Talk:Aedes albopictus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Insects (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Low importance?[edit]

I actually don't see why you guys consider this species of low importance only. It has been named one of the world's worst invasive species, has been and still is spreading into much of the English-speaking world and is areal threat because is an important vector of Chikungunya, may also transmit Dengue, heartworm and very probably West Nile Virus and other viruses. It has been involved in a major Chikungunya outbreak on La Réunion and a small one in Italy. There is no reason to believe that this may not happen in the US and other parts of the world. --132.199.211.11 (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


Suggestions[edit]

Section on 'Role as disease vector', what are the implications to the bacterial species of Wolbachia and the mosquito evolving together? Is there a way to conteract these inhibitions of embryonic development? - this leading to population replacement sounds detrimantal - what are the evolutionary implications?

Section on public health benefits- how come these mosquitos cannot transmit dengue? Can you expand on cytoplasmic incompatability? How do these males serve as a biological control? BlueBioBill (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how correct the placement of Wolbachia is under 'Role as a disease vector' - it's more of a symbiotic relationship between a host and bacteria. It may flow better if you create a new section for 'Wolbachia in Aedes albopictus' and then place both all of topics on Wolbachia under that. BlueBioBill (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You can also add hyperlinks into your topics by adding two brackets before the word or term and then closing them with two more brackets after the word(s). This may add more of a professional touch to the wiki page.

BlueBioBill (talk)

German Wikipedia article on Aedes albopictus[edit]

For those who understand it, take a look at the German Wikipedia page: de:Asiatische Tigermücke. It is currently the most detailed page on the Asian tiger mosquito in the international Wikipedia community, with many references. It could serve as a source for someone willing to expand the English page on the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.199.75.160 (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It has now even been rated "excellent"! --132.199.211.11 (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

I reverted the "apparently" vandal-entered text to the previous version. People may want to keep an eye on the article for a while to ensure that nothing else happens.

Addendum:

Section: == Competition with established species == contains more vandalism as of 05/05/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.51.232.82 (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed "These species, however, do appear to favor human titiees." Jujutacular T · C 17:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism - unable to edit out?[edit]

whats with the strange text at the end of the section "Invasive Species"

with the text:

Bold textOH YEA!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jones Senior Rockz!!!!!!!!!!!!!--205.244.113.134 18:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC

yet when you click the edit button, it doesn't show up, so attempt to edit it out, is impossible?

I hope this message will notify a spupervisor or something to check it out.

Thanks

202.181.241.190 02:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Bold text==Intro cites== Note I changed some code in the intro section. This was done for a number of reasons:

  1. the "cite news" template in particular is not flexible enough to handle the spectrum of citations; it only allows a very restricted input of information.
  2. the template does not handle dates unambigously.
  3. the access date is really the least important bit. Especially here, it is far more important to know when the info was originally published.
  4. the templates are usually a waste of space. Especially in the crammed intro section this is important; new editors can easily break the bloated and cryptic template code. The new code is more intuitive for newbies (it uses only standard markup) and nearly 10% more compact. (For the "Science" citation, the template uses a whopping 30% more code compared to what's necessary to procude the exactly same (unwikified) output using "plain vanilla" wiki markup. Even the wikified "vanilla" code is only as long as the unwikified one with the template. So KISS these templates goodby and code refs manually. Takes a bit longer, but it keeps the code sleek and n00b-friendly, and you will be able to handle even the most unusual sources without problems.)

I removed the "NEST Sheet Dec'98", used to "source" an event that happened 4 years after the "source" was published! This is where leaving out the publication date and using these crappy templates will get you. In a topic that is of health concern, factual errors are an even more serious problem than elsewhere.

"http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/insect/overview.php" does not source the arrival of the ATM in E Canada, but is about the local presence of EEE (the horse disease). This disease also has an indigenous vector (Culiseta melanura). I have therefore removed the ref. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC) (The male is bigger than the female because she has to transport food to her children.)

Media hype creates a misnomer[edit]

Why is it that Aedes albopictus is not called the forest day mosquito? That term pre-dates the use of Asian tiger mosquito as a common name. Of course, it would not be so media-friendly to have a mosquito named the "forest day mosquito" when everyone can talk about an Asian tiger. The "forest day" is more appropriate since its home was originally in the forest and it is a known day biter. I always thought tigers rested during the day and hunted at night.

Asian Tiger in the UK?[edit]

I read an article from 2 years on Mail Online about two Asian Tigers which have been spotted in the UK. Here look-http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-476562/Deadly-mosquito-landed-Britain.html m w (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Phthinosuchusisanancestor i was here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.20.134 (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved; the binomial seems most commonly used. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


Asian tiger mosquitoAedes albopictus — I suggest renaming this article to Aedes albopictus for consistency. All other articles on mosquitoes of the Aedes genus use binomial nomenclature. Also, a search for "Asian tiger mosquito" gets 109,000 results on Google, where "Aedes albopictus" gets 323,000 results. DiverDave (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. Surprising to me, but web [1] [2] books [3] [4] and scholar [5] [6] all support the scientific name. Andrewa (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Invasive Species section[edit]

This article states that "In 1990-1991, they were most likely brought to Italy in used tires from Georgia (USA)..." Applause for good writing.

But the article goes on to state that the "Asian tiger mosquitoes were first found in North America in a shipment of used tires at the port of Houston in 1985." But how did they come to North America and where did they come from? In used tires from Asia??? Thanks! Rumjal ````

Dead links[edit]

footnotes 62-63-64 has broken links — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.219.231.82 (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Spread Map[edit]

The current map showing the spread of the mosquito seems to be out of date. Arizona, which is not highlighted as a place it has been spotted has claimed several invasions by this creature. It is mentioned here. Sorry if I was wrong, just trying to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.195.109.138 (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It is greatly outdate. I've just been biten by one. In Oslo, Norway. 84.215.84.226 (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
They are also in Israel now, this maps really does need updating. http://www.jpost.com/Health-and-Science/Guidelines-to-stop-Asian-tiger-mosquito-infection one article, just google asian tiger mosquito israel and you'll see lots of similar stories. - Cilibinarii (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No mention of bite effect?[edit]

There is nothing in the article regarding the effect and behavior of the biting, not even a single word "itch".

Well, in my experience (I'm in Japan), the mosquito is really aggressive and can bite you multiple times. I once interrupted a mosquito during daylight when I caught it in the act, and about 30 minutes later I got 4 mosquito bumps. The one at the place where I caught it was very small, the others large at 8mm. Compared to normal mosquitoes, the bumps are much larger at about 10-20mm diameter (only a Black Fly causes bigger bumps from what I experienced), they itch more, and itch longer (typically 48-72 hours compared to just 18-24 hours for a normal mosquito bites). Also, I actually kill more in my home (which entered through a tiny slit in my flyscreen door which won't fully close), than I see outside (contrary to what the article claims). --Zom-B (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Have see the aedes albopictus in New South Wales, Australia[edit]

Have seen the aedes albopictus in Newcastle in NSW Australia on the 16th and 17th of march 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.110.92.120 (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The following is an excellent reference that discusses the future of Aedes albopictus as far as its distribution and the potential health problems it may have on northeastern US. Significant and relevant research on this species that will help avoid public health issues in urban populations as the Tiger mosquito continues to spread due to environmental factors. I learned a lot from it, but here is the citation and URL if anyone is interested.

Rochlin, I., Ninivaggie, D.V., et al. 2013. Climate Change and Range Expansion of the Asian Tiger Mosquito (Aedes Albopictus) in Northeastern USA: Implications for Public Health Practitioners. PLOS One. 8: 4. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0060874

Anonymous4715 (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit 10/25/15[edit]

I edited the sections from "Role as disease vectors," until the end. I made minor changes to sentence structure to improve flow and readability. I corrected grammatical errors, and removed unnecessary in-text citations, replacing them with end-of-text references. I also italicized all uses of the word, "Wolbachia." Gern Blanston 13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Actually, citations should be kept within the sentences they refer to. If insertions of new information is merged with what is there, then the references at the end of the paragraphs will be cut off from the text to which they referEvol&Glass (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits and suggestions to the sections I added on this article. I tried to address all your suggestions, but mainly improved the article by correctly referencing studies that are relevant to this article. Instead of specifically saying who did the experiment or how, I summarized the findings--making the article more professional. As far as I have read, there is no way to inhibit cytoplasmic incompatibility as one of my peer reviewers suggested. It is one of the mechanisms that accompanies Wolbachia and allows it to infect an entire population. It has been difficult to find more information on population replacement, but I am sure it has evolutionary implications for the population that has become infected with Wolbachia. I found some more information on the evolution of Wolbachia overall, as one study found in a population of Drosophila, that at first the fecundity of infected females was low, and then became high. This seems to suggest evolution into a mutualistic relationship as the Wolbachia evolves its infection strategy to provide a benefit to the host and spread the infection overall. In a general sense, it only allows the infected to reproduce creating a completely infected population with time. I have not read that this significantly changes any characteristics of the Asian Tiger Mosquitos, but in general will allow for more disease spread within the population and even to neighboring individuals. I also have not found any articles that say the Wolbachia infection creates any disadvantages to females, only advantages in fertility and survival. It is also important to consider when these topics that may sound harmful are actually intentional and beneficial for humans. For the control of disease spread, Wolbachia is one strategy to transfer specific genes to keep those individuals from reproducing and spreading whatever disease we would like to reduce. Therefore, although population replacement certainly has evolutionary implications in the population of Asian Tiger Mosquitos, it is sometimes in an artificial context because we are intentionally controlling this population's genetics. I tried to expand on cytoplasmic incompatibility as was suggested, and believe I added a clear sentence to add some background information to the concept. The males serve as a biological control because they can only reproduce with infected females, thereby reducing the population overall. If the entire population has the Wolbachia infection, then other diseases that these mosquitos may have will be reduced. This is shown in the experiment about reducing the spread of dengue. I agree with the suggestions about creating a section for Wolbachia alone, instead of under the disease vector section. It should stand on its own to clarify how it is different from other infections, and can actually provide a public health strategy. Thank you for your edits!

Anonymous4715 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

Wolbachia and the Asian Tiger Mosquito: Your section is very well written. It is detailed yet easy to understand. I like that you briefly define some of the terms that a reader might not be familiar with. One thing that you could add would be about Wolbochia’s long-term effect on the species as a whole. What will happen if population replacement continues to occur? Are there any particular groups of tiger mosquitos that are not affected by Wolbochia, such as a population in a certain location? Evolution43 (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


Your article is very well written and your additions are informative. One suggestion would be to group together parts of the article which talk about fitness advantages for uninfected females. You talk about it at several different points so it is a bit repetitive, however, you add new detail every time you mention it so it is relevant - perhaps look at if you can reorganize any areas to make it less repetitive. I'm a little fuzzy on the concept of population replacement - you could try to expand on that to paint a clearer picture of how the overall genotype is replaced with a new genotype. I changed a few words as well as added another sentence after you mentioned the transfer of genes in the first paragraph - I wanted to put an example of this from the article you used. Keep up the good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueBioBill (talkcontribs) 21:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the previous comments on your article: It is concise and fairly well written. I think that you should add references at the end of every sentence since the original references for sentences may be unclear if there are additional contributions that take place within your work by others. You do a good job at explaining the evolutionary development and relevance of Wolbachia in regard to your species through your sources. I clarified a sentence in your second paragraph to reiterate its relevance due to CI. Further contributions could investigate any additional benefits that Wolbachia introduces to the mosquito populations beyond CI if there are any. Anon2831 (talk) 05:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

My final changes to the contributions I made in this article were mainly restructuring sentences and paragraphs to improve flow of the information. My contributions were the sections on Wolbachia and how the Asian Tiger mosquito can be used as an agent for disease control. I added more subheadings to divide the information, and reordered sentences so that related sentences followed each other, instead of the scattered sentences that previously made up these sections. This can be seen in the Cytoplasmic Incompatibility section, where I divided the information into types of CI, and their implications, to make the information clearer and more structured. A reference was added that spoke about how CI can lead to speciation to supplement this section. I also had comments from those who reviewed my article about reducing technical language, or explaining technical language when used. Therefore, I made changes to sections that involved significant vocabulary or significant knowledge of the topic so that a general audience can understand the article. Finally, there were a couple comments on population replacement as a population of Aedes albopictus experience a change in genotype as Wolbachia infects more and more individuals. I believe that I added some helpful information to this section to make the idea easier to understand. I reviewed my article in great detail for grammar mistakes to make this article as polished and professional as possible.

Anonymous4715 (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Out of date template[edit]

I added the update template to this article, because the map is BADLY out of date. I actually think the current situation is dangerous. CometEncke (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

More current map added, template removed.  Done M. A. Broussard (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Aedes albopictus. 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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Aedes albopictus. 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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)