Talk:Crab louse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Insects (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Self-contradictory[edit]

Wait, it says that they can survive being away from the human host for like a week, and then it lists one of the reasons that they arent transmitted via toilet seat as it not living long without a human host... edit: ALSO, it says that it dies within 1-2 days of falling off the host under life cycle...

Mpawluk 04:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Well then is it possible to get crabs from a toilet seat?

It may be possible if one rubs ones hairy pubic bits on the toilet seat while one pisses/shitsPeter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Charming. Atypicaloracle (talk) 12:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Another contradiction: first it says that adults have it more often, but children could get it via sharing towels and laundry. Then at the end it says children (and teens!!) having it is a sign of sexual abuse. Really? If nothing else, at least delete the 'teens' from that unless you're prepared to make a serious value judgment regarding consent. We can't let things like this slip through! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Reid[edit]

I have removed the statement "They were originally discovered by Scientist Joseph Reid in 1842." They have obviously been known to humankind for a long time an d were described by Linnaeus. Joseph Reid Leach established the genus Phthirus. See http://www.phthiraptera.org/taxonomy.html. William Avery 21:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If it meant that the stages in the life cycle were first described by Reid, can someone put that back in as a sourced statement. William Avery 21:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverted vandalism by user Tom1234567[edit]

--Atomicskier 20:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy[edit]

Is it really neccessary to state so many times how crabs got the nickname? 64.184.139.58 18:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

False Information[edit]

While I cannot myself edit the information on the page, I hope that someone can. Under treatment is states in the first sentance that a Dr. Eligh P. Hanning discovered a treatment. This is false, as no such doctor exists, aas the name is my own and it appeared here as a practical joke.

        • Eligh

Surely only one image is needed?[edit]

It seems unnecessary to have two identical images. SteveRamone 21:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

: agreed --Casket56 (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll take two out, then. - 124.168.110.99 (talk) 07:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Unsigned contribution[edit]

I forgot to sign in when I made edit on December 12, 2007, which is credited to IP address 66.237.109.194. Rick lightburn (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Vector?[edit]

Is the crab louse a vector of other diseases? The head & body louse pages discuss this, but there seems to be no mention one way or the other here. 144.124.16.33 (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Toilet Seat[edit]

My friend just got crabs when he was at an airport. It was on the toilet seat in one of the restrooms. Should this be added as a transmission source? Public bathrooms like that are used so often the crabs can be spread within the period of time they will live. 96.248.98.212 (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Bleach as a means of Removal[edit]

Does the traditional/media usage of bleach as a means to remove pubic lice have any relevancy in this post? I.E. "Sailors used bleach as a means to remove crabs." Or is this considered an urban myth?Jcook5 (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

While bleach would indeed work for killing the crabs the amount of 'collateral damage' to the areas you used it on could quite easily result in permanent scaring or worse. --212.140.128.33 (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hosts other than Humans[edit]

If anyone's an expert on these things, there's been a question at the reference desk as to why humans are the only hosts for these critters. If anyone knows, feel free to drop by at the following link: Editing Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Crab Lice. Buddy431 (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Suitability?[edit]

Is it really suitable to have the 'conservation status' of crab lice? Where did anyone even FIND this? Are you sure this isn't the conservation status of the crustaceans? Sorry, it simply seems rather gross, and again, I don't think they are under any sort of conservation watch. I googled the subject and could find NOTHING.

Carolina de Witte —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.180.248 (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It is parasites like this that should be extinct, not nice harmless creatures!86.141.94.42 (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Order[edit]

As this article is about the disease not the crab louse itself the disease box should go first.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it? It looks like an article about an animal to me, but then I'm a biologist. You're a medic, so you see an article about a disease. Quite probably, it's an article about both. To the casual reader, there may not be a distinction, and I would imagine it is more useful for them to see the animal in question, and be given some information about it, than it is to see meaningless identifiers from medical databases. External links normally go at the bottom, and that's all {{Infobox disease}} contains in this case. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The article is actually about Pediculosis pubis to which I suggest we move it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is a good example of a layout this page should resemble Hepatitis B. Moved based on Wikipedia's naming convention here [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
We have three pages on the three human infection. We can create a page for crab louse much like we have one for Body louse keeping the biological and medical aspects linked but separate.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Whoa there. We haven't even started to discuss this. I see no consensus at all for this move, which you must have realised was going to be contentious. I'm going to put it back, and then we can all calm down and put our cases forward to the community. If you want a separate article about the disease, then fine, do that. If you want to take the material from this article to do so, then fine, do that. Do not simply usurp another article and change its scope unanimously, when you know there will be opposition. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
This page is about the disease as one can easily see by reading it. I will request outside input. Here is the naming guideline [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The MEDMOS guideline says the most common name used in recent papers should be used. It's a fairly crude way, but searching google scholar for papers in the ten years shows that Phthirus pubis is the most common. If we were to use Wikipedia:COMMONNAME, it looks to me as though it should be named pubic lice, as it's the only name I'd ever heard of for this disease and animal until 15 minutes ago. Smartse (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)FWIW in this case I can't see how it's possible to separate the disease and the animal and I think the taxobox should go first. I think there are probably more important things to work on in the article though than arguing over this - it would seem like a better idea to concentrate on adding content using some of these and these references. Smartse (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

We separate this sort of content as suggested on many articles such as Hepatitis B and Hepatitis B virus. I have moved the medical content to Pediculosis pubis and will continue working on it there while this is discussed. I am fine with Stemonitis suggestion to split this page. If the community feels that the content here deals with the crab louse in a format deemed suitable by Wikiproject Insects I have no problems.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree that the name should be Phthirus pubis as this is what is used in the ICD10. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Misread the ICD 10. The correct name is indeed Pediculosis pubis per Uptodate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The comparable guideline at wp:Naming conventions (fauna) seems to be at least as applicable, if not more so, than wp:MEDMOS#Naming_conventions. As presently written, however, this article is far more focussed on the infestation than on the organism. A serious buildup of content by WP:WikiProject Insects would give more reason to maintain this article, as distinct from the medical focus it presently has, which really belong to a distinct article such as Doc James has started. I'd suggest, for instance, an examination of its physiology, reproductive cycle, other hosts, endoparasites, symbionts, global prevalence are all worthy of expansion. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I would support a separation into (1) an article on the organism, and (2) an article on the cutaneous condition. ---kilbad (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Kilbad; support split. --Arcadian (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, believe it or not, I actually came here looking for information about the animal, not the disease. It seems that we now have two articles with nearly identical content, both of which talk far more about the disease than the animal. The header even reads "This article is about the animal. For the disease...", which just comes across as pretty obviously contradictory once one begins actually reading the article.SMTBSI (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Size[edit]

There is nothing about how small these critters are.--194.72.120.131 (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the photo of the louse needs a scale. Also the photos showing "crabs on abdomen" and so on don't appear to be photos of crabs, but of maculae caeruleae — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.18.18.188 (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how this will go with copyright issues, but here: http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/parasitology/ppubiadt.jpg is a good image with a scale bar. So a body length of about 2mm (not 2μm as one article has!). Old_Wombat (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Zoology, not medicine[edit]

Medical aspects are covered at Pediculosis pubis (which seems to have split off from this article in late 2010). This article, then, should cover the zoology of the animal, not the infestation it causes (insofar as the two can be separated, at least!). I've done a certain amount of shuffling of material to make it less medical, but it really needs more zoology! Anyone care to join with me in improving it? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 21:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


Name[edit]

There is a request to move this article to public louse. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. Pubic louse is (AFAIK) more widely used. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This article claims that "Phthirus" is a misspelling of "Pthirus". The article on Pthirus gorillae claims that "Pthirus" is a misspelling of "Phthirus". It seems that both spellings are widely used by people who ought to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lingvano (talkcontribs) 15:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)