Talk:Locust

Locust swarm merge

I support the merging of Locust swarm into this page. In fact, the text of the former can just be replaced by a redirect, because it does not contain info that is not found on this page. Dogo 16:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds fair enough to me.--み使い Mitsukai 16:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thugs

Locust is also another term for thugs. This is because thugs move into one area, destroy it, and move to another area.

- I disagree with this completely. Thugs are actually bullies. People careless enough to just hit and mock others. Locusts are more like swatters. They live in a place without permission, suck the place dry without any benifial effects, then move on, leaving the place in ruins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.92.1.33 (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that (surely that's a comment ofr the disambiguation page?), but there's an interesting article on EurekaAlert today http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-12/uot-ats122105.php suggesting that the New World locusts are descended from Old world desert locusts that actually managed to cross the Atlantic a few (3~5) million years ago. Theres food for a lot of thought there.

French page interwiki link

The interwiki link to the french page links to a non existant page.

Locust Swarm

But the Locust Swarm is a group of insects, not a species.

• Incorrect. A "swarm" is a group of insects. A "Locust swarm" is a group of locusts.--み使い Mitsukai 16:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

LOCUST - an alternate meaning

According to my Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary there is an additional definition identified with the word "locust". It can refer to any of various leguminous trees - such as the carob, black locust or honey locust. The carob tree is indigenous to the Mediterranean area and produces a pod containing a sweet pulp quite similar to that of chocolate. The other two grow in North America.208.38.89.193 19:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Section Title Change?

The title "Swarming behaviour and extinctions" makes it sound as though those two items are supposed to be related, which they don't seem to be. A better title might be something along the lines of "Scientific significance"? I'm not feeling creative right now. Kith 23:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

For how long ...?

Someone should write for how long locusts have existed. Were there huge locusts during the Carboniferous, like there were huge dragonflies?

Life Cycle

There needs to be some clarification on the life cycle of the locust. There are brief references to underground eggs and "transformation" into a swarming variety, but no definitive explanation of the life cycle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.161.245 (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

microscopy image

I added an image of the locust leg muscle that I took today in the lab. I'm pretty pleased with it, hope everyone likes it.--Dylan2106 (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

File:Locust Tibia Extensor Muscle.JPG

Pic talked about by Arpingstone (Title is:Excised extensor muscle from the locust hind leg tibia

Sorry Dylan but I've had to remove it. I can't tell what it shows, it doesn't add anything to the article, it's just a bit of white something. What can the reader learn or discover from that pic? Sorry again, I don't like removing pics but had to in this case - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

er, ok. If I annotate the picture will it be more informative. personnally I think it is very informative, it shows the interlocking muscle fibres in the locust leg (the muscle that gives the locust the amazing power it needs to jump large distances, it produces about 1Kg of force!!!). These are verydifferent from the muscle fibres in mammalian volentary muscle. I don't think it is too technical, but agree that it needs a better description/annotation. what do you think? --Dylan2106 (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but, with all respect to you, it isn't what you think that matters, it's what the reader thinks (someone like me) :-) I see only a white blob and no matter how much description you provide it still shows nothing. I can't see the interlocking muscle fibres you mention and the picture doesn't seem to be in focus. I appreciate that this picture has a wealth of meaning to you but you have to look at it from a reader's point of view. This is only one person's opinion, what do others think? - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Valid points I'd say but I must disagree. Call me crazy but I use wikipedia to find things out that I don't know, If you could conceive of no one else finding this picture informative then I agree that it has no place. However I believe that it does hold value and add useful content to a page that has only pictures of different locust species. Seeing as though there is a paragraph devoted to locusts in scientific research it has relevence to the article. As a compromise what would your opinion be about this? It is more relevant although the picture is not as sharp. With regards to the focus, the microscope I was using had a very narrow depth of field, the actual muscle fibers are in focus.--Dylan2106 (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we'll have to disagree and leave it at that! The problem I'm finding in all your replies here is that you never tell me what exactly I'm looking at in the picture, and you don't tell me what value it adds. It remains a blob of white flesh to a non-specialist and I can learn nothing from looking at it. I suggest a compromise - put it back on the article, I promise I'll not remove it and we'll see what happens to it. (the other pic is much clearer so if that one illustrates whatever you are illustrating then I would use that one). Best Wishes and signing out on this topic - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Taxobox

It has been rather long since I visited this page for the last time, so it was only today that I saw that a taxobox had been added. I am not sure that this box is appropriate in an article about the term locust, which is not a taxon as such. I am tempted to remove it but would first like to read some other opinions about this. Even if we agree to leave the taxobox, I strongly object to the picture. It is a nice one, but is Oxya yezoensis really a locust? Even if it is called a locust in Japan, I have never come across this species in the locust literature. Many grasshopper species are inappropriately called locusts, especially large species or those that occasionally occur in large numbers and cause damage to crops. Unless I see strong protests with good arguments, I am going to replace the picture if the taxobox stays. Dogo (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Layout messed up, too many edits under text

Can we fix this?

Thanks,

DarkestMoonlight (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Main picture

There appears to be some disagreement over the main picture. As I announced under "Taxobox", I replaced the one of Oxya yezoensis, a grasshopper, with one of Schistocerca gregaria, which is recognized by everyone as a locust. The former may well be a better picture than the latter, but I do not think that is the point here. I suggest that one of those who like to see that picture in an article, write something on the rice grasshopper. There is lots to be told about it, including that it is often caught and canned in Japan. However, it cannot justifiably be called a locust, because as far as I know it does not change physiology, colour and behaviour at high densities (please correct me if I am wrong, including some literature references). Dogo (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Schistocerca

Seems these are "Bird Grasshoppers". I am learning about 'Schistocerca americana' which some call the "American Desert Locust" and some (more) call the "American Bird Grasshopper". I can not find an article on Wikipedia about "Bird Grasshoppers" but this seems the more common description of this classification (bugguide.com, Audubon Field Guide to Insects & Spiders). All this started when I was trying to find a good place for my picture. Tomfriedel (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Techniques for repelling

In the film, Nowhere in Africa, villagers successfully drive away locusts by entering fields, rattling plants and setting small fires. Is this a commonly successful method for driving them away? Are there other methods for accomplishing them?Dogru144 (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Physical robustness

It mentioned in the article their use as an experimental model due to their physical robustness, but I'm curious if a short line or two from someone with the knowledge might be worth adding as to why they're so resiliant.

I don't know personally, but I have observed from encountering them in the wild they're extremely resilient to injury, and seem to shrug off massive damage while remaining mobile (Dismemberment, evisceration, etc) that'd easily kill a more complex organism, I'm wondering what's so unusual about they biology that allows them to do that - obviously besides the direct intrest, it also relates to their use as a research specimen so it does have a purpose in the existing article. --85.62.18.8 (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)