Talk:Caddisfly

Caddisfly has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 22, 2017. (Reviewed version).

Opening heading

i have some issues with this article,

altough caddis flies are can be cased or uncased i believe both forms may live in stagnant and flowing water, also i believe some net spinning caddis flies are cased, whilst others are not.

Before i make relevent revisions to this article, i wanted to make sure i was right and see if any other concerns existed. chhers

this info is based on http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Trichoptera&contgroup=Endopterygota

and

as Fresh wters of New Zealand 2005 by the newzealand Hydrological society.

You are mostly correct. Philopotamid caddisflies are net spinners and do not make a case of any sort; they live in a loose silk net that collapses and looks like snot on a rock when lifted out of the water. Hydropsychid caddisflies, also net spinners and make a case-like structure that is usually referred to as a 'retreat'; their nets are frequently framed and stay intact when lifted. The distinction between cases and retreats is that cases are usually mobile, and retreats are not. However there are species that make fixed cases that for some reason are not called retreats (let me see if I can make it more complicated:)!!) Anyway, there are caddisfly species that occur in fairly stagnant water, and also fairly impacted flowing water. I threw in some stuff on water quality, life cycles, and allergies today; more when time allows; my info is 'off the top of my head' as they say, but I have studied the little beasties extensively am confident in the accuracy (DMC Feb 11 2006).

The difference between the retreat and the case is that the retreat is a permanently affixed structure from its construction to its end of use, while a case is a portable structure at the begining of its use. The case may be affixed to substrate at some point during its use, but it is still in effect a portable case. Larvae of the family Brachycentridae, for example, will often affix their portable cases to the substrate for feeding, but then can detach them and drift to a new location. In the case of net spinning families like the Philopotamidae that do not build a retreat separate from the net itself, the net, permenently affixed, serves as the retreat as well. 130.127.109.130 (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a better way to do the lifecycle link without using the phrase 'biological life cycle'? DMC Feb 12 2006)

Made some small improvements today

I reworded the piece about larval feeding which made it sound like detritus is a form of aquatic invertebrate; furthermore, it's not what net-spinning caddisflies capture in their nets. Detritus is processed (mostly for the plankton living in it) by shredders and scrapers.

I added alternative emergence behaviors exhibited by a significant minority of species (crawling out on land rather than transitioning into adults in the surface film alone).

Fixed the "artificial flies" link to point to fly lure since there is no artificial flies page.

Added to the adult activity periods that some species are active in the winter. These include some species of Dolophilodes and Frenesia.

Made a few other small changes I forgot -- mostly grammatical.

A new photo of a case carrying larva

I uploaded a photo of a larva tonight. If anyone thinks it's appropriate, please attach it to the article; I don't feel comfortable doing it since it's my photo.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Caddisfly-larva.jpg

User:apv Sat Jun 23 01:20:10 PDT 2007

Image was added to the article. 130.127.109.130 (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there are many grammars made in this article and their maybe many incorrect information as well.

Where does the name come from?

I mean, who was "Caddis?" Was it a person? Proscriptus (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Could it come from "Cadiz beard," as used in Shakespeare? That refers to a particular beard shape, also called a "Cales" beard or "Caddis" beard, which etymologically would make sense. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singeing_the_King_of_Spain%27s_Beard Proscriptus (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Chris Packham on BBC's Springwatch TV show, 8th June 2011: " 'Caddis' is the name for a strip of cloth. People selling cloth in the Middle Ages used to wear strips of it draped over their bodies to advertise the range of fabric that they had: and that's where the 'caddis' name comes from." Does anyone have a source for this? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OED online gives a number of meanings for "caddis" all relating to fabric: 1. Cotton wool, floss silk, or the like, used in padding: Scottish writers of the 18th c. applied the name to ‘lint’ used in surgery. Obs.

a1400—1769

2.

a. Worsted yarn, crewel. Obs.

1530—1721

†b. Hence attrib. as a material. Obs.

1550–1600—1675

†c. Short for caddis ribbon: A worsted tape or binding, used for garters, etc. Obs.

1580—1751

†3.

a. A kind of stuff; perh. of worsted (or ? silk).

1536—1552–3

b. A coarse cheap serge.  [Modern French cadis.] Cf. caddow n.2

1578—1887

(http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/25925)

Regarding common names- in western New York (Buffalo area) caddisflies were invariably called "sand flies" though obviously they are not. I believe this term for caddisflies was also used along the US shore of Lake Erie. Parenthetically, There seems to be significantly fewer caddisflies in western New York now than in decades past. [user: Bill Hynes] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.133.10 (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fact check

" their bodies tend to be tougher than the building."......what building?....if you mean a hypothetical case then what's the basis for the assertion?...citation needed.

Request move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page already moved by User:innotata. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trichoptera to Caddisfly — Request move from scientific name to primary common name, currently a redirect here. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query: How frequent are the other listed "common names", sedge-fly and rail-fly around the world? If they're reasonably common (or dominant somewhere), then the scientific name would be the best target. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sedge-fly appears to be a name for "certain caddisflies", and rail-fly seems rather uncommon. There are a number of other common names, I think, but none are used commonly, and most are seen as types of "caddisfly". —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Caddisfly/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article needs headers to divide it up into appropriate sections, to make it easier to read. IronC hris | (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. A lot of references are still needed, or at least the formatting needs to be altered so that it is clear which of the external refs. is the source for which statement. --Stemonitis 15:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted at 00:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sabine's Sunbird (talk · contribs) 06:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I note that books don't have page ranges. This doesn't bother me (scientifically it passes muster for verifiability) but this may be an issue if you choose to go to FAC "Wiggins" doesn't seem to have page numbers, but it has numbered sections, and these are mentioned in the citations. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Spotcheck fine, only content mirrors
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	As noted before could use brief mention of global distribution. Otherwise fine. Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	*In the UK it is found in and around the county of Worcestershire in oakwoods. Considering the article doesn't describe the global distribution of the order, the focus of a single species in one nation seems to suggest that this criteria needs a little work. I assume it's cosmopolitan, would be good to state that, as well as noting any important patterns, if any exist. Moved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply] I still think that getting down to county level for one species is a touch narrow, but I'll pass here. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:GlossosomatidLarvae.jpg - is listed as PD because Federal work but (broken) link goes to California state government - does federal PD status apply to state work? Please confirm. Removed image. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply] File:Silver Sedge, from Trout fly-fishing in America (6309074584).jpg this is (clearly) PD; why does it also have a CC tag? Removed the CC tag. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply] Otherwise images are tagged correctly as best I can tell.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	File:Daternomina male tagged.png it's a shame this isn't used inline in morphology section with meaningful captions to go with in-image numbering Otherwise this passes. I think the larvae video might sit well in the ecology section, but this is a personal thing. The larva video is now in Ecology. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	Great stuff. Done

Other things

Fossil caddisflies have been found in rocks dating back to the Triassic;[3] the group survived the Permian–Triassic extinction event about 252 million years ago. It's not clear what the second part of this sentence adds. Obviously its ancestors did survive that event, but since it's far from clear that the group existed before then you can't really say the group did.

Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The affinities of the third suborder, Spicipalpia, I think this group needs to be mentioned in the lead, even if they aren't as numerous, because it was a surprise to suddenly realise there were three suborders.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The adult stage of a caddisfly may only survive for a few weeks; many species do not feed as adults and die soon after breeding. It's noted later that some adults eat nectar - but this info would be better in ecology than development

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally biased but caddis larvae are important for some birds too, like dippers or some high river ducks. (You don't have to action this but I'm just saying).

I'm sure you are right, and amphibians too, but I found it difficult to find a suitable source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Development might be better titled Development and morphology

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sclerotinised linked in development - probably more useful the first time the term turns up in evolution. Also, The heads are heavily sclerotinised slightly contradicts that first section, which suggests some families arent sclerotinised much

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't the taxonomic list have the three suborders?

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few things to address but then it's good to go. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking on the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave @Chiswick Chap: to deal with the image issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I believe. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And pass. Good stuff. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And from me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

a small comment

Without being mean to the artist, the mention of Hubert Duprat at the start is superfluous, since he is mentioned later in the correct place. In fact, he is mentioned no less than 4 times in the article, whereas for example, the eminent Jean-Henri Fabre, from whom he draws no doubt, is not mentioned at all, despite his celebrated writing on the caddisfly. That seems... an imbalance, imho. Rsaum (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]