This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Aleeta curvicosta, commonly known as the floury baker or floury miller, is a species of cicada common in eastern Australia between November and May. Described by German naturalist Ernst Friedrich Germar in 1834, the name of the genus and its common names are derived from its appearance of having been dusted with flour. Adults average 9–10 cm (4 in) in length.
Emery, D.L., Emery, S.J., Emery, N.J. and Popple, L.W. (2005) A phenological study of the cicadas (Hemiptera: Cicadidae) in western Sydney, New South Wales, with notes on plant associations. Australian Entomologist, 32, 97–110.
Ewart, A. (2001a) Emergence patterns and densities of cicadas (Hemiptera: Cicadidae) near Caloundra, south-east Queensland. Australian Entomologist, 28, 69–84.
Anyone got access? --99of9 (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll take a look at this one. Comments to follow. -- Yzx (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Not a deal-breaker for GA, but generally articles shouldn't have references in the intro. The intro should be a summary of referenced facts in the article body
agree - I will work on this tomorrow - need to sleep now refs removed. all were duplicates apart from two tertiary sources which added nothing substantial. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
medium-large-sized -- do you mean "moderately large" or "medium to large"?
Have removed that as the reference which is almost a monograph says "medium-sized", which is odd as I always thought they were pretty large. Have removed - might be best to just let stats speak for themselves Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
One ref said medium, another said large, thus my wording. Isn't it useful to give some indication of size in the lead?--99of9 (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Since Aleeta is a redirect to this article, it should be bolded in the taxobox and an authority provided
Aah, something I meant to get round to. There is reference to an undescribed second species...so was intending to make a genus page. Was looking to ask to gain consensus on that one done Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Both the common names and the name of the genus are -- this construction is ambiguous, suggest "and the genus name are"
typically emerge throughout a three-month period from late November to late February -- I'm not sure how this relates to the earlier statement about how they are common from November to May
the latter is when they emerge ...and hence can be seen for some time afterwards, hence the first period is longer. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be clearer then to combine the two sentences as "Mature individuals typically emerge through a three-month period from late November to late February, and live for two to four weeks"? -- Yzx (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I reverted. We don't have a lifespan for this species - the 2-4 weeks is typical of large cicadas, but there is variation between species. The 2-4 week info in the main body is able to couch and explain this, but we don't have space in the lead, and it might mislead readers into thinking that this species lives 2-4 weeks, whereas without further study, that's just a reasonable guess.--99of9 (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Germar had not specified a location within Australia -- it sounds like the type locality is somewhere in Australia? In that case it's not completely unknown, and the previous sentence should reflect this
hmmm, Australia is a continent and the range is nearly 3000 km. I added 'exact'. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The fact that tephrogaster is a junior synonym is never mentioned (it would also be helpful to rearrange the taxobox synonym list so that recombinations of the original name are grouped together)
added. taxobox synonyms were in chronological order - rearranged. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Thus the species was known as Tibicen curvicostus, T. tephrogaster and finally Abricta curvicosta from 1906 -- this implies that the name of the species changed chronologically as Tibicen curvicostus -> Tibicen tephrogaster -> Abrica curvicosta, which doesn't sound right to me. Are you certain it wasn't that C. tephrogaster was moved to Abricta/Tibicen and then was synonymized with A. curvicostus? -- Yzx (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Reorganized - slightly out of chronological sequence. Can't find date the two names were synonymised, but source indicates it's a long time Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
However, a review of the genus in 2003 showed it to be a disparate group of species -- what "it" refers to is ambiguous here
Terms like "infuscation", "periodic array" should be explained, "ovipositor" should be linked in its first occurrence, and "cuticle" should be linked
'infuscation' explained, 'periodic array' replaced with 'repeating pattern' which it essentially is, 'ovipositor' now linked at first instance. working on last....Arthropod cuticleCas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
The article on opercula doesn't explain what this structure is in insects; putting a short note there would be helpful
The noise it makes when it is in distress (eg when a bird has it in its beak). Reworded.--99of9 (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
"dominant frequency" should be linked or explained
The cicadas book I borrowed from the lirary some time ago. I will try and fetch it tomorrow and check this out. I think it is fairly clear what the term means but agree on double checking with source Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
✔ done, sourced to a paper dealing with the physics of cicada song. --99of9 (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The abdominal air sacs act as a resonant chamber -- the article hasn't previously established that the species has these sacs
expanded a little and established how the floury baker uses theirs Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
when clustered together can attain sufficient volume to repel birds -- is this intentional? And how does this occur?
I'd say it's been evolutionarily selected for, I doubt the cicadas are thinking about birds when they decide to cluster. The volumes of each cicada simply add up. However... I included that info from a general ref about cicadas in general, and have since seen that the floury baker is "solitary", so maybe this doesn't apply at all to them. --99of9 (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
✔ removed because I cannot confirm that this species ever has sufficient density to do this. --99of9 (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Seems like the discussion of the differences between Aleeta and Tyrella belongs under taxonomy, since it's the justification for splitting up Abricta
Since you didn't capitalize the common names of the cicada, you shouldn't capitalize the names of the birds or lizard for consistency
✔ done (apart from Torresian which seems to be a proper noun) --99of9 (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Australian cicadas are also preyed on by the cicada killer wasp (Exeirus lateritius), which stings and paralyses cicadas high in the trees, making them drop to the ground where the cicada-hunter mounts and carries them, pushing with its hind legs, sometimes over a distance of 100 meters, until they can be shoved down into its burrow, where the numb cicada is placed onto one of many shelves in a 'catacomb', to form the food-stock for the wasp grub that grows out of the egg deposited there -- this is a very long run-on sentence that should be split up
The article is good on comprehensiveness. It could just use some tweaks to readability and flow. -- Yzx (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Re "compared to some other Australian species nearly two orders of magnitude more dense, and some American Periodical Cicadas occurring at "super-abundant" densities of over one million per hectare" - is this context necessary. Ceoil (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'm divided on this one - yes I suppose the speech is a little flowery (floury?) but there is a pretty stark difference in numbers and I think that might be worth really highlighting for the reader Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
There are always outliers, I'd leave out the "super-abundant" factoid. Ceoil (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
✔Ok - the super abundant ones don't occur in Australia, so they're a less relevant comparison anyway. Removed. --99of9 (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
"with forewings between 3 and 5.1 cm (1.4–2 in) long" - "spanning"? Ceoil (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I get what you're suggesting here, but "spanning" implies it is at both ends of the range, which obviously cannot apply to an individual cicada, whereas the current wording can apply to both the individual cicadas, and the species as a whole. --99of9 (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm satisfied that my issues have been addressed, so I'm promoting the article. Great job! -- Yzx (talk) 05:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
"The floury baker's distinctive appearance and loud call make it popular with children"....Maybe with pugsly addams.....a giant hairy scary looking bug popular with children? Right. I'd think if there was ever a call for a source on a claim, this would qualify. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC) Zencycle
It is sourced down the bottom of the article - yes kids collect these critters and trade them. Probably not so much these days with the advent of the Nintendo DS but still....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)