have time to process them. Thanks again. Pollinator 13:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
A Barnstar!
The Bio-Barnstar
For making your knowledge available without barriers, staying abreast and making use of every new techological advance in communication and doing a quiet and unsung service to entomology in the true spirit of enquiry.

From the other side of the world. Shyamal 04:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

ID

Hi Doug, any further id possible on this Indian curculionoid ? thanks Shyamal 16:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  • It's an Attelabid - there are many similar species and genera in Eastern Asia. The most extreme species are known as "giraffe-necked beetles", the most well-known of which occurs in Madagascar (see [1]). Dyanega 22:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
It was on mango and some species of Deporaus from that family are known minor pests. Shyamal 02:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Genus id suggested

Hi Doug, I got a suggestion that this might be of a genus Horia (family not mentioned !). Hope it might be possible to check for the genus and its placement if not keys or descriptions. No urgency. Thanks for the ant updates. Shyamal 08:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that ID is correct - I was unaware of any Meloidae with enlarged hind legs of that type, but apparently Horia is one such genus. At least the two are very closely-related families, and difficult to separate! ;-) Peace, Dyanega 17:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Insect images

Some new [images] from Vijay Cavale available for use:

Thanks in advance. Shyamal 09:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wasp

Hi Dyanega,

Thanks for the heads up however rather than jump in and revert aspects of the page so soon why not throw up the errors on the articles talk page, so we can both have a look over them tonight before changing them, as I don't mean to sound stuborn (i'm really not) but I'm pretty sure (i.e. 99.9%) that what I just wrote is entirely correct. I'm trying to get the article up to featured status as something like wasp really ought to be a better article than it is. The first phase of this was the diagram I drew of wasp morphology to make it a bit more encylopedic, the diagram is now a featured picture, the next phase is this sweep of updates and expansions. I hope you'll agree that the vast majority have been for the better, I'm just concerned that there may be some misunderstanding here somewhere which would be easier to address now on the talk page than through reverts. Thanks Dyanega, WikipedianProlific(Talk) 01:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I find that response a little bit offensive but I'm sure you mean well by it. I respect from your user page that you have experience with insects, however wikipedia doesn't have experts, and whose to say I don't have extensive experience in this field as well? I also detect a hint of ownership of the article? with statements like "now I'm going to have to do this" and "i'm going to have to rewrite large portions of it", "allowing me leeway" etc. To be honest the edit button in the upper left corner of the page allows me enough leeway to edit the article. If your unhappy with an aspect of my edits please don't feel that you have to make the changes yourself, for example on the subject of leaving the redlinks I've gone back and added several in. Just drop me a note on my talk page and i'll go back and change it. You've rather caught me half way through a massive series edits, whats there now is something of a skeleton. I'm now going through refining whats been added and clarifying it, something which I expect will take around 2-3 days. I appreciate that the article presently swings towards vespids, but simply as they are the obvious starting point. I don't think its entirely fair to say that what is there is completely wrong. It may require more clarifying that different parts refer to different species, however, I think the article is in a better state now than it was before I began this. It contains considerably more correct information than it did. Therefore, it might take an article lengthed talk page to describe whats wrong with it at the moment but we can then read through that, make suggestions with other users, make the corrections where needed and know that the ammended version is right and go forward with the article. Sadly wikipedia can be like that, 1 step back to make 2 steps forward. I'm afraid although your probably correct I can't really accept "I'm an expert and I say your wrong so thats the way it is", if changes need to be made they're going to have to be discussed beyond spelling and such. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 02:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Right thanks for the corrections, I'm actually fairly happy with that and remain confident I'm on the right track, as I was aware of about 60% of those errors. About another 20% believe it or not were actually in the article already before I touched it, such as references to 'male wasp drones' I think. The remaining 20% is new to me but I'll go through and make the changes. I notice with most of the points as I initially believed that they aren't so much wrong more that they need further explanation to avoid confussion with speciifc wasp species. I'm out for around 8 hours today but when I return I plan to make go back through the article from start to finish clarifying and cleaning up whats there. I realise that at the moment its quite skeletal but I think if we can bear with it for a few days we'll all be quite happy with the end results and can hopefully push it towards g.a. or f.a. status. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 10:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Colony Collapse Disorder

Well the biosafety homepage of the study of "effects of Bt pollen on honeybees" is an official one: from the german government. Then, "a researcher in germany"...I do not think you want to be quoted with "a researcher in the US". And picking out from an article what seems to fit in the actual own theory does not fit either. So I just wrote some additional information to the quotations, But I do not want to give the article an Anti-GMO-bias on the one side, and on the other hand I do not want to neglect GMOs and their potentials. The German findings concerning "nosema" bees, had really been strongly discussed in Europe (see last story in the: DER SPIEGEL Are GM Crops Killing Bees?). Well a question: are healthy bees those you feed antibiotics? Concerning the quotation of David Hackenberg: A PA Beekeeping Association has sent me a letter of D. Hackenberg. If you want, I will send it to you. And for sure he really is in the bee bussines. Josef Hoppichler, a researcher of Austria

I don't see any other researchers listed by name in the article, despite there being nearly 20 other citations - you are according Dr. Kaatz special treatment, and that is not appropriate. If you wish to go through the article and name each and every author of every cited work, that is your prerogative, but that would burden the text. It is far more reasonable to simply cite the various papers without naming the authors of each one. More to the point, if you "do not want to give the article an Anti-GMO-bias on the one side" then you will need to accept that you cannot imply that there is a link between Bt pollen and CCD when there is no evidence that any of the bees affected by CCD have ever fed on Bt pollen! When Mr. Hackenberg states "beekeepers that have been most affected so far have been close to corn, cotton, soybeans, canola, sunflowers, apples, vine crops and pumpkins" I rather strongly suspect that he is talking about bees in Pennsylvania and nearby states, where he does business, and not across the US as a whole (these crops are certainly not all grown everywhere) - the above statement certainly is not from the CCD working group's report. Can you quote more extensively from this letter to make it clear what the source of these claims is? After all, there is no actual cited publication, so this is unverifiable - that's why private communications do not meet WP's standards. Allow me to reiterate; there needs to be not only a demonstration that bees are actually gathering pollen that contains Bt-toxins, but also a demonstration that CCD-afflicted bees OUTSIDE of Pennsylvania are infected with Nosema, in order to claim that there is a chance that CCD is the result of GM crops leading to Nosema outbreaks. These links you are suggesting are tenuous, lack supporting evidence, and appear to be personal speculations about the cause of CCD. If there are researchers in Europe who claim that the European die-off is related to Bt pollen, then this should be stated explicitly, and cited, rather than implying that what is happening in Europe and in the US are necessarily the same phenomenon, with the same causes. Dyanega 20:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, reading that Der Spiegel article, I see there is an additional caveat mentioned there, which - if you are concerned about selective quotation - should not be ignored: "Of course, the concentration of the toxin was ten times higher in the experiments than in normal Bt corn pollen. In addition, the bee feed was administered over a relatively lengthy six-week period." I think if your goal is fairness, then you should not object to the inclusion of this quote, as well. Dyanega 21:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Informal mediation

Is the case for Morgellons still required? It seems as though you have some help on the article from Mukrkrgsj (talk · contribs) now and that the IP user has been much less active. Let me know what you would like to do with the case. If you close it, you can submit a new case or request it be reopened if it becomes necessary. Vassyana 17:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm contacting you and the other party regarding mediation on the article. Please visit the case page and indicate if you accept my assistance as an informal mediator. Please additionally let me know if any other parties should be invited to join the mediation. Be well! Vassyana 12:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

By all means, please update the case page to reflect current circumstances. I have posted a question regarding the current situation. Vassyana 21:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

that editor was me

You said on my talk page:

What was irresponsible was the EDITOR who inserted the phrase "Whether it is this Bt-genetic induced Nosema is uncertain, " and then tried to use the CSM article as support for this claim, when - in fact - the CSM article has nothing at all to do with Nosema, and is thus NOT appropriate for inclusion in the Diseases of the honey bee article, nor does it support a connection betwee these three things. So, (1) the citation did not support the claim it was being used as a citation for, and (2) it does not belong in the article in the first place, except possibly as it relates to CCD.

The Nosema sections speaks of the theory of Bt genetic modification being a cause of the disease. Whether or not Nosema is the cause of CCD it, the Bt genetic modifications, also was suggested by the article as a cause of CCD. This is not the act of an "irresponsible" person. That I may be wrong - there has been some extended comments from others about the validity of the article I sourced - is also not a cause for calling me "irresponsible". Get a sense of balance and fairness. You need it. We all need it. Additionally I am not aware of any satisfactory explanation of CCD. I was simply connecting the idea of Bt modifications might cause disease. I was unaware of a CCD page - I was shocked there wasn't one so I struggled with where to put in some reference to it. I figured it was such a new issue that no one had made a page about it. Again these are not the decisions of an irresponsible person. At most they are simply of someone who might be wrong. Humility demands it. I suggest you consider a dose of humility to. It may make the crow we all get to eat some day alittle less chocking.--Smkolins 19:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I know what you're saying, but look at the facts: (1) one researcher, in a study which has not been peer-reviewed, suggested that Bt toxins interacted to make Nosema infections more lethal. No one has replicated this. (2) Some of the bees reported as killed by CCD (esp. those specifically from Pennsyvlania) had Nosema infections, but this was not true in other regions. (3) There is no documented exposure to Bt toxins for those bees experiencing CCD. That's the hard evidence there is related to this precise point - the former fact being covered in the CSM article. These facts do not imply any connection between Bt and CCD, however. The suggested link - assuming it is your idea - is speculation in the absence of evidence, and without any indication that you have specific expertise in the matter (and the CCD article is definitely already quite tolerant of comments that can be construed as "original research"). If it is not your idea, then it has to be sourced, and the CSM article is not itself the source of such speculation, either - it is simply reporting what others are claiming. The only source I am aware of to have made such speculation in any official capacity is the German Beekeeping Association (http://www.bundestag.de/ausschuesse/a10/anhoerungen/a10_28/16_10_242-D.pdf), and even that is dependent on whether the WP editor citing this document has translated from German objectively, or has interpreted or excerpted the document to support their personal opinions. I'll note that I have, in an online scientific research forum (outside of Wikipedia), stated that I felt that public speculation that Bt plants are related in any way to CCD is irresponsible and alarmist at this time. Why would I say such a thing? Because there are thousands of people whose livelihoods could be affected, and entire industries and economies at stake! The WP article on CCD is the #1 listed resource on the topic in Google, meaning ONE editor's opinion could potentially influence tens of thousands of people, some of them government officials, some of them agricultural/industrial businessmen, some of them investors, some of them activists - so the repercussions could be enormous, and the summary of the situation needs to be as objective as possible about what there is (or is not) in terms of evidence and research. We could be talking about millions, even billions of dollars gained or lost, depending upon whether or not GMO crops have any effect on honey bees! When the stakes are so high, it is irresponsible to put forth a theory when there is no evidence to support it, and ESPECIALLY when the actual existing evidence is against it - UNLESS you state up front that the idea is speculation - and I think you'll agree the word "uncertain" does not carry the same warning to a reader as "highly speculative and counter to the available evidence". Again, if your intent was to attribute the speculation to an outside source, then my apologies to you - but the CSM article was not such a source, so it did appear to be your own idea. If you had edited the article on lung cancer to include a comment that "Some believe that dust mites cause lung cancer, because lung cancer patients have been found with dust mites in their lungs" you could expect similar reactions to mine. Sincerely, Dyanega 22:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Bee Collapse

Hi, I added a section to the Bee page about the 2007 collapse. Your revision noted that this information is in other pages, but there's no direct reference to it on the actual Bee page. If nothing else, should there not be at least a one liner (if not a paragraph) to it? The words disappearance and collapse occur nowhere on the page and they seem to be note worthy enough to at least make a reference, if not a short paragraph giving direction to the references.

As I noted on your talk page a minute ago, it simply doesn't belong on the bee page, since it isn't relevant to 99.999% of the world's bee species. It's mentioned on the honey bee page, the Western honey bee page, and the Diseases of the honey bee page; it really isn't relevant anywhere else. Dyanega 18:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you really read my comment in detail and responded from the hip. The point is that there can't be evidence linking the two. I am citing the "explorative study" by Landau University. The bee would have to have a body part that is large enough to resonate at cellular frequencies. They, in their own study bring up the fact that a bee's resonant frequency would have to be at least 375 GHZ. It's just like your ear can't hear very low frequencies. So basically, the link between EMF and CCD really has not been established. The article is not in a peer reviewed Journal, but rather just issued from the University - Hence, this is bogus science.Kgrr 18:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Tissues and cells don't have "resonant frequencies" - that's what makes it bogus. If you put a bee in a microwave oven, it will die, but that has nothing to do with "resonance" and everything to do with dielectric heating. ANY animal placed in a microwave oven will die. The scientific concern about EMF is not and never has been about resonance, but about the radiation. Dyanega 20:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I left more comments at Talk:Colony_Collapse_DisorderKgrr 15:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Morgellons

Good work on the Morgellons article. Dedication like that in the face of tireless single-issue fanaticism is what keeps Wikipedia a useable source of information.R.E.S.A. 20:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wasp to Vespids

moved link on vespids to Vespid page

Hi. Thanks for the contribution, but it is not suitable for the Wasp article - it belongs on the Vespid article, and I have moved it there. Peace, Dyanega 22:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)'

Thanks! I consider myself to be in the novice category, though I've made a number of contributions. Brian Pearson 01:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Colony Stress?

Would that really have the same effect? I don't know anything about it, but you might want to add a section to the CCD article if this is a plausible cause. I can't tell anymore what's true and what's the scare story of the week; I'm just glad the bird flu caught ebola -- humanity really dodges a bullet there.... -- Kendrick7talk

It is already discussed in the article, in some detail, and first on the list of theories. Allow me to qote: "One of the patterns reported by the aforementioned group at Penn State was that all producers in a preliminary survey noted a period of "extraordinary stress" affecting the colonies in question prior to the die-off, most commonly involving poor nutrition and/or drought. To date, this is the only factor that all of the reported cases of CCD have in common; accordingly, there is at least some significant possibility that this phenomenon is correlated to nutritional stress, and may not manifest in healthy, well-nourished colonies." Dyanega 21:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Morgellons

Is the assistance of informal mediation still required for Morgellons? What's been going on with the article, in your view? Vassyana 22:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It's as bad, if not worse, thanks to the return of User:Pez1103. Another editor who has no concept of what a conflict of interest is (e.g., how people accepting money from a "non-profit organization" that they work for are in fact profiting, or how a person who has admitted to defrauding the NSF by falsifying data is not a reliable source OF data); and how WP policy indicates that quotes from such people (that have, most significantly, not been published in peer-reviewed journal articles) are outside the realm of science and medicine, and NOT reliable sources. Insisting on maintaining an objective page, and adhering to WP policy does NOT make me a "biased" editor. It would be nice if someone, at some point, would tell editors such as these that WP is not a place for their attempts to sway public opinion in favor of their personal interests. This is a classic case exhibiting why the Citizendium project is viewed as necessary; the deliberate and systematic manipulation of articles by anonymous editors, whose motives could hardly be more transparent, and their badgering of any expert editor who calls them on their bluff. I'm still hopeful that some third-party intervention can help get them to back off. Dyanega 16:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The morgellons research orgsnization is non comercial, ok? The smg organization yes it is commercial against all odds now !! For that it is devided in MRO and SMG and much more morgellons sites are having links to products which can bring some relief. That should be normal, the user can decide. M. Neumann (unsigned, 7 June 2007)

Grasshopper

This short-horned grasshopper (?) from the Western Ghats is leaf like and highly flattened. Any further id possible ? thanks. Shyamal 04:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid not - there's little question that it belongs in Acrididae, but beyond that, I can't venture any guesses. Peace, Dyanega 01:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wasp mamma Nurturing Nest at my Back Door

I am someone who takes spiders outdoors so as not to kill them like many others who would. Now, I have a single wasp and her tiny nest with "honeycombed" nest who comes every day and attends this small nest for hours, intermittently going away and returning. She never bothers us nor our dogs and cats. I would like some practical advice. I am enjoying watching her doing her nurturing and don't want to harm her. We go in and out several times per day and it/she/he never waivers. My husband screamed "YOW" the other night because he forgot she was there. He had actually brushed the wasp with his finger and the wasp did not waiver or bother him. He now is also interested in learning about the Wasp. I just read some more articles that champion Wasps as being VERY BENEFICIAL to the environment in many ways.

I don't know what type of Wasp she is but live in Nevada County, California at about 4200 to 4400 fett in elevation.

How can I find out more about how to avoid harming the Wasp, her nest and avoid other (visitors hysteria) I don't want to get a wasp trap, etc.

Cathy ta5lu@aol.com lulyonthe@aol.com (maybe) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.247.21.247 (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Hi. If it's a visible honeycomb, then it's probably papery, and the wasp is a paper wasp. When the queens start nests they often do it solo, and they are not suicidally defensive - that would orphan the larvae. However, once the larvae she is raising turn into adult workers, that nest will become dangerous to you - if you come within two or three feet, the workers WILL attempt to sting you, sooner or later, because workers ARE suicidally defensive. Yes, they are beneficial, since they eat caterpillars in your garden and in your trees and shrubs, but a nest that's too close is also a danger, especially if anyone in your family happens to be allergic. Unfortunately, it sounds like you are facing a problem, if this nest is positioned somewhere that you can brush up against it. If you leave it where it is, you run a very real risk of being attacked and stung later after the workers emerge. If you truly don't want to harm the wasp, then the best option is to wait until she's away on a trip, and remove the nest completely - meaning every slight trace! - and then swabbing the area with alcohol. If she comes back, cannot find the nest, and can't smell the spot where she had it attached, she should fly off somewhere else to start a new nest. If she starts a new nest somewhere too close for comfort, you repeat the procedure until she gets the idea and leaves. Peace, Dyanega 20:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ants evolution

hi. I don't know who you think you are, but nobody on this earth can say whether or not ants evolved or not. I added, "may have" and I was only trying to make a compromise, not forcing any opinions. I guess you can't accept that. I thought wikipedia was supposed to be a free content and non-biased website for all people but I guess the non-creationists somewhat run the site. I really don't appreciate it.

Insect vectors

There are several families of insect that contain species that spread plant pathogens. I simply added the new category to the family page to alert interested editors to it's existence. We don't have a lot of lower level vector insect articles. It is a useful category at the family level, I'm disappointed that you are choosing to ignore that. --Peta 00:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ant Die-offs

Are you or do you know an ant expert? Has anyone reported mass die-offs of ant colonies? A friend knowing I write for Wikipedia forwarded me an e-mail of where a large amount of ants have been washed-up on MILES of shores of Topsail Island, NC. Beached Ants Kgrr 13:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Those are not ant colonies dying - those are dead ants from mating flights. The winged reproductive ants normally emerge by the millions, in synchrony, in many different ant species. They mate if they can, and most die. The only unusual thing here is that they should be concentrated in one small area, perhaps because of the wind or water currents. Otherwise, nothing odd or newsworthy about it. It happens all the time. Dyanega 17:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yellowjacket

Would you mind taking a look at the current controversy and add your thought? Pollinator 01:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Plant defense against herbivory

Hi Doug, in the process of improving this article, I was looking for some new refs on using insect-plant chemical ecology for bioprospecting /Pharmacognosy. There must hopefully be something newer than Eisner, T., 1990. Prospecting for nature's chemical riches. Chemoecology 1: 38-40. You may also have some ideas for improvement. Thanks in advance. Shyamal 16:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Straight Dope

Hey, just dropped by to say that I saw your Straight Dope replay on colony collapse disorder.  :) You're a celeb. Corvus cornix 18:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Genus name checks

Hi Doug, do you know of a source to check this Creobroter genus. I suspect confusion with Creobater but am not able to find suitable sources. thanks. Shyamal 03:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Googling suggests that Creobater is an old name for Creobroter Shyamal 04:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The best resource for Zoological genus names is the Nomenclator Zoologicus, online at [2] - it does not give all the information you might possibly need, but it is quite definitive and useful in such situations. For example, "Creobater" does not exist; there is no such validly-published genus name. Dyanega 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Straight Dope

Hey, I came here via the Straight Dope. I couldn't resist the opportunity to drop a hearty "Rock Chalk Jayhawk" in your general direction! PeteJayhawk 00:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I was not attempting to be destructive or negative to the Wiki or to youself, I was attempting, very poorly, I must add- to shed some light on some Glasgow history - from 25 odd yrs ago, and the different meanings of the term syntexis: It is a geophysical term for the 'mixture' magma that results when magmas of different densities combine. It is an old term for Tuberculosis. It is a wasp. The band was named by me, in 1980, I found it in Chambers dictionary, the definition: Liquifaction, melting-down, wasting. We are part of the history of Glasgow. an article at the Wiki relates to Dougie Vipond. this article cross references information I had added. apologies.

citing

I agree on the whole, but when I put in a "fact" tag before my contribution, I'm just trying to indicate where the authority of my source ends... if the preceding statement is general enough to be repeated in my source, I assimilate it under the same citation. But the paper on ant hygiene made no mention of building materials so I thought it may be misleading to imply it does. I was also inviting people to contribute something new on nesting materials rather than challenging the veracity of what was already there. I'd welcome a way to do this without appearing contrary :) Bendž|Ť 20:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Moth

Do you recognize this kind of moth? It landed on my son's sweatshirt at Friday Harbor, Washington (USA) this Memorial day (5/28). thmb

Kgrr 07:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Smerinthus cerisyi
Thanks!! Kgrr 19:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

xylcoopa species

Doug, I noticed that you are fixing the Xylocopa page. You should add a note about the # of species which is 700+ according to Hurd and Moure. This is probably an overestimate, but no one has actually looked at the species . It is probably true that there are only 30 or so genera as both the molecules and the morphology seem to agree on this. I have no idea how to change that box on the side, so I will leave it up to you.


Sean

There are 700+ published names, but only 450 species. Big difference. Dyanega 20:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, there are exactly 504 valid names in Xylocopa at present; 55 of those are ranked as subspecific, but may be valid species, which is why I gave the number as 500 on the page. It's fine as is. Dyanega 20:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Who are u?

Tell me who are u? the good spirit of wikipedia? If you have not morgellons and u are not a member of wikipedia, your comments are out of space an unacceptable. Leave all how it is for the sufferers, they don`t give a shit about your comments, as they told me...(367 user) But anyway if you are an insect lover I will send u some pics of insects which have been extracted from morgellons sufferer. I want your opinion about those insects sincerly, perhaps you know them more than me what kind they are. Marc

By definition, people with a delusional disorder will not "give a shit" about what anyone tells them. Anyone who tells you they have extracted insects from their flesh (and they are not bot fly larvae, screwworm fly larvae, or chigoe fleas) has a delusional disorder, since - aside from those three rare occurrences - insects do not live in people's flesh. Bot flies are Neotropical, screwworms only lay eggs in open wounds, and chigoe fleas burrow into the feet and are ALSO Neotropical. The first two are also very temporary conditions, lasting no more than a few weeks, at most. Do any of the sufferers you refer to fall into any of those three categories? If not, then there is no reason for me to examine the photos, because whatever is in the photos is either NOT an insect, or NOT extracted from their flesh. The very fact that these "Morgellons" sufferers are claiming there are insects on them reinforces the contention that Morgellons is synonymous with delusional parasitosis. It's quite simple: if there ARE insects in these people, then they don't have Morgellons, by definition. If there aren't insects in these people when they say there are, then they have delusional parasitosis. Either way, these people greatly weaken your case for the validity of Morgellons. As for who I am, I am an expert in various insect-related topics, and delusional parasitosis is one such topic. My comments are authoritative and objective, not "out of space" - it is unfortunate that you cannot accept them. Dyanega 16:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What kind of bug did you have living in your brain ram? I was either strictly convinced that insects can not live or laying their eggs under or on the skin. First of all yes there insects which can do so, as spiders, mites and sometime as well collembola. Now this new variants of morgellons moths or butterflys too, I can send u the pic of them with the morgellons biofilm and some fibers and other micro life forms on them, as well with eggs. This been extracted from a lesion upper the right eye brow from a 50 year old lady and morgellons sufferer from USA. She sended me a few samples. I just can believe it or not, but if many are sending me such samples and always this strange insects are coming up, then I must confess that something is real true about the fact that insects are in relation to morgellons somehow. I know that it`s hard to believe for non sufferers which don`t have really any idea or big imagination what`s going on with this Morgellons syndrome. Here is the link to some insect-like organism taken from sufferers skin lesions... http://www.morgellons-research.org/morgellons/morgellonsinfection.htm

Just to comapir: Sincerly I do not feel either any pain or else if you are telling me that you got last night a pain in your left toe. If I had that pain experience already before I can imagine and feel that pain too, but if I never had that sensation I can`t feel it, perhaps just with imagination.... So for that fact non suffers can`t talk anything about morgellons, but just saying bla, bla ,bla I don`t believe you.... Most of European tourists and morgellons sufferers which been in vacation in the USA (California, Texas, Florida)camed back with Morgellons. The CDC and other US autorities knows this, but for not causing any discrimination of the USA or for not blaming the tourist business and others, they will going on ignoring morgellons and for that all the non suffers just think morgellons is a fake. That is an usual primate thinking...always believing what the leaders are saying.. Marc Neumann

Mihi itch

Hi Doug, would you know how this phrase got into use in its disparaging form (was it the ornithology or the entomology folks who brought it in?). I have seen only one quote from Linnaeus where he uses mihi. Shyamal 04:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where the phrase comes from, but the word "mihi" sometimes appears on specimen labels when the author of the name on the label wrote out the label personally - basically, all it means is "I named this one myself". The context in which I have encountered it has always been this (i.e., when type specimens were originally deposited in the personal collection of the original describer). So, when going through a private collection such as this, one may encounter a lot of specimens labeled "A-us b-us mihi" and "X-us y-us mihi". I suppose if your name is something like "Radoszkowski", then writing "mihi" is simpler, especially if you expect that no one else is ever going to be reading those labels but yourself. Or, if your name is "Smith", then it would help you tell your self-named species from those named by other "Smith"s. Dyanega 16:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
three links and a ref appear on google searches, none of which are accessible to me [3],

[4], [5] and "Pape, T. 1993. Die Mihisucht - a senior synonym of the mihi itch?- Antenna 17: 117-118." The phrase (as is used in ornithology) is used when people designate new subspecies or elevate subspecies to species rank on their own whim (mihi Lat. to me), but would be interested in the history of the phrase. Shyamal 02:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

cancelling

who is cancelling always all Morgellons external links who the fuck is interested on morgellonswatch site? Not even morgellons.org the foundation is there anymore?? wikipedia is censoring the help for sufferers and they should know it now....I thought that we are living in a democracy instead in a wikipedia dictature Marc

Wasp (disambiguation)

Thank you for your work on wasp (disambiguation). Unfortunately, disambiguation pages do not follow the same stylistic rules as normal pages. In particular,

  • there should be only one live link per entry.

Please see the disambiguation style guide for more information. If you have any questions not answered there, drop me a note or try the help desk. By the way, I have already brought wasp (disambiguation) into line with the guidelines. Fourohfour 11:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Worker bees

My lead is addressed to LAY readers so I think an example is useful without getting bogged down in details that are only imortant to beekeepers and entomologists. The bee DOES collect nector for the benefit of the hive not just herself. The kin selection model stands or falls the same whether or not honeybees have free will. Cayte 01:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Cayte

But this is an encyclopedia, and it should state things in a neutral fashion, and ascribing motivations to animals is not neutral - some LAY readers will take it literally and not figuratively, and that is not appropriate. Even in the scientific sense of the word "choose" (which is not the same as "free will"), honey bees fail the criterion; there are indeed some social organisms which choose to engage in altruistic acts (i.e., they have options OTHER than engaging in such acts), but honey bees are not one of those examples. However, I do agree that it is a familiar example, and that an example is useful, so I've placed it back in a more neutral and generalized form, and replaced the phrase "choose strategies" with "exhibit strategies". Hopefully that will work for everyone. Dyanega 16:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If I have time to get to it before someone else does, I'll fix it but it could be awhile.--Margareta 14:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Morgellons Page"

Hello Dyanega and Ward,

Yes, I have been trying to edit the "Morgellons" Page. I was unaware that you had sent me a message until this morning.

I am very busy, and I apologize for the sloppy way in which I went about it, but I don't have a whole lot of time to read read rules and follow procedures. (No malice intended) I just was not aware that it was so difficult.

I added NEWER links to news media portion, and also I updated the portions pertaining to Delusions, of which Professor Wymore as well as Oklahoma State University make it quite clear that they have "Physical Evidence" that "Morgellons Disease" is NOT Psychological in nature.

I don't have time to wait 8 months and to carry on debate and to discuss wheather it is OK with you to put TRUE and WORTHY Update information on your page.

It is very unfortunate that you tend to wish to keep things slanted regarding the reality of "Morgellons Disease"

Otherwise, I believe that you would have and could have edited my information to your satisfaction, and still kept the truth, and the updated information in the article. Prove me wrong.

I don't have the time to discuss and debate. If you like the news, let me know, and I will be glad to send it back to you. Please add and edit it how you wish, but why delete it. I don't believe that to be right and proper.

Yes, I do apologize if I seem forward, but I'm quite tired of improper characterization of my Disease, which I've been a recipient ever since dealing with the Medical Establishments. It is quite inappropriate for me to have to take the same treatment from a well known and established source of information such as Wikipedia.

Yes, I've spoken with you before, I own the Website "MorgellonsUSA.com" http://www.morgellonsusa.com/

I've spoken by email with the people here from my Website address, Admin@morgellonsusa.com

It seems quite clear to me that I must call for a 'NATIONAL ASSEMBLY' To have the truth presented here, and to have the factual updated information. If you DON'T WISH TO COOPERATE, then I'll be forced to make a page at my Website on Wikipedia.

I'll post this information I am writing, plus ALL OF MY PAST email correspondence with you, and the UPDATED information which I posted repititously. THEN THE WORLD OF SCIENCE and Medicine, along with the world WILL SEE YOUR PREJUDICIAL TREATMENT to the suffering, and how you wish to hold back the truth.

Please allow me to know what you wish to do? I'm tired of playing games, NO MORE games, I've reached the end of my patience with this matter.

Sincerely, Admin@morgellonsusa.com

Wasp id

Oh, I see above that there are more hornets to deal with... but there is someone here who says this commons:Image:Ropalidia.jpg must be Polistes stigma and not a Ropalidia.[6] I looked up the commonest Ropalidia in my area here and there does seems to be some difference.

I would agree that those wasps are Polistes stigma. Dyanega 22:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is something to lighten your page too ! From http://www.improbable.com/airchives/miniair/2006/mini2006-02.txt 2006-02-08 Red-Ants-With-Green-Beards Limerick Poet There is a winner in the competition to write an original limerick that illuminates the nature of the study: 

   "Red Ants With Green Beards," R. Gadagkar, Journal
   of Biosciences, vol. 23, no. 5, December 1998, pp. 535-6.

The winner, who unlike some competitors seems to have actually read what she is writing about, is INVESTIGATOR LAURA BRETTON. Here is her limerick: 

Solenopsis invicta seek to be
Homogenous in their society
 Regicidal aggression
  Solves Hamlet's tough question:
It's to Bb, NOT 2B or 2b.

And here is Limerick Laureate Martin Eiger's take on the subject: 

The researchers examined each gene,
And it doesn't look good for the queen.
  Homozygotes, beware!
  It's a jungle out there.
You'll be killed if your beard isn't green.

cheers. Shyamal 08:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the second - better meter. ;-) Dyanega 22:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Delusional parasitosis

The article is contained in the list Wikipedia:Wikiproject Rational Skepticism/List of articles related to quackery, and all articles on that page have been tagged with the banner. I myself have no way of knowing why they were included on the list, another than perhaps because of its possible relationship to Morgellons. You are of course free to do as you see fit, realizing that others might do as they see fit as well. Not me, I'm actually only trying to figure out what all articles have been included in the 1.0 selection which relate to the projects on the WP:PROJDIR/PR page so that the various groups involved have some idea what articles relevant to their particular churches are and are not already included. However, the project does seem interested in the article, though I don't know why, and that is why the banner was placed there. John Carter 18:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Honey bees

How does Engel refute the pre-1999 data cited in the 2005 paper? I can only say that in ornithology, Engel's treatment would not be acceptable, so I thought it justified too in insects. You seem to have misunderstood or not actually read the new ref (I admit not havong read Engle, so I ask you how he refutes the older evidence.) - it is not the question of a cutoff level, but that there is scant evidence for nuluensis being less distinct than nigrocincta and ample evidence for laboriosa being at least as distinct as any other taxon in the dorsata complex and probably more. You should have let me finish; you could always have rev'd it later. Dysmorodrepanis 00:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is based on a misunderstanding: it is not Engel (1999) vs Arias & Sheppard (2005), but Engel (1999) vs Smith (1871), and Engel (1999) vs Tingek, Koeniger & Koeniger (1996).
Thus expressing a formal taxonomic opinion contra Engel (1999) seems not to be required in this case, as the two mutually exclusive alternatives have already been published in valid form according to ICZN criteria. Arias & Sheppard (2005) (and all the other sources) merely provide data strongly suggesting Engel is wrong and the original describers were right.
To quote:

"In contrast, the two samples of A. laboriosa, here also considered as a full species, formed a unique well-deWned cluster. This species has a very restricted distribution, is found primarily in Himalayan valleys at altitudes of 2000–3000m (Roubik et al., 1985; Takahashi and Nakamura, 2003) and is considered the world’s “largest honey bee” (Sakagami et al., 1980). This species is also the only reported open air single-comb nesting species that lives in high altitudes and cool temperatures. The extent of ND2 gene sequence divergence between A. laboriosa and A. dorsata (10.6–11.5%) was consistent with the published evidence of ecological and genetic barriers that supports species status." [as originally proposed by Smith (1871)] (emphasis added)

Again, "gene sequence divergence" does not magically make something a species. Subspecies are genetically divergent, and I have yet to see a single reference that delineates how much genetic divergence is supposed to indicate that something is or is not a subspecies. If you are aware of any such references, I would genuinely be interested, but I strongly suspect that you will not find any - mostly because (and I could be wrong about this) molecular biologists simply do not believe in using the rank of subspecies. Engel considers laboriosa a separate taxon from dorsata, but if molecular biologists don't accept subspecies, then they can NEVER agree with Engel's classification - but that does not invalidate the classification. Dyanega 23:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
and

"While the resolution within this latter group was poor in the consensus trees, the status of A. nuluensis and A. nigrocincta (as species distinct from sympatric A. cerana [as originally proposed by Tingek, Koeniger & Koeniger (1996)]) is well supported by behavioral and cross-species insemination studies. Arias et al. (1996) previously reported paraphyly of A. cerana with respect to A. nuluensis and this result was not contradicted in the present study. (comment added)

What I miss is a) where are your views on what constitutes taxonomically relevant work and what doesn't laid out in the ICZN, especially considering that both taxa were initially described as species and Engel merely revised that, b) an ICZN statute stating that a non-mandatory revision or subjective change must be followed simply because it is the most current proposal, even against the weight of evidence, and c) scholarly sources that prove that Engel's revision has been accepted by the broad majority of researchers, outweighing those that stick to the initial placement as species. In the meantime, I find your allegation that I am the one who does OR/peacock-wording ("non-authoritative" vs "definite") here mildly insulting. You claim that Engel (1999) settled the debate for the time being. I have yet to see evidence that this is indeed the case. Dysmorodrepanis 21:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The ICZN has nothing to do with this whatsoever - this is about taxonomy, not nomenclature; the ICZN does not have rules regarding what rank a taxon is accorded, or whether a synonymy is or is not accepted - those are SUBJECTIVE statements of opinion, and explicitly excluded from the Code (e.g., is Brontosaurus a synonym of Apatosaurus? The Code has no say in the matter). I have yet to see a single publication by a taxonomist, that post-dates Engel's treatment, which accords laboriosa or nuluensis a rank of species. If you can find one, I'll be happy to update Wikipedia to reflect it. You gave a nice list from Google Scholar of papers that treat laboriosa as a species, but if you examine them, the authors were (1) all NOT taxonomists, and (2) all apparently unaware of Engel's revision (based on those with a visible bibliography). What is that supposed to prove? That ignorance decides the issue, like the continued use of Brontosaurus? That is also insulting to taxonomists like myself; we cannot help it if people choose to IGNORE our publications, and if they do, that does not magically invalidate our work. You are essentially arguing that taxonomists have no place in the scientific community, as long as (a) no one pays any attention to what they have to say, and/or (b) molecular biologists disagree with how taxonomists define taxa. The bottom line is that after 8 years, no bee taxonomists have come forward to dispute Engel's classification, as one would expect if there was dissent. I don't exactly think the world's bee taxonomists are going to gather to issue a press release on this any time soon just to let everyone know that they are content with Engel's work. More to the point, I see no reason why the taxonomic hierarchy in WP should be based upon the opinions of people who are not taxonomists; just because someone publishes an opinion does not automatically make them an authority - but when you publish a revision of a genus, then you ARE the authority. Dyanega 23:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Mimicry

It should also be pointed out that camouflage may often take the form of resembling both biotic and abiotic components of the environment. Would a crab that resembles its substrate, a mixture of algae and rock, be considered a mimic? I think you're overstating the way mimicry blurs into camouflage though - mimicry is different in that the signal has a significance for the model. 'Mimicry' of a plant by a praying mantis does not lower the fitness of the plant, and mimicry of algae by the crab does not lower the fitness of the algae, but mimicry of a plant by another plant lowers the model's fitness as the truly aposematic plant will be eaten more if predators receive mixed signals about its profitability. This is really the defining aspect of mimicry, even though some would extend the defintion to a broader scope. Richard001 01:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You make some good points there, I hadn't thought about the katydid's mimicry reducing the fitness of its model in that respect. The topic is certainly intricate and difficult to define, and I'm still quite unsatisfied with the lead section, even if it might be an improvement on what was there before. Perhaps a better example would be the dead leaf mantis - it certainly doesn't lower the fitness of dead leaves, although in that case the model isn't really biotic anyway. Basically I'm just trying to point out that situations where the model's fitness isn't affected are an important case. You're certainly a more qualified person than me, so any work you can do on the article would be much appreciated - the body is in much need of work, especially expansion, and I have little time to work on it at the moment. Richard001 07:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I remember now that I came to this understanding from the Encyclopedia Britannica article on the subject: 'The distinction between camouflage and mimicry is not always clear when only the model and the mimic are at hand. When the receiver is known and its reactions understood, however, the distinction is quite clear: in mimicry the signals have a special significance for the receiver and for the sender, which has evolved the signals in order to be perceived by the receiver; in camouflage the sender seeks to avoid detection by the receiver through imitation of what is neutral background to the receiver.'
I'm not sure how accurate that is as I haven't read much literature on the subject, but it is written by a subject expert so probably has some level of acceptance. There are still problems with this distinction though, for example the aggressive mimicry article describes the zone-tailed hawk's resemblance of vultures, which have no special significance to the hawk's prey. Richard001 08:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly - MANY cases of "aggressive mimicry" highlight out the problems with this definition; it seems like a completely arbitrary distinction to claim that a flower-mimicking mantid is a mimic, but a leaf-mimicking mantid on the same plant is NOT. Or, more pointedly, a fish whose body is camouflaged but has a flashing fish-shaped lure on a fin filament is therefore simultaneously a mimic and NOT a mimic (like the tea/no tea conundrum in Hitchhiker's Guide). That being said, it comes down to this: can the article list multiple competing definitions for mimicry and still manage to be written without being confusing? It might be crucial to compile a list of actual published definitions, and see how the article shapes up from there. Dyanega 17:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

Wow! Thanks for the welcome. I just started contributing last night, but I was editing history sites. I do a Web site on the Florida Civil War Battle of Olustee and came here to correct links due to our move to a new URL. Then I started looking at some of the Insect info and had to add links to some of my sites. Then I started looking at the text on some pages. I think this could become a serious blackhole for time and will keep an eye on how much time I spend here. I am still in the early learning stages and was unsure how to reply to your message until I clicked on this link. Tom

Morgue-llons fruits

Just to say that if they swear on your talk page, you have every right to report them for their personal attacks, even if you leave the comments here to show what they're like.:) Thanks for your recent rewrite of the lead, don't know if it's still there, but it's excellent.:)Merkinsmum 20:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

morgies

Hi Dyanega -

Sorry if I always misspell your name. :) I'm trying. Anyway, it looks like there was a mix up on my talk page and I inadvertantly deleted your response. (Please see my talk page.) I copied over your sandbox comments onto my talk page to read them over in light of your comments (just to make it easier so I wouldn't have to flip back and forth between screens), then I deleted them, or so I thought, but I guess I deleted your response instead... which I never saw. Anyway, I hope that when you read my user page it will make more sense. I wasn't trying to pull anything... sincerely.

I was reading over your talk page and can see where you have been received some disparaging comments from people with Morgellons, so I can understand your having reservations about me. I am sincerely trying to make the article less biased. Of course, you may not think it is biased at all. I don't want to get into fights with people. I want to focus on the content of the article.

Although you wrote that I have been editing for 9 months -- this isn't really accurate. I edited in Oct/nov and then took a long break with only sporatic entries until very recently. I am still very new at wiki. And I don't work for the MRF. I volunteer for them, BTW.

Please try to just focus on my edits, not comment on me personally -- my motives, etc, and I will refrain from saying that you are personally attacking me -- deal? :)

I have an sincere question and would appreciate your input as an entomologist. Let's pretend for a minute that Morgellons is "real." I've wondered if the disease is fungal and that the fibers are fungal spores, as Kalani suggests. If people were emitting fungus, would that explain why they are finding insects on their skin? (The whole idea that they are coming from inside their skin is kind of horrifying and I hope that this is a mistake.) What would make people suddenly very attractive to bugs? Not all Morgies report this, but some do. Is cellulose part of fungus? Do you know if other human fungal diseases cause the body to produce cellulose? I realize that the research is so limited and I'm trying to make sense of it. I wish we had a million dollars and could have people just really study it once and for all, and put an end to this debate. Hopefully the CDC will do this.

When you examine fiber samples from Morg patients, are they similar -- do they send you fibers or bugs? Have you ever had the fibers tested? Are you affiliated with a University that may be willing to test the fibers to determine their composition? Wouldn't it be nice to know what they are made of? I don't believe that the fibers are worms or anything because no one has found anything like that when they have examined them. Yet people report seeing the clear fibers move (but not the red, blue or black ones). Do you know if fungal spores move?

Anyway, I appreciate your input as a scientist. I'm sure that you have a lot of knowledge. I hope that your mind isn't completely closed to the idea that maybe there is something new going on. I know it seems improbable, but you never know. You mentioned fungus always produces one color fungal spore -- there is never the case of a spores with more than one color. The information that I have from talking to people indicates that the fibers are generally red, blue, black and clear, and that the black and clear are tubular and the red and blue are flat (like ribbons). Have you noticed anything like this in your research?

You were right about Citovsky. I did email him and he said that very preliminary tests indicate the presence of cellulose in the fibers . I thought that he was just testing for agro, but I was wrong.

I would appreciate your input.

Thanks, Pez

I can re-insert the deleted comments, if you wish, though I see that Fyslee else made a link there to them, if you want to read it. Since you posted here, I'll respond here. First, just a little background to help you understand: I myself have, over my life, experienced numerous skin problems, and even neurological problems; this includes scabies, folliculitis, cysts, and some fungal infections while working in Brazil, including one which no doctor has ever identified, and has left my feet permanently discolored. I have experienced acephalic migraine with hemiparesis, and frequent episodes of paresthesia - so I am personally quite familiar with sensation of things crawling on one's skin when there is nothing there, and have actually HAD parasitic organisms in my skin. Because of these various experiences, I am considerably better acquainted with, and well-educated regarding, topics such as skin conditions, neurological disorders, and parasites - my expertise is both personal and professional. This entire topic is not simply theory or speculation for me, in other words; I have first-hand experience, and am familiar with scientific and medical literature surrrounding these issues.
So, that being said, I'll try to answer your questions to the best of my knowledge, without going into tiny details. You can - and likely will - choose to ignore my opinion, but you did ask, and I will assume that you wanted an honest answer.
First, the basic facts:
  • (1) Insects do NOT live in people's skin, ever. The list of insects that are associated with human skin is VERY short, and they are either very temporary visitors there (fleas and bot flies), or live externally (lice). Chiggers are not insects, and are also temporary, which basically leaves scabies mites as the only legitimate macroscopic organism that sets up long-term residence in human skin. It is a virtual certainty, in my opinion, that some of the people who have diagnosed themselves with Morgellons have scabies mites. Dermatologists should be quite capable of recognizing, diagnosing, and treating scabies. My case was diagnosed immediately. The condition may be uncommon, but it is well-known and has rather distinctive symptomology. Scabies DOES NOT involve the sensation of things crawling on your skin. The mites are far too small for their presence or movements to be FELT. Bottom line: if it isn't scabies, then there are no insects or mites living in your skin.
  • (2) NO insects or mites feed on the fungi that infect human skin. Even if such fungi were external, this would not be a viable feeding habit, because of the rarity of infected hosts - it makes proper vectoring and transmission virtually impossible (basically, how would such an insect ever manage to get from one infected person to another).
  • (3) And - most significantly of all - we KNOW the identities of every macroscopic organism associated with human skin. We've known them all, intimately, for centuries; nothing that lives in or on humans is going to be unknown at this stage in human history. If there were something that fed on skin fungi, we'd know about it. I know there's a common perception that "science doesn't know everything", but what people almost universally fail to recognize is that science ALSO knows and admits where there are and are not gaps IN that knowledge. We do NOT know every insect in the Amazonian rainforest, but we DO know every insect that lives on human beings, for the simple reason that we know where all the human beings are, and if there were something living on ANY of them, then we'd know about it. Unless there's some lost tribe somewhere with some novel parasite, and no one has ever met anyone from this lost tribe, then that's all there is to it.
  • (4) In the present context, some - such as Dr. Uppal - have suggested that there may be nematodes involved. There are some nematodes that can live in human skin, but - and this is quite important - they are very easy to detect and recognize AS nematodes.
PLEASE Note that all of the preceding organisms have nothing to do with fibers of any sort. This is extremely important to bear in mind.
  • (5) Cellulose is NOT part of fungus. Cellulose is produced by plants, some protists, and some bacteria. Fungi are primarily composed of chitin, which is not a fiber, though it is chemically very close to cellulose. These two chemicals are probably the most abundant polysaccharides on the planet, and are very easy to recognize and test for.
  • (6) The range of colors and structures that a given fungus is capable of producing is VERY limited. More to the point, I know of no fungal "fibers" that have any significant structural integrity or tensile strength. This is, in fact, a fairly distinctive thing ABOUT fungi - fibers, as we know and define them, are essentially absent from the fungal kingdom.

Now, for the opinion, based primarily on the above facts. The bottom line, from a biological standpoint, is this: IF Morgellons involves an infectious agent (which I and many others still consider to be a very big "IF", but you asked me to consider that possibility, so I am, for the sake of argument), then regardless of what it might ultimately prove to be, the one line of "evidence" that is utterly incompatible with it being biological in nature is the fibers. The fibers are the one part of the puzzle that CANNOT, in any way, be made to fit - no virus, no bacterium, no fungus, no nematode, no mite, no insect, could possibly explain or be associated with such a thing, based on more than a millennium of human understanding. In a nutshell, this is the primary reason the scientific and medical communities reject Morgellons as a real disease - not just because of what the fibers people have submitted have turned out to be, but because that is simply not how biological infections manifest themselves. It's like a plant biologist who claims to have discovered a new plant disease which makes plants bleed human blood when they are cut. There is no mechanism in nature to make such a thing happen, and no reason FOR such a mechanism to occur in nature. That plants could bleed would be an absolutely EXTRAORDINARY claim, and would require equally extraordinary and unambiguous evidence to support it. In exactly the same manner, the claim that something could infect human skin and make fibers appear is, in plain fact, absolutely extraordinary; the scientific community is entirely justified in being skeptical of such claims, and after 5 years there has not yet been ANY evidence that would qualify as support. As has been noted repeatedly, the claims and evidence regarding the origin and nature of the fibers (at least those put forth by the MRF and affiliates such as Wymore and the NMO) are contradictory, and offer NO support for the claims. This stuff about colored fibers is what completely undermines everything, and turns it from legitimate inquiry into fringe theory; it is utterly unbelievable, and no one has yet given a reason to believe it. As long as the definition and diagnosis of Morgellons includes the fibers, there is virtually no hope of it being recognized as legitimate. There might be a real disease there, but if so, it certainly doesn't involve fibers.

At any rate, you will note that this is not what the WP entry on Morgellons says, because I know not to insert my personal opinions into articles I edit. If you want to discuss this in public further, I'd ask to do so on your own personal talk page, rather than mine (since I archive mine, meaning it will not stay in public view for long). Dyanega 18:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Araucania (genus)

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Araucania (genus), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Jeepday (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

In or from

Hi, The evidence shows the bees do not die "in" beehive but disappear "from" beehive. Secondly, a cavity can be call hive also. Finally I would propose use instead: "...worker bees from Western honey bee colonies abruptly disappear." The "beehive" is unnecessary, I think.

I see the article and the subject of "colony collapse disorder" is a special for you. I ask for citation @ "Queen is uncharacteristically evident outside the hive" symptom. Would you know where the symptom is described? This is something what interests me. Best regards, Andrew S.--131.104.219.177 01:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made the suggested change to the word "from" rather than in. The term "beehive" is defined as "a human-provided structure in which bees are induced to live and raise their young" - natural cavities are NOT "beehives". WP should not promote sloppy colloquialisms. As for the note on queens outside the hive, I do not know where that information came from; you'd have to track down the editor who first included it. For now, the citation needed tag is fine. Dyanega 20:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Nominated Enigmatode for speedy deletion

Due to the fact the article makes no sense (Nonsensepage) and no reliable sources could be found to verify the claims. Sorry I did not notify you sooner as the template only said to notify originator of page. I later read major editors should also be notified. The nomination was deleted by the way. Ward20 11:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion was denied and then the article was redirected to Morgellons so trying again:

WP:PROD==Enigmatode== A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Enigmatode, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Ward20 15:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Brown Recluse

I'm not sure why your so hung up on the fact that I'm trying to inform people what's out there. I listed information directly from a source that did studies. If you fear information then maybe those that do shouldn't go online. It's information that needs to be known, not sheltered. Some feel that this, "Wikipedia" is the end all as proof to most things that come into question. If it's not listed in the article it's not true regardless of links. I listed the info in the Misdiagnoses section as it should be listed. The 25 words I listed doesn't make the article much longer but let's readers know what has been discovered. I thank you for your time.

[qoute]Hi. Since the list of states in which recluses have been intercepted is long, and does NOT mean there are recluses in those states, there is no point fear-mongering by listing them all in the text of the article. It serves NO PURPOSE to inform people that a single brown recluse was once found in a moving van entering Maine, for example, and can only cause needless distress among readers who overreact to such things. It is enough that the readers are given a link to a reference that has such a list. Let's try to keep the article short and sweet and free of sensationalism. Thanks, Dyanega 08:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[/qoute] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Worryfree23 (talk • contribs).

CCD

Hello! I responded here. Thanks anyway for your oversight, cheers! Tazmaniacs 19:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Trophylaxis"

Thanks for the heads-up about mispelling trophallaxis. I thought it was odd that there wasn't a page for it and I suppose I jumped to conclusions. I'm still new to Wikipedia and I appreciate the guidance, Corbiculad 21:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hobo Spider

As soon as you show a citation using the criteria you expect of others then I will do the same, and I have plenty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makusx2a (talk • contribs) 18:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dyanega/archive4&oldid=715883294"