Talk:Banded sugar ant

Edibility

What I gather from the film "Crocodile Dundee" is that they are called sugar ants because they taste sweet (if you hold the head and bite the end off). Is this true? I think its worth mentioning in the article if a source is found.

J1812 (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I am actually curious about the implications of this statement since it could relate to the type of sugar ant predators. (Akinjenn (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC))

From what I have experienced, yes. I currently have a sugar ant colony, and since I accidentally killed one by stepping on it, I didn't follow the exact rule of biting the end off, but they are pretty sweet when you just lick them. Also should make note, soldier sugar ants are not to be messed with, because they are able to deliver a rather painful bite and in some cases you will bleed, and the bleeding will be a very long time, judging from experiences. Burklemore1 (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"Sugar Ant"

Can someone tell me/cite what official organization has deemed this species' common name Sugar Ant? Sugar ant is a VERY common name for nearly any ant people find in their kitchens here in the US. Also, there are no common names for this species (Camponotus consobrinus) and no species associated with the common name 'sugar ant", according to the Entomological Society of America's Insects and Related Organisms Sorted by Scientific Name (pg 10) and Insects and Related Organisms Sorted by Common Name (pgs 47-48), respectively. I feel like if we have a Wiki page titled Sugar Ant, it should go towards explaining that it (the term Sugar Ant) is a common name for many ant species. Even in the citation provided, the website has a page called sugar ants in which all Camponotus spp are considered sugar ants. I really beleive this page should be re-titled to scientific name or make some note that this is ONLY for AU. Barbie (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Barbe

CSIRO deems this as its common name on its separate page.[1] The Camponotus species listed in the sources you have provided only appear to be US based ants and they appear to have different common names, not "sugar ants" as you claim. I am certainly sure in the Pulitzer Prize winning book The Ants, Camponotus consobrinus goes under this name. They also go under the name "Banded sugar ant", although "sugar ant" is the most familiar term. Perhaps a note can be provided in the article explaining that this species is the most familiarised ant with this term in Australia. If you can provide more sources on this issue, I can happily rename the page to its other name "Banded sugar ant". Burklemore1 (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Copy Edit

@Burklemore1:, I am nearly finished copy-editing this. It is a nice little article, and I enjoyed the process. I am not certain that it is ready for GAN, through no fault of your own; it seems as though the source material is a little thin. However, even if you wish to give it a shot, the first step is to address the several clarification tags within the article. Once you have done so, I would be happy to recheck this. Also, the article currently uses two citation styles concurrently; I'm going to go ahead and unify them. Feel free to revert if you have any objections. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Thanks for the copyediting and adding the clarification tags, I'll get onto those when I have some spare time. Once I have clarified everything I will most likely leave you a note on your talk page so you can do a recheck. I'll nominate it for GA afterwards unless you can think of anything else which needs clarifying. Can you also elaborate on the source material being a "little thin" please? Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Burklemore1, I mean that the article is rather short, and so it might fail the comprehensiveness criterion at GAN. However, from my brief look at the sources, it seems as though this is because not much is known about them. For instance; how long do they live? What is the timescale of their various life-stages? Where do they mate? Why were the sub-species and the species itself reclassified? What other species is it related to? and so forth. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Oh, okay I get what you mean now. For an ant that is among the most common in Australia, there aren't a lot of available sources that can cover your questions, and as you said, there isn't much known about them. Life expectancy for the workers and soldiers is unknown to me so far, but longevity has only been studied with the queens and this has been mentioned in the article. I could add a sentence about the species group it is apart of if that can answer your last question. I could also include the species apart of this group if you would like. Thanks for the answer by the way. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• On additional sources, have you checked Google scholar? I'll probably GA review this article soon, since it's probably better to leave Jack jumper ant for some fresh eyes. FunkMonk (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: I was hoping to get feedback from Snowman about the medical aspects for that article, but unfortunately I never received a response. However I believe it's all resolved. As for the Sugar ant article, I have been going through Google Scholar but many sources aren't open access so I am unable to incorporate any info the sources may hold. As far as I'm concerned, the article is comprehensive in nearly all aspects, but most of the questions Vanamonde gave can only be answered through my personal observations, so I would be violating the original research aspect if I were to incorporate it into the article. I'll try and find more sources though. I know Bert Hölldobler has an unpublished report about a C. consobrinus queen living for 7 years that was mentioned in The Ants, as well as another source having a list of observed nuptial flights. Sadly the source didn't go in depth and no references were given, but I might go email the author though. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, lack of open access is not a problem, you can get all the unfree papers you need to improve any articles through this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request Without that, I wouldn't have been unable to write most of the articles I've expanded. FunkMonk (talk) 05:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, this will help me out a lot. Hopefully the sources will shed light onto some concerns! Burklemore1 (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Cool, just ping me when you've added the content, then I'll begin the review, unless someone else has already, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, I was not aware of your response. I'll begin to do more scooping around. Burklemore1 (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Burklemore1, if you disagree with the move, you can make a formal move request[2] to move it back, which will begin a discussion where you can argue for your case. Probably best to wait with the review until it is settled, so the article can be stable. FunkMonk (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

FunkMonk, I did thank the editor who renamed it since the name "sugar ant" is actually familiarised with many ants (especially Camponotus ants), but a requested move by the editor should have been done originally in my opinion. I'm not very fussed that it was changed anyway, but I hope other editors can give their thoughts about the change. As for the review, just feel free to start it whenever you feel the article is fully stable. Would you suggest to withdraw its nomination for the time being? Burklemore1 (talk) 10:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Nah, the title isn't too important, but it may be a problem for the various links between pages if the article is moved several times, not sure. I can begin the review soon if you're not keen on requesting a move soon anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 10:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of preventing potential problems in the future, I think it's best to not request a move; I'm happy with the name anyway, not sure with others though. I would say that's its "proper name", despite most Australians familiar with the term "sugar ant". Just feel free to review when you feel like doing it. Burklemore1 (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Banded sugar ant/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 15:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Hi, I'll begin this review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Cheers for taking on the review. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• First, the common name should probably be mention first in the intro, then the binomial in parenthesis, as in other articles where the common name is the title. FunkMonk (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, seems the editor who changed the name must have done this edit. I've now swapped it around.

• "The banded sugar ant was first described by German entomologist Wilhelm Ferdinand Erichson, who called it Formica consobrina. " Called could be "named", and remember to add the year.

Done.

• "based on a holotype queen" There can only be one/the holotype, so "a" is incorrect. I've fixed this and other problematic wording under taxonomy, pay close attention to those changes for another time.

Thanks.

• "by entomologist Julius Roger in his work Verzeichniss der Formiciden-Gattungen und Arten." Listing the year is more important here than the name of the publication.

Done.

• "It was placed in the genus Camponotus as Camponotus dimidiatus, now considered a synonym of the banded sugar ant" This sentence has afew problems. First, if the queen was already a holotype of another species, does this mean Roger synonymised Formica consobrina with Camponotus dimidiatus? And when talking about synonyms, you should use the scientific name, not the common name, otherwise it is hard to understand what the last part of that sentence means.

Partially done.

Rewrote, but please double check.

Still makes little sense "Formica consobrina was later synonymised with Camponotus dimidiatus, now considered a synonym of Camponotus consobrinus, by entomologist Julius Roger in 1863." If the species is consobrina/consobrinus, dimidiatus cannot have been a senior synonym, as this name is newer. FunkMonk (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Alright it seems my thought process tricked me and I believe Campontous dimidatus was considered a different species after checking out the Hymenoptera Name Server. Formica consobrina was synonymised with Consobrinus . Are we clear now?

Then I guess it would make more sense to say the species was moved to the genus Camponotus as C. Camponotus... FunkMonk (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. Are you satisfied with the sentence now?

• "making them a large species." Compared to what?

Other species. Clarified.

• "being more small and slender, while the soldiers are more robust and large." smaller and more slender etc. would read better.

Done.

Also goes for the rest of the sentence, "while the soldiers are more robust and large". FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Does "while the soldiers are larger and robust" sound fine?

"larger and more robust" would be it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Done.

• "Different workers in a colony have different morphologies due to their distinct developmental pathways" and "appear significantly different from each other." Differences like what? You just state they are different, which doesn't help the reader much.

Size.

• Perhaps the paragraph discussed above is better under life cycle.

Moved.

• The second paragraph under description would probably be better at the bottom of the section, colouration and other such features are more important, therefore should be at the top.

Done.

• There are many terms under description that most readers will be unfamiliar with but are not explained.

As in insect anatomy terms or complicated vocabulary that may be difficult to understand?

• "The eggs of this species are often consumed by the Australian Aborigines.[63]" This is sourced to a 1910 article, which should be noted, as it may not be true today.

Explain?

What are you asking? FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

What I am asking is how you believe it may not be true due to its age. Is there some sort of Wikipedia policy in regards to these sorts of things, or is it just an assumption?

It may be true (we cannot be sure without a more modern source), but the source is more than a hundred years old, so this context needs to be explained. FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I have decided to remove the sentence unless I do find a source that further explains this. I must mention however that Australian Aborigines are known to eat Camponotus species, especially the honeypot ants. I believe the name "sugar ant" is also due to their abdomens tasting sweet when they are consumed. An editor a long time ago on this talk page mentioned a documentary or show that goes on about it.

I don't think it should be deleted, just rewritten, the change could be as simple as "The eggs of this species were often consumed by the Australian Aborigines." Or According to author x in 1910, Australian Aborigines often consume..." FunkMonk (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I have reincorporated the sentence and source with one of your suggestions.

• "Relationship with other organisms" This should be titled "ecology".

Renamed.

• The structure of the behaviour section is messy. There is ecological info in it (about relations with other ants and predators), while you also have a separate info for relationships with other species. Either the two are merged, or the info is moved around.

Merged.

• "Banded sugar ants will often attack the nests of other species" Ant species?

Yes. Clarified

• "s banded sugar ants only spray formic acid and lack a sting, they do not pose any threat to humans, even when swarming. The formic acid is however corrosive to human skin.[34]" Would appear to belong under human relations.

Moved.

• When common names are followed by binomials, you are inconsistent in whether they are in parenthesis or not.

While I understand this problem clearly, what is the extent of this?

Well, giving it a glance, sometimes binomials are in parenthesis, sometimes they are not, and sometimes they are not mentioend the first time a specie sis named at all. Other time,s only a binomial name is mentioned. So you could read through the article and make sure it is consistent. FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll go and read the article and fix it up. I'm not feeling the best right now so I'll do it when I wake up in the morning.

I have worked on this issue, so can you please go double check and see if I have missed any?

• "this is the fourth Camponotus species that exhibits polygyny." That is recognised/known as exhibiting polygyny.

Done.

• "The ant Camponotus pennsylvanicus is known to adopt larvae and pupae from banded sugar ant colonies (laboratory colonies)" Which is what?

Decided to remove this.

• "since the colony may lose health over this" Lose health? Seems an odd way to put it.

Well, that's what the source implies so there isn't really much we can do here.

"The health of the colony may deteriorate"? FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

That sounds better explained. Meat ant colonies never nest near shaded areas since they love the heat and hate the cold (they rely on the sun to heat the nest, thus sustaining the health of the colony). I have seen sugar ants forage in temperatures below 10 degrees, but meat ants who stay out in that sort of coldness will die. With this said, the shade prevents the colony being heated up, ultimately killing the colony.

• "Starlings have been observed to" Introduced starlings, or some native variant?

Source doesn't specifically say what Starling.

I believe we just had an edit conflict. Some of the issues you raised have been solved and will do further edits here to clarify which exact ones. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit conflicts should not be a problem, as long as what you've written after me is added separately again. FunkMonk (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I have rewritten everything, so everything is all fine. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• "a cosmopolitan genus of ants commonly known as carpenter ants." This is only stated in the intro, but there should be no unique info there. Also seems odd to use so much space in the intro on this, when more important things mentioned in the article aren't.

Removed sentence and added some more info in the lead.

• Alright, changes look good, so will pass this now. FunkMonk (talk) 13:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Conversion of units

It first attracted my attention that "5 mm to 15 mm" was converted to "0.20 to 0.59 inches". That seemed to be unnecessary precision - "0.2 to 0.6 inches" would seem more appropriate. And then I scanned the rest of the article and found that there was not uniform use of the "convert" template. Elsewhere mm was some times converted by hand, rather than using the convert template. Ordinarily I would just go ahead and make the changes, using the convert template, and indicating the appropriate precision. But more caution seems called for in a featured article, so I'm asking for other opinions. TomS TDotO (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Well it seems the convert template is at fault for the precise figures. So what are you suggesting, the use of the convert template or remove it altogether and round it off? Burklemore1 (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

My first thought is to use the convert template in all instances wherever there are units in need of conversion, and use the convert template to specify appropriate precision. Unless there is some reason to do otherwise. TomS TDotO (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

That sounds fine, I'm in agreement. If you want you can initiate these edits anyway, I wouldn't see why someone would oppose (even if it is FA). Burklemore1 (talk) 08:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Banded sugar ant. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150329225012/http://tasfieldnats.org.au/TasNaturalist/Articles/1997/TasNat_1997_No119_WholeIssue.pdf to http://www.tasfieldnats.org.au/TasNaturalist/Articles/1997/TasNat_1997_No119_WholeIssue.pdf

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

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) 02:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Banded sugar ant. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402205928/http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/9067869.pdf to http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/9067869.pdf

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) 11:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)