Jump to content

Talk:Moth/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Images available

There is a large collection of amateur moth photos available for use on Wikipedia here: http://www.origins.tv/entomology/moths/moths300ident.htm (The page is image-heavy -- best for broadband users.)

Just include this text on the Image page if you choose to use them:

"You are free to use any photograph of mine for educational, non-profit purposes. Wikipedia qualifies. Any photograph of mine appearing on the Wikipedia website should be acknowledged somewhere (not necessarily at the point of use) by the legend "© 2004 by Robert Patterson," and with a link to my website."

The website link: http://www.origins.tv/entomology/mainmenu.htm

Catherine 19:24, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That looks to me like a ((noncommercial)) licence, and we have a policy against non-commercial use only images. Sorry. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 14:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of moths

This list seems to be getting unwieldy. I say it should be broken off into its own page, or at least classified into families. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 14:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

silk

130 million kg yearly for 250 million US dollar? That is 2 dollars per kg: that can't be true. Way too cheap. Han-Kwang (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Reproduction

How do moths reproduce? I assume they lay eggs same as butterfly. Also does anyone have any idea how the eggs survive the arctic winter. CambridgeBayWeather 09:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Curious as to why there's not much information on such a common thing as a moth...

do they cum out of the eggs as caterpillars??? -ninuri de silva

Dubious paragraph

I've removed the following paragraph from the text; I'm unacquainted with the terms mentioned, and I'm afraid it might be a joke. I'd like to have a native speaker review it, preferably one well-versed in entomology, in any case.

People who study butterflies and/or moths are called lepidopterists; the study of butterflies is known as butterflying, and the study of moths mothing, the latter giving rise to the term mother for someone who takes part in this activity - sometimes written with a hyphen inserted: moth-er - to distinguish it from the word for a female parent (in spoken English, confusion does not arise as the two are pronounced differently).

Taragüí @ 16:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

"Mothers" is real. See ALS Guide to Moth Trapping. Tearlach 16:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Confirmed. I sometimes go mothing with more dedicated moth-ers. Andy Mabbett 17:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Announcing WikiProject Lepidoptera

This is inform you that Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera is up and about. The aim is to support article creation on Lepidoptera and accordingly make a collective contribution to the global community in this field.

Since I am a 'butterfly person', I feel acutely conscious of my lack of knowledge of such a large part of the same order. The division of people into 'aurelians' and 'moth-ers' is traditional due to single minded focus of most butterfy people, especially myself, but is scientifically incorrect and not in the best interests of anyone. We all need to be 'Lepidopterists'.

I request the support of all moth-ers in Wikipedia for making the Lepidoptera knowledgebase on Wikipedia a success.

May I request that WikiProject Lepidoptera be monitored to see that any unintended bias in favour of butterflies does not take place?

Henceforth I shall use the term 'Lepidopterists' for all concerned.

Hoping for a creative, cooperative, innovative and enriching experience for all concerned.

Regards, AshLin 03:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Moth Stub

For information of all Lepidopterists,

I am proposing a stub, called 'moth stub', as a sister stub to 'butterfly stub' and a subcategory of 'insect stub'. The procedure requires that we justify by showing that a 'good number |over 60 articles' of moth articles are stubs requiring attention and thus require a categorty of their own. So I am in search of all moth articles which are not yet full fledged articles (very easy, majority of Lepidoptera articles are stubs). I intend to mark them with a generic 'insect stub' and list them on a new project page called Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera/Moth Stubs. When we get the list done, I shall propose a 'moth stub'. I have requested User:Kugamazog for some moth images for use in this stub and other places in WikiProject Lepidoptera.

Regards, AshLin 07:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Lifespan

I guess it varies from species to species, but is there a general lifespan for moths? I'm always interested to know such things. Jono 20:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Lifecycle?

Hi. In reading about the Indianmeal moth I came across this interesting quote: "Practically all moths eat nothing; the very limited exceptions are the moths that have special mouth parts for taking nectar from flowers." [1] Is that correct? If so, I'd love to see a section on the moth lifecycle here. William Pietri 22:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Literary Imagination?

The "Place in the Literary Imagination" would look to be execessively flowery, if not altogether unneeded. Would anyone object to me removing it, or at least, putting it in somewhat more concrete terms? 66.25.120.166 00:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

moths

are moths atrakted 2 light?

Yes. This article has a whole section explaining that. Kgrr 10:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Other uses of "moth"

There exist more uses for the term "Moth" than just the insect and the Indian town. For example, there is a band by the same name. I think the disambiguation statement should include "for other uses of" rather than just forwarding to the town. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jon Park (talk • contribs) 07:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Does the band Moth have a page? Are they really significant? Can you list all the other instances of "Moth"? If so then you can build a disambiguation page and link it to the town, the band, etc. similar to the one built for Tiger moth. If you feel it's all justified, be bold and do it. Kgrr 10:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Cladistics

What would help this article look professional would be a cladistics of how moths and butterflies are related to each other and other insects (especially flies). Same thing should go for the article butterflies. þ 20:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

- Actually disregard the butterfly link, I see they have it represented. But anyway if anybody has a reliable information source this article would be much appreciated. þ 21:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


Moth Pie

My gram makes something called "moth pie". When I ask what's in it, she gives the typical grandmotherly response, "Oh, it's an old family recipe". It tastes like socks and it's really chalky. Any chance it's made of real moths? Anyone else ever heard of this? D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 04:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


Moth ingesting nectar Picture - a butterfly

Hmmm... the last pic with the "moth" on the flower looks more like it's a butterfly (like a skipper or a Lycaenidae). It's a nice picture but it doesn't seem to be a moth. If it is, perhaps someone could someone point out what species it is. The antennae are usually the most reliable distinguishers of butterflies and moths - more so than how much hair they have or how colorful they are. Even moths with club-like antennae are not THAT clubbed. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.213.220.62 (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are correct. That photo was of a skipper (butterfly) and not a moth. My apologies for my error. Flippedgazelle 05:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Unidentified Specimen Photographs

I'm of the opinion there are enough credible online sources for images of reliably identified moth species that we really don't need external links to galleries of (albeit interesting and beautiful) anonymous insects. Ditto the butterflies; this page heading is "Moth." Nickrz 13:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Another Perspective, Please!

I am not an expert on moths; I am the owner of a plant nursery. I was astonished to come upon this article and see moths denigrated for their "destructiveness" with no mention of their essential role as pollinators, particularly for monocots. They also play important roles in the decomposition of plant materials. Is there someone out there with the background to clean this up, or do I have to hack away at it myself?Carlaclaws (talk) 05:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hercules Moth

I would to know if the Hercules Moth is rare or not.

Thanks.

Callum —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.27.90.126 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

If you found it far away from Papua New Guinea or Australia, then it is unusual to find. glad to help, Melune (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

twitching pupae information please?

as a kid i used to find pupa hanging from the wooden undersides of the lower wood panels of my old house, i used to touch them and squeeze gently and theyd create a rotating twitching motion in their base ends, is there anything on this? Murakumo-Elite (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Negative view of moths

It seems bias to start off with a para on how destructive they are. They are indispensible to natural cycles. Little is said of this. This article seems to take a corp / farming angle. Can we open it up a bit and round it out? Spanglej (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Having taken a look over the article there is no bias in the lead. The reference to their distructive features appears in the Economic importance section which is normal for a scientific article. However, although what is included here appears valid I agree there is an imbalance in so far as there is no reference to the crucial role moths play in pollination ( a point made by an earlier commentator above). Also given the large number of larvae produced/and consumed their economic importance as a prey for other animals could be mentioned briefly and linked to relevant other article(s) on say the food chain. I'm no expert but my rather rusty off the cuff recollections are that moths have historically been underestimated in their particular importantance in the pollination of some of the larger fruit which is grown commercially in 'tropical' regions. (Can a specialist editor asssit here?) But anyway regardless as one of the key tenets of WP is for editors to 'Be bold' in making edits so I encourage you to have a go and I will be happy to support you in your efforts to improve this section.Tmol42 (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Image Galley Note

There's a notation on this page about an image gallery - in this case the image gallery is a helpful representation of many different types of moths. The images should be retained and the comment removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.97.133.243 (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

moth behaviour

is it just the moth i found, or do all of them flutter their wings...no this moth definitely was not fluttering itz wings, more lyk it was vibrating the wings so fast that it came as a blur. another thing is that it wasnt staying in the light but finding shade!! maybe it was just afraid of me... i cant seem to find an image in internet that fits its features... i think it cant fly though its pretty large... i was wondering, is it in pain??? is it dieing???? -ninuri de silva— Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.71.25 (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

not every moth flies really fast.

What is the dust that the moths give off when they die

(I didn't start this, but I have a question that could relate) And also does it taste good? I ask because my dog loves to eat moths, and we are not sure why. --Zaybertamer 07:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, cant say. Probably you mean the powdered scales falling off. As far as dogs are concerned, some dogs do gobble up insects at times and some dont! No scientific explanation available as regards moths. AshLin 19:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
A friend noticed that his dog was eating moths and also that they seemed to be coated in a fine powder, thus he figured the logical conclusion was the lick the moth and taste it. He assured me it did not taste good at all. As for what the powder is called I can't recall, although I seem to recall reading somewhere that it had something to do with the moth's ability to fly. --Col.clawhammer (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I have yet to meet a dog who doesn't like to eat moths. I believe it is part of the regressed hunting instinct in domesticated dogs. As for the powder, it is actually the scales from the wings, which shed the scales extremely often. Melune (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
my cat eats moths. it is problably because moth move rapidly which makes the animal believe that the moth is prey and cats and dogs are colorblind Valehd (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Are moths nocternal?

yes Valehd (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Attraction to light

In the "Attraction to light" section, the first paragraph states that the reason that moths are attracted to light is unknown. However, the third paragraph makes it seem like they are "attracted" to artificial light only because they mistake it for the moon's light, which helps them navagate. Given the third paragraph, I wouldn't say that there's any mystery regarding why moths fly toward light. Can anyone clarify this? --Anakolouthon 07:17, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is a fair amount of literature that that been published on how moths respond to light. There are also a fair number of theories, none of which has been conclusively proven. For a summary see pages 308 to 311 of Rich & Longcore, 2013 (Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting) - can be found in GoogleBooks by searching with the keywords "Hsiao 1972 mach band". The current Wiki section entry is only one take on the issue, thus is really in need of a rewrite. HKmoths (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Moth/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Hi. I have difficulty pronouncing the scientific names used in the article(and in general). It would be helpful to have some sort of pronounciation included. Thanks

Last edited at 00:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Moth invasion at Euro 2016 final

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3683490/Euro-2016-final-France-Portugal-invaded-swarm-moths.html Olivier Mengué | ⇄ 09:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Do not look like a moth

the picture in the top did not look like a moth, it look like a bird! i will appreciate it if you put another picture of a moth,NOT THE FACE! if you find a picture that look on the face,i will be like "O_O". (do not mean that the article is the worst)--Thewinrat (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC) thumb

Do Moths really have backbones?

As a biology student,I am figuring out how classify the moth(s).No research program I have found gives me the info. 

 Contact me at kentt66@gmail.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenttar (talk • contribs) 15:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
it's a bug. no. Valehd (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
No , not strictly a bug which are generally regarded as Hemiptera,Heteroptera, but certainly invertebrate (i.e lacking a backbone or notochord). I just wonder if biology students remain students from 2009 to 2016, probably not. Ho hum  Velella  Velella Talk   22:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Moth. 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) 09:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Crude and irrelevant information

Something as crude as..

Moth larvae may be killed by freezing the items which they infest for several days at a temperature below −8 °C (18 °F).[9]

.. should (imo) not be on a wikipedia page. Wallby (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

As an alternative, scent-based methods to repell moths could be considered. Wallby (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2021

I am requesting that you change out the Atlas Moth in the "notable moths" section to the Hercules Moth. The Atlas Moth (Attacus atlas) is NOT the largest moth on Earth, but this is stated in the article. The largest moth is the Hercules Moth (Coscinocera hercules). I will link a source that specifically states that they are the largest moths, but this information is also easily worked out if you just compare their average wingspans.

https://www.qm.qld.gov.au/Explore/Find+out+about/Animals+of+Queensland/Insects/Butterflies+and+moths/Common+species/Hercules+Moth 174.52.201.124 (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Butterflies?

here it says all which are not Butterflies while the lemma Butterfly says it includes Moths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C22:CC20:6900:993D:491D:AA70:EB5D (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Wrong Time period for evolution

"Lepidoptera differs between butterflies and other organisms due to evolving a special characteristic of having the tube-like proboscis in the Middle Triassic which allowed them to acquire nectar from flowering plants.[3]" thats not true, flowering plants are currently thought to have evolved in the mid-cretaceous, and the source makes no mention the Triassic period that i could find, someone please edit Dailen05 (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

What you say makes sense. I followed the reference to this article and my mind is not working well enough just now to understand it. @Dailen05: or anyone else, please be bold and correct the text. Thank you, SchreiberBike | ⌨  17:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
i'm new, how do you edit a semi-protected article? Dailen05 (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
@Dailen05: WP:SEMI says "Semi-protected pages cannot be edited by unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least four days old and have made at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed." You can do some general editing of unprotected articles to get your edit count up a bit, then you could do it yourself, or you can submit an edit request. You might find the Wikipedia:Teahouse helpful. SchreiberBike | ⌨  17:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
got the edit done, opinions welcome Dailen05 (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Spongy moths

This article lists the recently renamed Lymantria dispar moth (Spongy moth) as "gypsy moth", its old name. Moncoposig (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Moncoposig: Thanks for the note. I've done the update. But hey, welcome to Wikipedia; you can do it yourself. Be bold! SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
this page is for some bizarre reason semi-protected, despite it having relatively low traffic and no large draw for vandals Dailen05 (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moth/Archive_1&oldid=1165880707"