|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aedes albopictus article.|
|WikiProject Insects||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
I actually don't see why you guys consider this species of low importance only. It has been named one of the world's worst invasive species, has been and still is spreading into much of the English-speaking world and is areal threat because is an important vector of Chikungunya, may also transmit Dengue, heartworm and very probably West Nile Virus and other viruses. It has been involved in a major Chikungunya outbreak on La Réunion and a small one in Italy. There is no reason to believe that this may not happen in the US and other parts of the world. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
German Wikipedia article on Aedes albopictus
For those who understand it, take a look at the German Wikipedia page: de:Asiatische Tigermücke. It is currently the most detailed page on the Asian tiger mosquito in the international Wikipedia community, with many references. It could serve as a source for someone willing to expand the English page on the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I reverted the "apparently" vandal-entered text to the previous version. People may want to keep an eye on the article for a while to ensure that nothing else happens.
- I've removed "These species, however, do appear to favor human titiees." Jujutacular T · C 17:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism - unable to edit out?
whats with the strange text at the end of the section "Invasive Species"
with the text:
Bold textOH YEA!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jones Senior Rockz!!!!!!!!!!!!!--126.96.36.199 18:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC
yet when you click the edit button, it doesn't show up, so attempt to edit it out, is impossible?
I hope this message will notify a spupervisor or something to check it out.
188.8.131.52 02:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Bold text==Intro cites== Note I changed some code in the intro section. This was done for a number of reasons:
- the "cite news" template in particular is not flexible enough to handle the spectrum of citations; it only allows a very restricted input of information.
- the template does not handle dates unambigously.
- the access date is really the least important bit. Especially here, it is far more important to know when the info was originally published.
- the templates are usually a waste of space. Especially in the crammed intro section this is important; new editors can easily break the bloated and cryptic template code. The new code is more intuitive for newbies (it uses only standard markup) and nearly 10% more compact. (For the "Science" citation, the template uses a whopping 30% more code compared to what's necessary to procude the exactly same (unwikified) output using "plain vanilla" wiki markup. Even the wikified "vanilla" code is only as long as the unwikified one with the template. So KISS these templates goodby and code refs manually. Takes a bit longer, but it keeps the code sleek and n00b-friendly, and you will be able to handle even the most unusual sources without problems.)
I removed the "NEST Sheet Dec'98", used to "source" an event that happened 4 years after the "source" was published! This is where leaving out the publication date and using these crappy templates will get you. In a topic that is of health concern, factual errors are an even more serious problem than elsewhere.
"http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/insect/overview.php" does not source the arrival of the ATM in E Canada, but is about the local presence of EEE (the horse disease). This disease also has an indigenous vector (Culiseta melanura). I have therefore removed the ref. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC) (The male is bigger than the female because she has to transport food to her children.)
Media hype creates a misnomer
Why is it that Aedes albopictus is not called the forest day mosquito? That term pre-dates the use of Asian tiger mosquito as a common name. Of course, it would not be so media-friendly to have a mosquito named the "forest day mosquito" when everyone can talk about an Asian tiger. The "forest day" is more appropriate since its home was originally in the forest and it is a known day biter. I always thought tigers rested during the day and hunted at night.
Asian Tiger in the UK?
I read an article from 2 years on Mail Online about two Asian Tigers which have been spotted in the UK. Here look-http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-476562/Deadly-mosquito-landed-Britain.html m w (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Phthinosuchusisanancestor i was here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Invasive Species section
This article states that "In 1990-1991, they were most likely brought to Italy in used tires from Georgia (USA)..." Applause for good writing.
But the article goes on to state that the "Asian tiger mosquitoes were first found in North America in a shipment of used tires at the port of Houston in 1985." But how did they come to North America and where did they come from? In used tires from Asia??? Thanks! Rumjal ````
The current map showing the spread of the mosquito seems to be out of date. Arizona, which is not highlighted as a place it has been spotted has claimed several invasions by this creature. It is mentioned here. Sorry if I was wrong, just trying to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is greatly outdate. I've just been biten by one. In Oslo, Norway. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- They are also in Israel now, this maps really does need updating. http://www.jpost.com/Health-and-Science/Guidelines-to-stop-Asian-tiger-mosquito-infection one article, just google asian tiger mosquito israel and you'll see lots of similar stories. - Cilibinarii (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
No mention of bite effect?
There is nothing in the article regarding the effect and behavior of the biting, not even a single word "itch".
Well, in my experience (I'm in Japan), the mosquito is really aggressive and can bite you multiple times. I once interrupted a mosquito during daylight when I caught it in the act, and about 30 minutes later I got 4 mosquito bumps. The one at the place where I caught it was very small, the others large at 8mm. Compared to normal mosquitoes, the bumps are much larger at about 10-20mm diameter (only a Black Fly causes bigger bumps from what I experienced), they itch more, and itch longer (typically 48-72 hours compared to just 18-24 hours for a normal mosquito bites). Also, I actually kill more in my home (which entered through a tiny slit in my flyscreen door which won't fully close), than I see outside (contrary to what the article claims). --Zom-B (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)