Talk:Thrips

Insects Unassessed

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

I've gone ahead and made the distinction between the two suborders in the appropriate locations. I've opened up a more detailed "life cycle" section, but I was wondering if perhaps it would be better to merge all of this information back into a single paragraph under "life cycle" instead of trying to describe each developmental stage in detail? Does anyone want to offer an opinion based on their work on other insect order pages? Aderksen (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oops. I believe that my earlier comment should state, "sufficiently psocopteran traits". Aderksen (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, I hear what you're saying... but today I have about 10 thrips inside my screen pretending to be punctuation on the move... I don't see any other types of bug - so what does that mean? Are they small enough to get inside AND they are attracted to light and/or my word documents and no other bugs are? Or perhaps they're the only bugs inside that are big enough to see? Its odd. What would be a comparable bug? How long do they live for anyway? MrsDiz (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there has been a number of cases of these bugs (literally) inside the computers, notwithstanding brands. here's a forum link from Dell.com [1]. not a few people has encountered them. there are also documentation inside the dell internal knowledge base regarding them, and that they are not covered under limited warranties. 222.127.132.36 (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Ace[reply]

I ~~John Mccain~~ approuve this message.

More seriously political topic put really far outside. This article should contain a little reference to those cases of bug(s) cornererd in the LCD or living in and I mean reproduction in (not on) screen can be witnessed in several case! I am not familiar with the edition of wikipedia article (even in my native language french) so I fairly let a passing by try it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.23.162.39 (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section on LCDs has been removed and added several times. It appears to be one of the reasons that folks not into gardening or agriculture encounter these creatures, and then come here seeking more information. While there may be no formal reference to cite for this behavior (and I maintain that there are many small organisms which may become trapped between the panes of an LCD, a picture frame, or a watch face) it obviously occurs. While I appreciate being bold, I suggest looking at the full deletion history of this particular topic before removing it. Aderksen (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You dont need to be into gardening or agriculture for this to be a relevant problem to you. I currently have 2 thrips in each of my monitors. It is typically mainly thrips that are attracted to the light and the warmth of monitors. I have never seen any other creature inside. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence on the internet with many people having this problem. RND T C 14:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Not that anyone cares, but the ovipositor is homologous for the two groups as a common ancestral trait. That said, yes: a taxonomic group that included just the thrips and the parasitic Hymenoptera would have been a paraphyletic classification that told us nothing of the phylogenetic relationships, and the similar names for the suborders are probably derived from a nomitive doubling of a prominent descriptive feature common to both groups. Aderksen (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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

Plague due in UK

It's been 19 or 20 years since the UK had a plague of these things (1990?) and another may have started today, though it's not yet in the news. 80.40.225.228 (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]