Talk:Mosquito

Linguistics snob?

"The word derives from Sanskrit maksh (fly) via the Latin word musca (fly) and the Italian moschetta or Spanish mosquito (little fly). The French word is moustique."In my opinion, this should read:"The word derives from the Latin musca, cf. Sanskrit maksh (fly), via the Italian moschetta or Spanish mosquito (little fly). The French word is moustique."The last time I took a linguistics class, Italian and Spanish were derived from Latin, while Sanskrit developed in parallel thousands of miles away. Because they are both derived from Proto-Indo-European, the cf. does not need to be justified.-tomd (I'm pretty sure I have a username, I've just forgotten it.)Your reading is a possible one, but it's also possible that the Latin musca was borrowed from Sanskrit maksh (closely related languages do, after all, borrow words). I frankly don't know which solution is correct -- maybe someone else will chime in.Regardless of the relationship between musca and maksh, the Spanish, Italian, and French words were derived from Latin. The cf. implies some relationship between the Latin and Sanskrit without specifying any. The Italian and French are cognates of the Spanish, and the Latin and Sanskrit are cognates, but the Sanskrit is not a cognate of the Spanish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.191.245 (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why the Portuguese is so many times left out when talking about latin languages? Maybe if you read a bit of history about the relation of Portugal with the rest of Europe and the World, and the fact that due to the Portuguese discoveries, Portuguese was the most spoken language on the 16th century and that Portugal and England have the oldest aliance in Europe, it's not strange that mosquito should have been borrowed from the Portuguese mosquito. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.240.229.6 (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Attractants

I have read secondary articles suggesting that limburger cheese is an attractant, as well as smelly feet (with a theory that a common bacterium is responsible). Also that consumption of alcohol can increase your allure to mosquitos. If anyone had a primary source, I think it would make a good addition.

I heard that Mosquitos are lured to citronella. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.226.131 (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

mosquito bite

hi! musquito bites me seldom .. if a person did bite by musquito 25 times means, i'm only once. my blood group is O+ve.. can u tell me d reason..— Preceding unsigned comment added by Puviyarasu.rajan (talk • contribs) 03:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I was laying in bed one night and was bitten by a mosquito on a provate part. It had just occured after I felt the bug, not the morning before, so i am positive it is a tiny mosquito bite. So do i use the same healing remedies posted above.Sorry i know this conten is a little strong.

File:Mosquito Tasmania crop.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Mosquito Tasmania crop.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 17, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-06-17. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 20:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

2500 or 3500? Changed page down to 2500 October 2011

Wow that felt good I just wiped off the face of the earth 1000 species of mosquito by changing the estimated number from 3500 down to 2500. Seems there is wide disagreement on the web over this question..and since Wiki has been showing the figure 3500 for probably many years..there will be tons and tons of places that quote the figure 3500. The problem is it doesnt' seem to be true. Other websites and authoritative sound articles including college professors say 2500. I found some copeout sites that are now saying between 2500-3500. i have no real problem if someone changes it back to over 3500. Technically over 2500 still includes numbers over 3500. However, please do some research into where the figur came from before changing back up. Pbmaise (talk) 11:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, given a choice between Nature's 3500 (probably the most respected scientific publication in the world), and The Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District's 2500, I'd go with the former. No offense to Alameda County, I'm sure they do fine work. :) Apparently 3,523 species of Culicidae are recognised at the moment. It was 3490 in 2007. A "valid species" list is available here from the Mosquito Taxonomic Inventory (MTI) at the Natural History Museum, London. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have checked a few sources spanning a few decades, including today's list that Sean mentions. It is not my field, so I won't update the figure, but my conclusions are: Earlier (not VERY much earlier!) figures from respected sources were of the order of 1000-2000 spp. then 2500. This was partly because of the fact that new spp do get discovered, and partly because it was not always easy to just hop onto the web and get full lists. That new inventory, by my count, and ignoring the fact that I don't follow the conventions on which it is based, contains about 3524 line items (but I might have missed a folded line). I vote for changing the figure back to 3500 and counting. Sorry about your good feeling, but frankly, to me it feels good to think that there are more species of some very interesting animals. JonRichfield (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Since then I have had occasion to do more editing (that article REALLY needs it! I wish I had time...) I'll update the figure while I am at it. JonRichfield (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Could I please have some comments on: "While ridding mosquitoes from the planet may sound extreme, a few believe that eradicating would not have serious consequences for the ecosystem". This is a very unsatisfactory statement as it stands. It lacks context and balance. I am torn between deleting it and inserting a section discussing the matter. But it is a very difficult thing to discuss coherently at all, let alone without POV issues. JonRichfield (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A mosquito (Ochlerotatus notoscriptus shown) feeding on a human arm. Mosquitoes have mouthparts that are adapted for piercing the skin of plants and animals. While males typically feed on nectar and plant juices, the female needs to obtain nutrients from a "blood meal" before she can produce eggs. In some of the 3,500 species of mosquito, the females feed on humans, and are therefore vectors for a number of infectious diseases.Photo: JJ Harrison

Diseases that kill Mosquitoes

I think a section on diseases that kill mosquitoes will be a good addition to mosquito article. Much in the same way that the honey bee article has the diseases that kill honey bees. I would like to volunteer to write, but there are very few academic papers available. Can anyone suggest a good resource for me to get started? --Dchem (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)