Talk:Body louse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia's coverage of arthropods. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Wikipedia vs Wiktionary

Wikipedia says that the body louse is Pediculus humanus humanus, while wiktionary says that it's Pediculus humanus corporis. Even if the difference is not important, it's confusing. If it's not important, THAT should be referenced. Rick lightburn (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indistinguishable?

How can you tell the difference between a BODY and a HEAD louse? THey look the same to me!

The current article says:

Pediculus humanus humanus (the body louse) is indistinguishable in appearance from Pediculus humanus capitus (the head louse) and under laboratory conditions they will interbreed. In their natural state, however, the two subspecies do not interbreed and occupy different habitats. In particular, body lice have evolved to attach their eggs to clothes, whereas head lice attach their eggs to the base of hairs.

But then they are distinguishable - just test if they prefer to lay their eggs in hair or clothes... Thue | talk 01:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

In appearance though, they are virtually impossible to tell apart - until you get them under a microscope.. even then though, it can be tricky. I know of an entomologist who recently viewed one and while able to identify it as a louse, he was unable to state whether it was a head or a body louse due to the fact that the sample was slightly damaged as it had been trapped under sticky tape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.249.103 (talk) 14:27, August 29, 2007 (UTC)