Talk:Aphid/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Shyamal (talk · contribs) 16:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

This article looks quite comprehensive and well-developed. Please give me some time to look up some other references to examine for structure and coverage. Shyamal (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks as always for taking the time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

A few gaps - let me know if you need access to any literature mentioned

• aphid alarm pheromones get little mention - also plant resistance through their production might be worth including doi:10.1038/302608a0 and http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/103/27/10509.full.pdf

Both done.

• in the control section, there is little mention of host plant resistance through chemicals and structures such as hairs doi:10.1111/j.1744-7348.1971.tb06448.x doi:10.1111/1365-3040.ep11603601 doi:10.1016/j.crvi.2010.04.003

Plant resistance by chemicals is mentioned in 'Plant-aphid interactions'; I've added glandular hairs there.

• in the phylogeny section the analysis seems to be based on only a limited sampling which leaves several traditional groups in limbo - may be worth including traditional subfamily classifications even if work is in progress - notably missing are the subfamilies - Hormaphidinae, Greenideinae, and Anoeciinae - see http://aphid.speciesfile.org/Common/basic/Taxa.aspx?TaxonNameID=1159538 doi:10.1016/S1055-7903(03)00155-6 https://www.uv.es/cavanilles/genevol/pdfs/2010_MolPhylogenetEvol_Ortiz-Rivas.pdf Some evolutionary trends may also be worth noting - for instance 80% of the Lachnines live on conifers.

Added 2 subfamilies to tree, and a bit on the Lachninae too.

Have added family groups into the taxo box for completeness. Shyamal (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• the phylogeny section did not cover studies based on cospeciating Buchnera - I added a few recent works and a brief note.

Many thanks.

• Reference formatting can do with some consistency in how initials are used, how et al. is used. There are some bits that are in uppercase and at least one citation is duplicated.

Surname, Forenames: fixed several; removed an et al in ref; can't see any anomalous uppercase in the refs; merged a pair of refs.

• Reading through doi:10.1146/annurev.en.37.010192.001541 revealed to me that there are sexual (oviparae) and parthenogenetic morphs - and the complexity of life cycle strategies seems to be incompletely covered in the article.

OK, we're working on it. The Repro section does begin "Aphid reproduction is often complex. Some aphid species alternate between sexual and asexual reproduction", however.

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure I see any expansion on the "complexity". Please let me know when you have completed added material on the full gamut of reproduction modes and dual/single-host life-cycles. Shyamal (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Shyamal: Added descriptions of the asexual processes pseudoplacental viviparity and thelytoky. The section already discusses (and illustrates) alternation of sexual and asexual generations and dual-host life cycles, so we've basically covered "the main points" and we've indicated that special cases exist, describing several of them. Are there any particular points that you feel are major not yet mentioned? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I did not see much on the XO sexual system - I could not see how males are produced through parthenogenesis PS: saw your note on male production through parthenogenesis but linking to the XO system would help, a bit more on how morphs regulated, what are the trends in host alternation - is it a derived or primitive condition - also- it does not introduce basic terms that one would encounter in almost any aphid description - anholocyclous, holocyclous - the source indicated is quite a good review (Annual Reviews is a secondary/tertiary source despite appearing like a journal). Shyamal (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

X0 sex-determination system: linked

regulation of morphs: mentioned alternation of genetic/environmental control. We are certainly into very special detail here; and we had already mentioned polyphenism.

evolution of host alternation: added.

anholocyclous, holocyclous: both "holocyclic" and "anholocyclic" are already explained in the article.

ok - missed that. Shyamal (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• I found that the sucking sap purely by passive action is not entirely correct, in fact they do have a cibarial-pharyngeal pump and it is apparently well-known that they use it when fed on artificial diets. Have added a note with a citation.

Thanks for the note; tweaked section very slightly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• I think the scope of the article should expand to cover Aphidomorpha which is almost identical in circumscription but may need a bit more on fossils.

Mentioned them in lead and added Phylloxeridae fossil.

• The oldest Aphidomorpha - doi:10.4202/app.2010.0034 or doi:10.1111/syen.12099 ?

On second thoughts I think the Aphidomorpha article needs to be written - and this article needs to by-and-large limit itself to the Aphidoidea. Expanding the cladogram and showing Adelgoidea and Phylloxeroidea as sister groups would be good. I tried but the results were odd. Shyamal (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, well we'll leave it alone then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I was confused by the treatment of Adelgids and Phylloxerids within the Aphidoidea as shown in this article. I did not find a reference that puts them this way. Please let me know what I have missed - have put in the more traditional system of three superfamilies within the Aphidomorpha in the cladogram until then. Shyamal (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC) (PS: I have mentioned the alternate treatments.)

• Aphid parasitoids and parasites (ex. mermithids) could be included.

"Aphid parasitism by mermithid nematodes is rare today with only two known cases involving root-feeding aphids." Seems a bit obscure really. I'll see if I can find some more abundant parasites. Parasitoids and fungal pathogens are mentioned (under Control) and illustrated already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we should try to deal with parasitoids as ecological components alongside predators rather than have too much under the control section which can easily tend to become a magnet for "how-to" enthusiasts. Shyamal (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah. I've added an image and text on Entomophthorales (fungi). Not sure how we avoid duplication on the parasitoids as they're important 'Control' agents. I've said something brief about them next to Predators, trying not to go over the same ground too heavily. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. We are almost there - please give one last and complete read through and check if there are any grammatical issues introduced (especially by my edits). Shyamal (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Shyamal: Many thanks. I've given a final polish. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe the article now safely passes the GA criteria. Thank you both. Shyamal (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you Shyamal for a comprehensive review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: