Jump to content

Talk:Aedes aegypti

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting info

[edit]

This could be added to the article: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/dengue/map-ae-aegypti-distribution.htm XApple 16:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Octenol Chirality

[edit]

I found it strange that the chirality of octenol was discussed in this article. It seems trivial in this context, and anyone that knows about chirality would assume that the bioactive enantiomer is the one that is found in nature. For instance, lactic acid also has a chiral center, but we are assuming the mosquito is attracted to naturally-occurring lactic acid, (the L enantiomer). I propose deletion of the following sentences:

"Scientists at the USDA Agricultural Research Service have studied the specific chemical structure of octenol to better understand why this chemical attracts the mosquito to its host.[5] They found the mosquito has a preference for "right-handed" (dextrorotatory) octenol molecules."

However, I think the reference could be retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.158.206.218 (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia of Life

[edit]

EOL has more information than we do...it's the fifth-most-popular article there. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on disease

[edit]

I feel as though this article talks more about the diseases that the mosquito transfers, as opposed to the mosquito itself. Should there not be a separate subsection to refer to the pathology, while the rest of the article focus on the general aspects of the mosquito such as its life cycle, difference in physiology to other mosquitoes, etc...?

109.175.147.112 (talk) 14:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful to include a range map and perhaps a prevalence chart. In some areas, the mosquito is possible but unlikely, whereas in other areas it is frequent.

In addition to separating sections that discuss the pathology (which is currently discussed in depth) and the general behavioral characteristics of this species (which is very lacking), this article lacks pertinent behavioral information even in relation to pathology. For example, the behavior surrounding reproduction (where, how often, number of females breeding with any given male) is very relevant to understanding the feasibility of instituting a population control via artificial genetic suppression of reproductive genes in males. Olivia.urso (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a new article. Pathology of mosquitoes or something. I did a rudimentary search and could not find any articles, drafts, draft talk or article talk pages about or discussing such topic. TheKuygeriancontribs
userpage 00:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also: The summary of the article regarding what diseases Aedes aegypti transmits doesn't cite any sources. TheKuygeriancontribs
userpage 00:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

confusing syntax in an important sentence

[edit]

I found this sentence to be confusing.

"Several commercial insect repellents had little, short duration or no effect, unlike DEET (particularly concentrated products) and Cutter lemon-eucalyptus product, while AVON So Soft products had ´low or no effect in a scientific study with Aedes aegypti' "

Is DEET effective? Certainly an important item that should be in a simple statement alone rather than tangled up as a negative. I'm not qualified to modify this myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.39.201.132 (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aedes aegypti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aedes aegypti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed detail about female wing length in Peru.

[edit]

This level of detail does not belong in the introduction and unless there is similar detail elsewhere in the article, it doesn't belong in the article at all. Jojalozzo (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC) Jojalozzo (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the controversy of the scientific nomenclature for this species

[edit]

I've recently stumbled in social media into a few posts claiming (apparently erroneously, as I will explain and as is currently already shown in the main page) that the genus of this species had been renamed to Stegomyia after all, citing sources from 2006. However, the later sources already cited here, including the guidelines from the Journal of Medical Entomology, indicate that this was not adopted. Maybe we should expand the relevant section, citing new sources like this one [1]. Maybe we should also indicate something about the topic on the Aedes and Stegomyia pages too. intvl (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having a paper like that does seem to seem warrant of a sentence or two, but it'd be easy to get into the weeds. That said, the Clements & Harbach paper seems a bit too "charged" for a single source to rely on when they kind of seem to be casting shade about Stegomyia being more valid, and Aedes more convenient despite the most recent phylogenetic reanalysis. If there is that much controversy and those authors seem that hot under the collar in the relative sense for a journal publication, I'd probably want to lean on an additional one or two sources alongside this describing the controversy, or rather the real WP:WEIGHT of it. KoA (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Some things just grow during incremental edits and sometimes get out of hand. The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, has grown to an astounding 9 entries. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to try to add for a forth.
None is needed for article promotion.
  • ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
  • ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
External links This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.
Second paragraph, acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.
    • Please note:
  • WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. -- Otr500 (talk)
[edit]
Excessive links from article moved here for any possible discussion.

Archived 2019-08-01 at the Wayback Machine -- Otr500 (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aedes_aegypti&oldid=1250664762"