Talk:Thrips

development

All thrips present two larval/nymphal stages, followed by a propupa. Thrips of suborder Terebrantia follow this with a pupal stage, but thrips of suborder Tubulifera have a fifth pupal instar. I feel that this distinction is worth mentioning, as it is a diagnostic synapomorphy for the suborder. Aderksen (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

discussion of thrips evolution

My read of the Grimaldi et al 2004 paper suggests that while Permothrips is probably one of the first thrips, it is not definitively thrips-like and still possesses sufficiently homopteran characteristics to be classed among extinct members of Psocoptera. "True" thrips do not appear in the fossil record with any diversity until the late Triassic and certainly the mid-Jurassic. Would it be worth adding a small section suggesting that the basal feeding behavior and association for the order is presumed to be mycophagic, and that their explosion in diversity during the Cretaceous is probably like many insects, a result of the increasing diversity among flowering angiosperms? Aderksen (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

citation for LCD problems?

I'd really like to see a reference on thrips becoming trapped in LCD monitors. I would suggest that thrips are no more and no less likely to get trapped in LCD screens and picture frame than any other order of small insects. Aderksen (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thrips, singular or plural?

Uh . . . I'd hate to have to move this . . . but isn't the singular of the word "thrips" thrips? Wiwaxia 03:06, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No. Thrips is a plural. Like 'ants'. —Morven 08:29, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

Thrips is definitely used in both the singular & plural tenses, just like 'sheep'. I'm currently doing a PhD on thrips & have read many books stating this to be the case. HarveySloan 10:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I've seen plenty of references where 'thrip' was used for singular. It could be, of course, that people are assuming that the singular must not have the 's'. Any good online references that say it should always be included? I think it's best to have a cite for this, because it'll come up again. —Morven 16:41, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

OK, a Google for 'thrips singular plural' returns 208 hits, some of which seem quite authoritative. Page moved. —Morven 16:45, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Terebrantia

The suborder 'Terebrantia' linked to parasitic wasps. I'm no taxonomic authority, but this has to be wrong. i deleted the redirect Terebrantia -> Parasitic wasps. could it be that there are two orders of the same name? Sarefo 21:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Linneaus originally referred to all of the parasitic Hymenoptera with their piercing ovipositors as "terebrantia"; the analogous part on this suborder is probably where the name for the originated.

Scientific name for photographed thrips?

Isn't it "Thrips tabaci"? Because it doesn't appear in the article... -- Jokes Free4Me 19:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The photo appears to be the predatory thrip, which is not discussed . i am not prepared to contribute at this time. 75.117.132.106 04:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)defrey@bioshelter.com

The photo author has provided a genus and species name for their thrips within the photo itself: Ponticulothrips diospyrosi.