Talk:Rhynchophorus ferrugineus

Agriculture Low‑importance

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture 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.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Beetles High‑importance

	Insects portal Rhynchophorus ferrugineus is within the scope of WikiProject Beetles, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to beetles. For more information, visit the project page.BeetlesWikipedia:WikiProject BeetlesTemplate:WikiProject Beetlesbeetle articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Insects Low‑importance

	Insects portal 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.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Common names?[edit]

This single critter appears to share a lot of common names with a lot of other similar critters within the same genus. I wish there was a way to be sure that we are all speaking to the same organism. They are all "red palm weevils", but this one is ferrugineus.Aderksen (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

food source?[edit]

I'm not sure that this weevil is the one being used as a food source by the indigenous peoples of Ecuador, given that it is only recently adventive to the area. I suspect that another editor has confused this weevil with the Palmetto Weevil, or the Sago Palm Weevil, who are also native to the area. Yet another confusion over common names and species names... Aderksen (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is a name confusion because this Rhynchophorus_bilineatus is also called Sago weevil. Ebson (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capricorn redirect?[edit]

I note that "capricorn beetle" redirects to this page, but I suspect that this is the common name of a cerambycid beetle, and does not refer to this curculionid from tribe rhynchophorini. This redirect should really be broken. Aderksen (talk)

Glad to see that someone fixed this. Thanks! Aderksen (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing statements[edit]

Hey there - I went ahead and put up a couple of "fact" flags around some statements that I think need to be sourced. I am aware that there are verifiable sources available for all of these statements, but I do not have the time to hunt them down and add them at this time. This is a very popular beetle for worldwide management, and I know that there is a lot more information out there available for the group. With sufficient concentrated effort, this could become a GA topic. If someone else from the greater community has these citations at their fingertips and can provide them, that would be great. Aderksen (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the European's union effort toward fighting it a good enough source for the life cycle duration?

https://ec.europa.eu/food/system/files/2016-10/ph_biosec_red_palm_weevil_brochure_en.pdf

"BIOLOGICAL CYCLE (Cycle duration: 3 to 4 months)" 79.11.109.71 (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a reasonable source, if you can figure how to cite it. Dyanega (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

<ref name="Eu">{{cite book | title=The insect killing our palm trees : EU efforts to stop the Red Palm Weevil | publisher=[[Publications Office of the European Union]] | doi=10.2772/851 | pages=32 | isbn=978-92-79-21268-0 | location=[[Luxembourg]] | date=2011}}</ref>

Invasive Spices (talk) 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Cite journal publisher removal[edit]

Hello @Headbomb: Thank you for fixing these {{cite}} errors [1][2]. However I also notice you've removed the [3][4] publisher=s with the edit summary ce. These are not typos. Why? Invasive Spices (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CE is copyediting in general, and it's very non-standard to include publishers in journal citations. It's certainly not done in any major citation style out there. That PLOS ONE is published by PLOS is ... not really relevant. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well if you want to object to the existence of publisher= you can do that at Template talk:Cite journal. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]