User talk:Dyanega

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For anyone wondering, I'm the collection manager of a major US insect collection, and an actively publishing insect systematist. I work with several different insect orders, but focus on the Hymenoptera in particular. I am also intimately involved with efforts to create a standardized "Official" registry of zoological scientific names, and expect I may ultimately get involved in formal collaboration with Wikipedia.

Contents 1 Archives 2 Photos of unidentified species 3 WikiProject Beekeeping 4 Rhinophoridae 5 Sceliphron 6 Unidentified images 7 Euglossine bees and Coryanthes 8 ID 9 Ant mandibles as sutures 10 Improvements 11 Genus id suggested 12 Insect images 13 Your revision of Hornet 14 Pilobolus 15 Hemiptera tree 16 Wake Up! 17 I wish I could. 18 Wasp 19 Colony Collapse Disorder 20 Informal mediation

[edit] Archives

Archive1 Archive2

[edit] Photos of unidentified species

I have a lot of photos of insects that I've never uploaded because my identification was uncertain. Would you be willing to help with these? Pollinator 17:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have established a location at User:Pollinator/unidentified species, and will be adding images there, as time permits. Pollinator 02:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad you could use those. I added a larval squash borer and more info on that page. I'll be putting up more photos as I have time. I took the day off from work today and did some photography, including some bank bees, a ladybird larva eating wooly apple aphids, and a honeybee buzz pollinating (there goes that myth!). I have years of photos that are not catalogued, with many unidentified species, so I'll be putting more up on that page, as time allows. Right now my "digital darkroom" computer is down, so I can't process photos. Pollinator 04:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You might want to review a whole bunch more photos I've put up on my page, as well as some at squash borer and squash bug. Thanks. Pollinator 17:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This image has been up awhile, but I've always wondered if the red objects are parasites?

Pollinator 03:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your latest IDs, I guess I need to change some filenames. I can't believe I was so far off on the cuckoo wasp! The sharpshooter thing bugged the daylights out of me. It looked strangely familiar but I had a mental block. When you said "sharpshooter," it was an "aha" experience, as I recalled the grape growers problems with it. I watched the critter for quite awhile in the first sunlight, and it seemed to have a strobe on it. Eventually I realized that it was the sun on droplets of liquid. Then I got at a different angle, and could see the droplets shoot off under pressure, and drop. Amazing!

Can you tell if this is the glassy wing one giving California such fits? I've done some reading, but can't find any reference to it being a pest on apples, although the glassy wing one seems to be native here. I am experimenting with growing apples that don't require a lot of chilling (the Gulf Stream plus the downslope effect of the Appalachians moderates the majority of the cold air that occasionally pushes in during winter; the upshot is that we rarely have much cold). I haven't been forced to spray the apples yet this year, as the only significant problem so far has been aphids and the ladybugs have pretty much taken them out. Will a couple sharpshooters on the apple trees give any problem?

I'll have another batch of photos, as soon as I have time to process them. Thanks again. Pollinator 13:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

		The Bio-Barnstar
		For making your knowledge available without barriers, staying abreast and making use of every new techological advance in communication and doing a quiet and unsung service to entomology in the true spirit of enquiry. From the other side of the world. Shyamal 04:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Beekeeping

Hi - I've noticed that you have an immense knowledge of all things entomological, and was wondering if you'd be inerested in joining WiiProject Beekeeping. It's a new initiative, but I hope that in time, it will grow immensely. If you're interested, feel free to list yourself in the members section linked above - there are no upper or lower bouds of work to do for the project - you cn do a little, or a lottle Template:Emot. Thanks, Martinp23 23:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. I'll post your message on the Project page - hopefully it will have some effect when we get some members! Would you be interested in joining? Thanks, Martinp23 10:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rhinophoridae

Hello Dyanega (Doug)I finally got round to the Rhinophoridae. A start at least.Also some other Diptera families some of which got a need Taxobox notice which was quickly added others not. A bit hesitant to do this.I can easily send a list of the families needing Taxobox if you wish. Enjoyed your discussion of Muscomorpha which was very nicely argued.It gave me some ideas for related problems. Do you ever see Diptera.info (like Bug Guide) Very nice pics of Hymenoptera from time to time id'd by Horstmann, van Achterberg etc. through Camille Thirion in Gembloux. Best wishes from Ireland. RobertNotafly

[edit] Sceliphron

Hi Doug, The Sceliphron article has

Sceliphron madraspatanum Fabr. 1781; Mediterranean

I always thought it was South Asian. Holiday wishes. Shyamal 02:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The various subspecies are scattered throughout Eurasia. S. m. tubifex is Mediterranean. Dyanega 02:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unidentified images

Hi Doug, I have a few more images at User:Pollinator/unidentified species if you'd like to take a gander. Thanks. Pollinator 06:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. The Polistes and Vespula photos are especially nice.

Thanks. I spent quite awhile looking at photos and drawings of the color patterns, and when I got done, I felt more confused than when I began. The southern yellow jacket is very common around here, seemingly belieing what I've read about them being replaced by german yellow jackets. The polistes species is also very common, I've seen them by the hundreds in cotton fields, apparently looking for bollworms (always prior to spray, not afterwards). But I've never seen them on what I thought was a characteristic external stemed Polistes nest. They seem to nest in cavities. Several years ago, I had one season with three of the nests in my workshop/barn, which was sided with corregated sheet metal, and one nest was within the door frame. I am a laissez-faire type of guy with almost all wildlife, but that nest finally had to go, as they stung me every time I shut the door. The other two nests were left to do their thing, as they weren't near the door. The fly I never would have guessed; now I'll be looking for them next season.Pollinator 23:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, V. squamosa is the most recognizable eastern YJ, given that no others there have complete yellow stripes on the notum. It has been spreading northwards in recent years, I can only presume it's a climate change thing. As for the Polistes, the structure of the nest *is* an exposed, petiolate comb - that doesn't mean they won't build it in a sheltered space when they have the opportunity and inclination. Peace, Dyanega 17:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Euglossine bees and Coryanthes

Apparently there are several academic publications detailing the intoxicating effects of the secretions of coryanthes on euglossine bees. I also found some biochemistry papers that did chemical analyses on the fragrances of coryanthes, but it was not clear which chemical was inebriating in particular, so I did not investigate that very much. The dominant scent is something like the camphor which is in Vicks Vaporub, but there are traces of many other chemicals as well. So...--Filll 03:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"Apparently"? If so, then I would be interested in the citations, and it will be essential for you to produce them in order to include any such material in WP. ALL male orchid bees collect aromatic chemicals from orchids, and even Darwin was aware of this. Not once, out of some 200 years of published research on orchid bees, have I seen documentation that collecting these chemicals involved "inebriation". Bees topple into Coryanthes flowers because the walls of the bucket are designed to make the bees slip and fall, not because the bees are "inebriated". From what I can find on the web, that "bumblebee.org" website is the ONLY existing reference to this purported phenomenon. As such, it is NOT to be considered authoritative. Until you have the references, this stuff on Coryanthes inducing inebriation must stay OUT of WP. Dyanega 18:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have two in peer-reviewed publications and I ran across one in a book as well. I might be able to find more, but I am not a bee expert like you, so I will not bet on it. I will of course admit that these authors who claimed "inebriation" or "intoxication" might have been mistaken and that there might have been later publications which disproved their contentions. I have not found any such references yet, however.--Filll 18:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I found:

• Natural pollination of orchids, C.H. Dodson and G.P. Frymire, Mo. Bot. Gard. Bull. 49(9): 133-152. 1961

• Pollination by Euglossine Bees, Robert L. Dressler, Evolution, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Mar., 1968), pp. 202-210 doi:10.2307/2406664

The second reference has the direct quote, "Dodson and Frymire (1961) suggest that the bees become somewhat inebriated during their visits at orchid flowers". I think this is pretty clear. Not in just one peer-reviewed publication, but a second one repeated it. It made it into print both times.

I will get you some more information.--Filll 18:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• From page 74 of The Chemistry of Essential Oils Made Simple, David Stewart, Care Publications, 2005, ISBN 0934426996, "After working for a time accumulating his cache of oil, the bee then begins to act strangely, slipping and falling down, as if he were drunk and out of his head in ecstasy".

• From page 142 of Insects and plants: parallel evolution and adaptations, Pierre Jolivet, CRC Press, ISBN 1877743100, "The first hymenopteran to visit has difficulties coping with the rostrellum but the later ones to arrive easily escape, soaked, drunk, and often having completed their pollinating function."

• The same quote appears on page 192 of Interrelationship Between Insects and Plants, Pierre Jolivet, CRC Press, 1998, ISBN 1574440527.

• From page 180 of Understanding Orchids: an uncomplicated guide to growing the world's most exotic plants, William Cullina, Houghton Mifflin Books, 2004, ISBN 0618263268, "A hapless male bee, blind drunk with the flower's overpowering pheremones, might well mistake a toadstool for a suitable mate, but the flower has made at least a modest attempt at recreating a beelike gestalt."

I can probably find more if you want.--Filll 19:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Quoting a previous work does not constitute corroboration, nor do other anecdotes such as the above (Jolivet is particularly notorious for doing a poor job of critically evaluating papers used in his reviews; he made no observations of orchids himself). Stewart's book is a religious work, not a scientific one, and is also not based on original observations, and Cullina is not referring to Coryanthes (he refers to bee-mimicking orchids, which DO produce sexual pheromone analogs), and is again purely anecdotal. The ORIGINAL observation regarding Coryanthes has only been published once, from what I can see, by Dodson & Frymire, and other authors have simply accepted their observation uncritically. It verges on being an urban legend. Please note what the Dressler quote actually says: "Dodson and Frymire (1961) SUGGEST that the bees become somewhat inebriated" (emphasis mine). From all the literature I have in front of me, including numerous reviews of orchid pollination, this one anecdotal comment is the only FIRST-HAND observation ever published that suggested inebriation, and it is just that - a suggestion. I had Dressler's paper, and I didn't even recall his reference to D&F until you brough it up. More to the point, NO subsequent research on Coryanthes that I am aware of has corroborated the claim. That's 45 years with no one to back it up, so it looks like a non-scientific observation (i.e., never tested) - lots of anecdotes turn out to be untrue, and this may be one of them. As long as you specify that it is a single unconfirmed suggestion, then I suppose including it is acceptable, but only presented in conjunction with what we *know* about Coryanthes pollination. So, the following would be an accurate statement:

Male orchid bees are attracted to the Coryanthes flower to gather aromatic compounds, but the flower is constructed in such a way as to make the surface almost impossible to cling to, with smooth, downward-pointing hairs; the bees commonly slip and fall into the fluid in the bucket, and the only route out is a narrow, constricting passage that either places a pollinium on their body (if the flower has not yet been visited) or removes any pollinium that is there (if the flower has already been visited). It has been suggested (link ref to Dodson & Frymire) that this process involves "inebriation", but this has never been confirmed.

Does that seem like a reasonable compromise? At any rate, I'm still a little puzzled as to why this is considered so important to you at all, given that there is no nectar in these orchids, and it does not involve honey bees - and your article is talking primarily about the effects of nectar on honey bees. Sort of peripheral, even if it is true. Peace, Dyanega 19:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This as you know is just a rough draft of material that I might want to make into an article, or if it is more appropriate, put in a couple of articles as sections. I wanted, for basically pure whimsy, to produce examples of how bees and inebriation intersect, either in the bees being inebriated, or the products of bees being intoxicating. I do not care what kind of bee it is, to be honest. The more kinds of bees, the merrier. Obviously, honey bees are more likely to produce honey that people consume, so there is a bias introduced in that discussion towards honey bees. I will admit that this claim might be of the nature of a scientific "urban legend", and I am glad to use your suggested wording in that case. When I looked at papers on the biochemistry of orchid emissions, they were somewhat inconclusive about their intoxicating constituents. I guess this is sort of an obscure field, and it would not necessarily be subject to a lot of attention.--Filll 19:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok I merged your text in with mine, hopefully not doing too much damage while still maintaining the sort of exotic flair to it. I could put something in there about needing the secretions of the orchid for a courtship dance, as in the coryanthes article, but that seems so hard to believe that even I have trouble with it. Is it safe to put stuff about the courtship dance in the article? Is this real??? I did put in a couple of disclaimers in there to make sure no one will be tricked into thinking this is well established. I did include Jolivet still and the bumblebee site; I figured they couldnt do any harm. Am I wrong?--Filll 21:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No fights?? Darn I loved that part about the fights. I am hoping that after you help me write this and act as a filter, it will still be plenty charming and funny and still reasonably accurate. Maybe as a bee person it does not sound funny to you, but I am dying laughing here.--Filll 00:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ID

Hi Doug, any further id possible on this Indian curculionoid ? thanks Shyamal 16:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's an Attelabid - there are many similar species and genera in Eastern Asia. The most extreme species are known as "giraffe-necked beetles", the most well-known of which occurs in Madagascar (see [1]). Dyanega 22:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It was on mango and some species of Deporaus from that family are known minor pests. Shyamal 02:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ant mandibles as sutures

Hi Doug. There is an entry in ant on the use of ponerine ants by American Indian tribes to suture wounds. Would you know of any reference for this ? Or is this yet another well established myth. Shyamal 05:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing referring to ponerines - the one reference to the use of ants as sutures includes a citation. Am I missing something? Dyanega 17:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The citation is not a primary one. The Paraponera is mentioned in the citation mentioned at this site and the author does not have a citation for the information. I fear that this article actually took that information from something on wikipedia or suchlike and now I have added the citation back to this site. I redid the ant article and hope I am not guilty. cheers Shyamal 01:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements

Wikipedia may benefit from comments from you here Wikipedia:Expert retention. Shyamal 05:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genus id suggested

Horia (Meloidae) from India

Horia (Meloidae) from India

Hi Doug, I got a suggestion that this might be of a genus Horia (family not mentioned !). Hope it might be possible to check for the genus and its placement if not keys or descriptions. No urgency. Thanks for the ant updates. Shyamal 08:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that ID is correct - I was unaware of any Meloidae with enlarged hind legs of that type, but apparently Horia is one such genus. At least the two are very closely-related families, and difficult to separate! ;-) Peace, Dyanega 17:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Insect images

Some new [images] from Vijay Cavale available for use:

female Amegilla sp.	male Scoliidae	Larva of a Psychid (probably)	Membracids and Camponotus. Oxyrhachis tarandus used to be the name suggested (no disagreement here)
Pompilidae	male Scoliidae

Thanks in advance. Shyamal 09:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your revision of Hornet

Hello Dyanega, I've just undid your revision of Hornet for the reasons given on that article's talk page. You seem to know a lot about the field so I assume that most of your edits are OK, but your revision of an article which is marked with a quality award was too massive. Please go through it again section by section. Thanks! However if you feel strongly that your revision is entirely justified, by all means revert back, but then please explain in more detail what you did on Hornet's talk page.

I note that most of your revision has to do with distinguishing the European hornet and other types, so it is also a question of terminology: which type of hornet ist the real Hornet? Should the pages perhaps be merged? My undoing of your revision on Hornet but not on European hornet has now resulted in a temporary duplication of material, which should be seen to soon.

--Theosch 07:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pilobolus

Thanks for the new Pilobolus (dance company). I didn't have the time to do more than red-link it. --JohnPomeranz 13:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hemiptera tree

Hi Doug, I added the Hemiptera tree based on what was on Tree of Life project. Could you mail me or place on my talk page the full tree as you know it with citations. You could either describe the tree in text or as an illustration and I will make the tree code for it (it is tricky), but it gives a quick and clear overview of all the groups and know what old groups are merged into what new group. Shyamal 04:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The only functional difference between what the tree of life page shows and what the present classification is (branch-wise) has to do with the resolution of the Auchenorrhyncha; you'll even notice that that branch in the ToL tree is depicted as a thickened line (indicating an unresolved taxon issue). The reference to the resolved classification is

Sorensen J.T., Campbell B.C., Gill R.J., Steffen-Campbell J.D., 1995. Non-monophyly of Auchenorrhyncha ("Homoptera"), based upon 18S rDNA phylogeny: eco-evolutionary and cladistic implications with pre-Heteropteroidea Hemiptera (s.l.) and a proposal for new monophyletic suborders. Pan-Pacific Entomologist, 71 (1): 31-60

I do not, however, actually have a copy of the reference; all I know is that they split Auchenorrhyncha in two, but not what the tree looks like. That's why my attempt to make the tree reflect the classification simply had it as (Archaeorrhnycha + Clypeorrhyncha). Dyanega 17:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wake Up!

First, I don't appreciate yer fucking ad hominem insults.

Second, Dick Tracy, I have never even heard of the European Southern Observatory until you mentioned it.

Third, it seems that I and others have made similar edits that we have independently applied to this article but which you seem to attribute to one author.

Fourth, for mine own part, I have already explained succinctly why my edits are germane and appropriate, i.e., favouring openly accessible sources, removing obviously unverifiable statements, neutrality, structure.

Your constant monitoring of this article and insistence on reverting the content (whether through your own id, or through proxies) to your apparently fixed view of the subject matter does not suggest a collaborative spirit on your part. Rather, one could reasonably conclude that your edits reflects ignorance of WP:NPOV -- "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth", as in,

    "bias favoring one social class and bias ignoring social or class divisions", or

    "favoring a scientist, inventor, or theory for a non-scientific reason."

My advice to you: get collaborative, or get out.

'Nuff engagement fer ya? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.140.109.26 (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Edits with nearly identical form and content, from 5 different IP addresses via the same ISP in Nuernberg? All of these from within a matter of km from the first poster in Garching, who made the same comments, and stopped editing the same day I posted a comment on their talk page requesting that they engage in non-anonymous discussion? From within a 30-minute drive of the German Morgellons Group headquarters in Augsburg? All of them sequentially, and never simultaneously (each one completely ceasing to edit shortly before the next one began)? The odds of all of this being pure coincidence are staggering, and "Dick Tracy" is not needed to tell when a single person is using a dial-up to switch IP addresses. You will perhaps understand why I, and anyone else who understands how large the world is and how close those particular three points on the globe are relative to any three random points, would simply not accept that this is a coincidence, and conclude that the edits are all derived from a common source (if not the same person, a group of people who are collaborating in the attempt to edit). In fact, since you - at the present IP address (80.140.109.26), have not actually offered any explanations as to your edits (this is a matter of public record), the prior explanations that you are referring to above could only be those to which *I* am referring, via other IP addresses; in other words, you are admitting that my conclusion that you have been editing from multiple IPs is correct, by acknowledging that these older edits ARE yours. That you should engage in such a practice is evidence of bad faith, and my stating this does not constitute an "ad hominem" attack; it is an explanation as to why your edits are not acceptable. If you have a personal affiliation - even if only as a contributor or client - with an organization that profits from selling goods or services or advice to Morgellons sufferers, then that is a conflict of interest that you should state up front, rather than attempt to conceal. I will also point out to you that Jimbo Wales himself has stated that anonymous editors do not have the same rights as those who are registered contributors; "Sorry, but anon ip numbers do not have the same civil rights as logged in members of the community. If you want to be a good editor, get an account, make good edits. Jimbo Wales 13:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)" source

I think you will find that most anyone who reads your edits will agree that they were in bad faith, and that the Morgellons page as I had last edited it did not actually claim that either side of the debate was true; only that the preponderance of both credible and attributable opinion was on one side, which is a fact. Your edits misquoted, altered, or removed sourced quotations from experts whose comments were directly relevant to the topic of the article (and repeatedly removed reference to the plain fact that there IS a controversy!). That is about as "bad faith" as one can get. My viewpoint, you will note, is not "fixed" - I am a scientist, and ready to examine the conclusions of any peer-reviewed scientific study. That obviously excludes anything produced or disseminated by organizations that are not credible sources, such as the MRF and NMO, and anyone whose research they are funding; you might review WP:SPS and how it applies here. To date, there are no peer-reviewed studies that recognize Morgellons as a genuine disease. If one is published, then feel free to ADD a reference to it, but in the meanwhile, please refrain from deleting the existing references, and from posting vulgarity on my talk page. Dyanega 06:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I wish I could.

I really wish I was able to, but I, unfortunately, am not an administrator. Hopefully, these vandals will realize the errors of their ways and turn their conduct around, but alas, this is not likely. Sincerely, Britney-Boy

[edit] Wasp

Hi Dyanega,

Thanks for the heads up however rather than jump in and revert aspects of the page so soon why not throw up the errors on the articles talk page, so we can both have a look over them tonight before changing them, as I don't mean to sound stuborn (i'm really not) but I'm pretty sure (i.e. 99.9%) that what I just wrote is entirely correct. I'm trying to get the article up to featured status as something like wasp really ought to be a better article than it is. The first phase of this was the diagram I drew of wasp morphology to make it a bit more encylopedic, the diagram is now a featured picture, the next phase is this sweep of updates and expansions. I hope you'll agree that the vast majority have been for the better, I'm just concerned that there may be some misunderstanding here somewhere which would be easier to address now on the talk page than through reverts. Thanks Dyanega, WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 01:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I find that response a little bit offensive but I'm sure you mean well by it. I respect from your user page that you have experience with insects, however wikipedia doesn't have experts, and whose to say I don't have extensive experience in this field as well? I also detect a hint of ownership of the article? with statements like "now I'm going to have to do this" and "i'm going to have to rewrite large portions of it", "allowing me leeway" etc. To be honest the edit button in the upper left corner of the page allows me enough leeway to edit the article. If your unhappy with an aspect of my edits please don't feel that you have to make the changes yourself, for example on the subject of leaving the redlinks I've gone back and added several in. Just drop me a note on my talk page and i'll go back and change it. You've rather caught me half way through a massive series edits, whats there now is something of a skeleton. I'm now going through refining whats been added and clarifying it, something which I expect will take around 2-3 days. I appreciate that the article presently swings towards vespids, but simply as they are the obvious starting point. I don't think its entirely fair to say that what is there is completely wrong. It may require more clarifying that different parts refer to different species, however, I think the article is in a better state now than it was before I began this. It contains considerably more correct information than it did. Therefore, it might take an article lengthed talk page to describe whats wrong with it at the moment but we can then read through that, make suggestions with other users, make the corrections where needed and know that the ammended version is right and go forward with the article. Sadly wikipedia can be like that, 1 step back to make 2 steps forward. I'm afraid although your probably correct I can't really accept "I'm an expert and I say your wrong so thats the way it is", if changes need to be made they're going to have to be discussed beyond spelling and such. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 02:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Right thanks for the corrections, I'm actually fairly happy with that and remain confident I'm on the right track, as I was aware of about 60% of those errors. About another 20% believe it or not were actually in the article already before I touched it, such as references to 'male wasp drones' I think. The remaining 20% is new to me but I'll go through and make the changes. I notice with most of the points as I initially believed that they aren't so much wrong more that they need further explanation to avoid confussion with speciifc wasp species. I'm out for around 8 hours today but when I return I plan to make go back through the article from start to finish clarifying and cleaning up whats there. I realise that at the moment its quite skeletal but I think if we can bear with it for a few days we'll all be quite happy with the end results and can hopefully push it towards g.a. or f.a. status. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 10:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colony Collapse Disorder

Well the biosafety homepage of the study of "effects of Bt pollen on honeybees" is an official one: from the german government. Then, "a researcher in germany"...I do not think you want to be quoted with "a researcher in the US". And picking out from an article what seems to fit in the actual own theory does not fit either. So I just wrote some additional information to the quotations, But I do not want to give the article an Anti-GMO-bias on the one side, and on the other hand I do not want to neglect GMOs and their potentials. The German findings concerning "nosema" bees, had really been strongly discussed in Europe (see last story in the: DER SPIEGEL Are GM Crops Killing Bees?). Well a question: are healthy bees those you feed antibiotics? Concerning the quotation of David Hackenberg: A PA Beekeeping Association has sent me a letter of D. Hackenberg. If you want, I will send it to you. And for sure he really is in the bee bussines. Josef Hoppichler, a researcher of Austria

I don't see any other researchers listed by name in the article, despite there being nearly 20 other citations - you are according Dr. Kaatz special treatment, and that is not appropriate. If you wish to go through the article and name each and every author of every cited work, that is your prerogative, but that would burden the text. It is far more reasonable to simply cite the various papers without naming the authors of each one. More to the point, if you "do not want to give the article an Anti-GMO-bias on the one side" then you will need to accept that you cannot imply that there is a link between Bt pollen and CCD when there is no evidence that any of the bees affected by CCD have ever fed on Bt pollen! When Mr. Hackenberg states "beekeepers that have been most affected so far have been close to corn, cotton, soybeans, canola, sunflowers, apples, vine crops and pumpkins" I rather strongly suspect that he is talking about bees in Pennsylvania and nearby states, where he does business, and not across the US as a whole (these crops are certainly not all grown everywhere) - the above statement certainly is not from the CCD working group's report. Can you quote more extensively from this letter to make it clear what the source of these claims is? After all, there is no actual cited publication, so this is unverifiable - that's why private communications do not meet WP's standards. Allow me to reiterate; there needs to be not only a demonstration that bees are actually gathering pollen that contains Bt-toxins, but also a demonstration that CCD-afflicted bees OUTSIDE of Pennsylvania are infected with Nosema, in order to claim that there is a chance that CCD is the result of GM crops leading to Nosema outbreaks. These links you are suggesting are tenuous, lack supporting evidence, and appear to be personal speculations about the cause of CCD. If there are researchers in Europe who claim that the European die-off is related to Bt pollen, then this should be stated explicitly, and cited, rather than implying that what is happening in Europe and in the US are necessarily the same phenomenon, with the same causes. Dyanega 20:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, reading that Der Spiegel article, I see there is an additional caveat mentioned there, which - if you are concerned about selective quotation - should not be ignored: "Of course, the concentration of the toxin was ten times higher in the experiments than in normal Bt corn pollen. In addition, the bee feed was administered over a relatively lengthy six-week period." I think if your goal is fairness, then you should not object to the inclusion of this quote, as well. Dyanega 21:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Informal mediation

Is the case for Morgellons still required? It seems as though you have some help on the article from Mukrkrgsj (talk • contribs) now and that the IP user has been much less active. Let me know what you would like to do with the case. If you close it, you can submit a new case or request it be reopened if it becomes necessary. Vassyana 17:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm contacting you and the other party regarding mediation on the article. Please visit the case page and indicate if you accept my assistance as an informal mediator. Please additionally let me know if any other parties should be invited to join the mediation. Be well! Vassyana 12:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

By all means, please update the case page to reflect current circumstances. I have posted a question regarding the current situation. Vassyana 21:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)