Talk:Indianmeal moth

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vkrishnan2. Peer reviewers: Iginsberg, Felderp.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hi, I changed some sentence structure in the lead section. I corrected citations so they appeared after the period. I changed the title systematics to the more conventional on Wikipedia, taxonomy. I broke large paragraphs up in the description section. I added some terminology to the changes in fecundity section about olfactory receptors. I also added information about cannibalism of siblings and kinship selection. Interesting sections on parasites and immunity. I would recommend expanding the lead section and clarifying the section on food and pupation site competition. Felderp (talk) 03:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Review of previous edits

Hi All, I spent some time checking out the previous edits and I believe this article is now worthy of Good Article Status. Everything is detailed and there are many sections covering all sorts of topics about the moth. The credibility of the sources is strong as well. Great work! Iginsberg (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Added Information

Hi Indian mealmoth enthusiasts,

I just added 18 different sections to the article. Please feel free to go through them and make edits. Hopefully, we can get this article to improve in status together! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkrishnan2 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Vkrishnan2, great work on this article! I just have a couple small suggestions: in the overview, you mention that the Indian mealmoth is often confused with the almond moth without an explanation of why --this could be an interesting addition. You also did a good job incorporating subsections in improve the structure of the article. Under the Life history section, you could add a Pupation subsection to make the section more complete and re-allot some of the information about pupation that you include under Adulthood. Thanks! Hanna peterman (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

New Picture

Hi Alexfree. I uploaded another picture. It's clearer and shows the main characteristics. Hope you don't mind. ;)

Trap Question

Where do i get the little traps for the indian meal moth?

I bought meal moth trap an ebay. The traps work well to tell where they are coming from but they are not effective to elimiate them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julesdesign (talk • contribs) 02:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Name

I'm sorry but I can see no linguistic justification for "Indianmeal" as one word, it just doesn't make sense. It is a "meal moth" "from" India... I reverted the last edit and suggest we revert "Indianmeal" to "Indian meal" throughout—GRM (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted Grmanners because the existing references for the article use "Indianmeal" as one word. But checking, I'm not sure which is correct. Both appear to be used in biological scientific sources. [1] [2] The article should be at the title of the more common usage, whichever that is. Or it would be perfectly acceptable to put the article at the scientific name and redirect from both. If the existing redirect needs to be deleted, I can do that; drop me a note at my talk page. The article should probably use the form that it is titled at, except for also mentioning the alternative form in the lead. (For example "The Indianmeal moth (Plodia interpunctella), sometimes also called the Indian meal moth ..." or vice versa.) GRBerry 19:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Google searching for "Indianmeal moth" yields about 10,400 results, while doing the same for "Indian meal moth" yields 42,700. Consequently, the latter wins on the Web; however, I am amazed that the former ever got into use, it just looks so "wrong"!—GRM (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

One thing I've encountered with other articles is that the Google results can vary by Google site; with google.com, google.co.uk and the Australian google site all giving different "primary" results. This is something to keep in mind for the future. GRBerry 19:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the confusion may be the result of - or at least greatly helped by - the 1997 edition of ESA's Common Names of Insects and Other Arthropods. In this book - the last version printed - the common name of Plodia interpunctella was listed as "Indian meal moth." However, sometime after the book was published, the online version (now the only version) stated "Indian meal moth" was a mistake and the correct common name is "Indianmeal moth." Trfasulo 19:47 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It is also a very natural change to make, especially for a common name. The scientific literature (that I linked above) is using both sets. I'd definitely prefer to rely on the scientific literature, and even more so the most authoritative literature over minor papers. But I don't know this field well enough to know what the most authoritative literature is. If both of you agree on the right name to use, I'll agree. I won't be the tie-breaker though. So feel free to ask at the relevant project or WP:3O to get another opinion. GRBerry 19:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lepidoptera#Indian_meal_moth—GRM (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to support the three word status quo title although http://www.pestworld.org/For-Consumers/Pest-Guide/Pest/Indian-Meal-Moths suggests the etymology of Indian-meal rather than Plodia standing for meal-moth. But joining Indian with meal without a hyphen is an American style that works ok in some combinations, but is rather odd sounding with the successive consonants "nm". Shyamal (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I favour three word name unless someone can show that the name refers to a mealmoth from India/connected with Indians or that there is something called Indianmeal which this moth eats. AshLin (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It has been my experience that people from the pest control industry (with several noteworthy exceptions), but not entomologists with graduate school backgrounds, tend to be freewheeling when it comes to the writing/spelling of common names. The National Pest Management Association (NPMA) site cited just above lists this species as "Indian Meal Moths", "Indian Meal Moth" and "indianmeal moth" on the same page. The latest version of the Mallis Handbook of Pest Control lists it as "Indian Meal Moth" - three words, all starting with upper case letters - upper case letters also being commonly used by pest control industry personnel/editors for most insects, often even in the middle of sentences. The NPMA Field Guide to Structural Pests by Eric Smith and Richard Whitman (both well respected entomologists) lists it as "Indianmeal moth" with this information: "... given its common name by an early American entomologist (Asa Fitch) who found it feeding on cornmeal (Indian meal)." Most of the people editing/writing pest control industry online or paper publications do not even have a B.S. in entomology. I am not saying this to show they are unprofessional in their profession, but to show that many are not educated in the finer details of scientific and common names as are professional entomologists. 72.148.79.221 (Trfasulo ) 01:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You may find the discussions on such topics in the bird world of interest http://www.worldbirdnames.org/rules-compound.html http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~remsen/SACCprop214-218.html Shyamal (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Explanation of the name and page move

The common name for this insect was coined by Asa Fitch (1809-1879), a New York State entomologist. In his book First and second report on the noxious, beneficial and other insects of the State of New York (1856), he describes a species of moth which feeds on "Indian meal" (what we now call cornmeal). He refers to this species as the "Indian meal moth" or "Indian-meal moth" (reflecting contemporary spellings of cornmeal). The common name has nothing whatsoever to do with India. Since the term "Indian meal" (or Indian-meal/Indianmeal) is no longer used, this name is confusing. I think the change to the "Indianmeal" spelling was an attempt to rectify this confusion without making the more radical change to "Cornmeal moth". I would like to move this article to "Indianmeal moth" for the following reasons:

1. Despite earlier claims in this discussion, I get roughly equal hits for the two spellings in Google (44,000-51,00 for "Indian meal moth" and 48,500-48,800 for "Indianmeal moth"), thus neither spelling seems to be significantly more popular at present.
2. The NPCA and most professional entomological publications seem to be tending towards "Indianmeal" these days.
3. The "Indianmeal" spelling is less confusing since it does not imply that the moth is from India, and is closer to the modern spelling of cornmeal for which it was named.
4. The text in the article currently uses "Indianmeal" so the title of the article should be consistant.

Kaldari (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• I am not at all convinced with this move. Linguistically, if the moth feeds on "Indian meal", then I'd hyphenate the adjectival form "Indian-meal Moth", but this clearly isn't going to satisfy the Google search... From the Wikipedia side, I thought that suggested moves were supposed to generate significant support or at least general apathy before going ahead. This one did neither. However, I am not going to start a naming war by reverting this change...—GRM (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, maybe I jumped the gun on the move. I just didn't like having the title and article text conflicting. I'm certainly open to further debate on it. BTW, I have included both spellings in the intro sentence now and added a section on the etymology of the name. (I also added a new picture to the infobox and did some general clean-up of the article.) Kaldari (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just reading the WP report regarding the concern that active editors are not increasing and wondering why. I then switched to my Talk page and saw a message about the Indianmeal moth from long ago. I clicked on it to see what was going on with the page and saw the page still reflects the opinion of many that "Indianmeal moth" should be either "Indian meal moth" or "Indian-meal moth." Frankly, I am puzzled. Why should these latter two names be suggested as possible alternatives or even the primary name, when, as I mentioned above several years ago, the Entomological Society of America's Committee for Common Names of Insects and Other Arthropods has determined the correct, officially recognized name for this species is "Indianmeal moth." This is an originally American species which was first described in the United States---not India. Since this scientific committee is the one authorized to determine the common name, at least on this side of the Atlantic, where do others get the idea they can argue with it? This is the attitude which led me to stop doing significant editing on WP. I have had this problem with a number of other pages (entomology, history, etc.) and wonder why I should bother with WP. Just as another example, I edited a page on a U.S. Marine Corps unit I had experience with, as in actually served in. I mentioned this fact in the talk page as well as the fact I was a U.S.M.C. officer for 12 years. But then my edit was reverted by someone who says they know better. Checking that person's page I find the reason they know better than I is because they are a student in journalism school. That was when I realized I was wasting my time doing extensive editing in WP. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

@Trfasulo: The problem really is that entomologists do not engage with the general public. It is fairly clear that Indianmeal moth is the majority form on Google Scholar although I see that the hyphenated version also occurs in old USDA and other entomological texts. It appears that the article was moved against the results of this discussion. I have moved it back to where User:Kaldari had placed it in 2009. What this calls for is not attrition from entomologists but greater engagement from larger numbers of them. Shyamal (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

False Statements about control

I highly doubt that a simple sticky trap without some sort of lure works. It is not cited, so it needs to be or we should get rid of this statement. Also, what about the bay leaves? I haven't found any great sources that support this.MATThematical (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been my experience that sticky paper without lure is worthless for Indianmeal moths. The statement needs to be deleted.TL36 (talk) 05:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The uncited claim was still present so I have removed it. There also was a vague mention of alleged non-toxic spray, still unsourced. Effective insecticides exist but they come with disclaimers and they can be harmful, although they tend to target enzymes and to be in amounts that affects them more than big mammals would be. The disclaimers also warn against using them directly on food, or very near it, meaning that it's not a panacea and other management methods are also recommended. —PaleoNeonate – 17:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I had an infestation with the Indian Meal Moth and the Beige Clothing Moths.  The larvae inhabited the under pad of my couch and bed, clothing, towels, slippers and more.  Clothing Moths and Indian Meal Moths are not just akin to feeding on grain.

I find these species everywhere at malls and the gym.  People often bring these home with their purchase.  It does not surprise me when I hear or see a home with a moth infestation.

 

How to eliminate Indian meal Moths AND Clothing Moths  (Tineola bisselliella)

1. Use pheromone Moth traps (found online) to locate the moth's area of highest concentration
   
2. Once the area of highest concentration is located, isolate the room so they cannot infest other rooms.
   
3. Assume the moth larvae's are everywhere in that room.  Wash baseboards, vacuum, steam clean the floor, clean cracks in the wood floor, and go over the couch (arm rest, back side, crevices) looking for moth cocoons.
   
   Possibly remove the under pad of the bed and sofa as they tend to feed off the content herein.  Bug Spray may work for some hard to reach areas.
   
   Throw away the vacuum debris bag as the moths larvae may use the content to gestate.
   
4. Assume the moth larvae are in your closets.  I have located moths in my bathrobe, slippers, and linen.  I found they love cotton clothing.  They especially love feeding on textiles with sweat like pyjamas, slippers, or blankets returned to the closet or dresser for storage.
   
   To kill the larvae, put textiles and clothing into the dryer for 30 minutes.  If you cannot put the textiles into the dryer, put the clothing or linens in a plastic bag and in a freezer for about six hours +/-.  These time periods are a subjective matter of opinion.
   
   After the "thermal treatment", I advise that you keep your textiles in a plastic bag to avoid the possibility of re-infestation.
   
   Other Key points
   
1. Larvae gestations comes in waves subject to food availability and room temperature.  Maintain the "lock down" mode for at least 10 days from the last moth sighting.
   
2. I have found that Cedar and Lavender oil and scented bags have no effect to dissuade moths. 
   
3. The more meticulous your are with the sterilization process, the less likely moth larvae's will be overlooked to re-infest an area
   
4. Keep food items that are prone to infestation in durable sealed bags or plastic containers.
   
5. Moths are often located near the area they gestated from larvae to moth.  Use this notion to locate the source area of infestation
   
6. Clothing moths are especially drawn to the washroom for the humidity
7. The moth traps work well to locate their source.  I have found that they have limited effect on eliminating the problem.

I was an entomologist at major university for over 33 years, and retired almost 9 years ago. Plus, I was one of the early editors of this page, and just checked back after doing some other editing of another page. I am the senior author of the UF Indianmeal moth publication listed in External links. Someone else has listed bears, dogs and cats as predators of this insect. As a result of all my experience with insect management, I find this astounding. Unless, they can cite a source for this, those animals should be deleted from "Predators." Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

They prefer brown rice

Recently I had an infestation of these in my cabinet. They were only in the brown rice (sealed package) but not the white rice (unsealed package) so I'm guessing they home in on the nutrients of the brown rice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.15.219 (talk) 08:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

How to poison them

I don't see this information out there, but from what I have discovered, the caterpillars are attracted to eating dried red chiles (they will even eat through plastic bags to get to it), but die after eating them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.31.128 (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Essential what now?

"Moths can be deterred from the area by using essential oils and natural pantry moth spray."

This assertion is made with zero supporting evidence. And whoever inserted this line didn't even bother to list what oils or ingredients they are talking about. Surely, in the absence of evidence, this sentence is ripe for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.93.232 (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

five to seven larval instars

• entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/urban/stored/indianmeal_moth.htm

"Larvae: There are five to seven larval instars. Their color is usually off-white, but has been observed to be pink, brown or almost greenish, depending on the food source. The mature larvae are about 1/2 inch in length. They have five pairs of well developed prolegs that help them move considerable distances to pupate."

-71.174.177.113 (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add photos of the instars.-71.174.177.113 (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian mealmoth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100615060931/http://www.entomology.wisc.edu/mbcn/fea210.html to http://www.entomology.wisc.edu/mbcn/fea210.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Section headings and punctuation around references

Just a note that on Wikipedia the standard way of writing section headings is in sentence case. That is, the first word is capitalized and subsequent words are not capitalized unless they include a proper noun. That's explained at MOS:HEADINGS in our Manual of Style. Also ending punctuation generally comes before the reference as explained at WP:CITEFOOT. Thanks,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Minor edits for Behavioral Ecology course

Hi! I am editing this page for a Behavioral Ecology course. Overall, this article is very clearly written and holds a lot of interesting information, and I made only minor general edits (grammar, sentence structure, etc.) throughout the page. My one suggestion would be to add more to the "Male pheromones" section, if possible. Nice work! LucasKat (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is really well done. The only thing I can think of is to maybe change the order of the first few sections. I'm used to seeing Description first, and I think you might also want Taxonomy to come before you go into Distribution. Just a thought, do whatever makes more sense to you! Mnoronha456 (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Indian mealmoth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 09:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I propose to review this, and will study it in detail shortly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

First reading

I have read through the article which is in general well-written. Here are a few points for starters:

• The lead needs to be rewritten. It is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article and not introduce any information not mentioned in the main body of the text. It should not need any citations, because the information will be cited elsewhere. There is nothing currently in the lead about the behavioral issues you discuss in the Mating section.
• It is usual to start with a taxonomy section, and then a Description section, with the Distribution section coming later.
• The distribution and habitat section is duplicated by the food resources section.
• The Enemies section is in bulleted style and should be converted into prose.
  • When you have dealt with these issues, I will make some more specific comments about the content and prose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Someone add humans to the list of enemies 0w0 catt0s (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

No action has been taken on any of the comments I made above and I am closing this review as "Fail". I believe the expansion of the article was part of a school/college course, but the students have not raised the article to the required GA standard. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Non-Plant Foods

In the sub-section 'Non-Plant Foods' there is a brief discussion of larval cannibalism. The last sentence of the sub-section reads: 'Typically, cannibals do not eat closely related individuals which might share genes with them, but when given the choice between siblings and unrelated individuals, caterpillars tend to cannibalize their siblings.' The first clause of the sentence implies that larvae are less likely to cannibalize closely related individuals. However, the second clause states the opposite. I couldn't access the cited source but the above clearly needs to be changed. RobotBoy66 (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

It was indeed confusing, thanks. The article's title concluded that there was no evidence of kin discimination so I simplified the sentence. —PaleoNeonate – 17:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)