Talk:Grasshopper
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
 |
||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: Another article in dire need of references (and some copyediting). --Stemonitis 12:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
[edit] Military personnel instructed to collect grasshoppers?
I removed this statement, which is unsourced and unspecific: "Some countries supposedly instruct military personnel to collect grasshoppers to eat as a food source." - anyone got a reference/source for that? Varchoel 07:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] From PNA/Biology
- Caelifera—the insect suborder of grasshoppers, which at present redirects there. For such a notable animal group, the article is in pretty sad shape. Postdlf 08:22, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Juvenile Lubber Grasshoppers?
I took this pic in Panama. Someone suggested they're Juvenile Lubber Grasshoppers. Sounds likely considering this is what an adult looks like. Does anyone know for sure? DirkvdM 07:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
i like tis picture
[edit] More Info
I think it would be a good idea to expand all of the anatomy-related sections, because there were a lot of organs mentioned whose functions were not presented. My main reason for saying this is that grasshoppers are often dissected in biology classes, and all easier-to-reach info is a good thing. :) —anonymous
[edit] Lacking important information!
Like the cricket article, this one lacks important information. What do grasshopers eat? If there are different diets, at least mention *some* of them. And why aren't the legs used for jumping mentioned? Any kid will tell you that the most notable trait of a grasshoper is that they *hop*! 201.235.51.21 04:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
And what is their average lifespan? What is the brownish secretion, expelled from their mouths when they are picked up? Dr. Dan 14:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Another photo
Another photo of which I don't know what it is. I named it a cricket, but now assume it's a grasshopper because of the short antennae. Other than that I'm stuck. If you know more, could yo add that info to the photo's page? Thanks. DirkvdM 18:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A question
Why was my extremely clear and excellent photo replaced with a drawn illustration? It is clearer, sharper, and more detailed than any of the othe r pictures in the gallery. It's really no big deal, I'm just wondering.
PiccoloNamek 00:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] question taxonomic photo ID
This is regarding the photo: Image:Orthoptera vdg.jpg|Grasshopper in The Netherlands
---
While I am very impressed with this photo -high quality image, etc. I am slightly skeptical of whether or not it is actually a grasshopper (family acrididae). The antennae seem a little long, the tarsi count appear to be 4-segmented and not three. I could not discern whether there was an inconspicuous tympanum or not on the front tibia. That would have cinched it for me. Anyway, maybe it is a grasshopper. Just curious --Moscow999 03:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
A new Photo:
Here is a recent photo I took of a grasshopper in my yard in Northeast Ohio (North Ridgeville)
[edit] Page's main image
I have reverted the page's main image to my own because this grasshopper is the most commonly found, especially in America (where many English Wikipedia users reside). Thus, it is better for identification of what the average person thinks of when they think "grasshopper." Additionally, the other images proposed have not been of any better quality or detail than mine, so I see no reason to change it. Before changing my image, please respond to this, and let's come to consensus.
Steevven1 (Talk) (Contributions) 02:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Of the two images (below), 1 is a much better photograph. It is better exposed and the composition is superior. They both (purport to) show the same species, so the arguments about it being a more appropriate species fail. I'm sorry, but of the two, I (and evidently others as well) would go for 1 every time. --Stemonitis 12:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Both are of far lower quality of the (now) FP which was for a while the main image. Reverted back to that image as it is far higher quality. The fact that your image is "most commonly found, especially in America" doesn't mean anything and should bear no relevance as to wether it should be used for the main image. I would think a less common image would be more remarkable. --Fir0002 10:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 1 |
 2 |
[edit] correction on grasshoppers as a source of food
it says koreans enjoy them as a side dish. it is not true. Koreans "do" eat them, but they don;t eat them as side dish. also it is extremely difficult to find grasshoppers nowadays. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.221.9.115 (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
Some of Indonesians (natives who live in the woods, especially in Java) eat them fried. Some eat them as side dish, and some eat them as main source of protein. I don't really understand about this part, I'll look for more info on this. K-lenx 14:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rape?
Now I'm not quite sure if there is an alternate definition of rape, but I believe that the last sentence of the first paragraph under Characteristics should be removed, it reads: "Some species have been known to rape people." I'd do it myself if I was a little more confident in my own judgement. EDIT: After investigating the last update made to the wiki it was made to characteristics with an IP that has been associated with vandalism. I have chosen to remove this line, sorry if it upsets anybody, I'm not the most experienced wiki user.
Redian 00:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Anatomy
I've made two pics from personal experience on examining a dead grasshopper (school project). It was a species of grasshopper that is commonly found in Indonesia, so the form might be slighly different from american grasshopper, but I think I've drawn the important parts. The captions were based on what I got from school, so please correct me if I'm mistaken. If these pics are fine, please put them on the page, or I'll put it next week if there's no correction - K-lenx 24 May 2007
I've put them on the page, hope it helps --K-lenx 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Suspect change needs verification
An anonymous user at 205.174.123.184 recently changed the text "[...] about 11,000 valid species described to date" to "[...] about 18,000 valid species described to date". I find this change a little suspect since it was made by an anonymous user without any references being made to allow the fact to be verified. Perhaps it's true and perhaps it isn't. I'm clueless about such things, so I wouldn't even know how to begin going about verifying the validity of this change. But I think the change should be scrutinized.
BTW, why is the rate of vandalism on this page so high?
--Pomakis 16:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Quick request
Does anyone have locust disection diagram or guide to or similar? Ive googled it quite a bit but I cant really find anything. Thanks
CaptinJohn 21:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] no reason exactly
this is interesting —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mydachshunds2 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] SEM Photo
The SEM photo of spiracle is from a cricket (not grasshopper) per the photo's uploader. I corrected the caption for this photo where it also appears on Scanning_electron_microscope. My question for the experts is whether this photo of a cricket's spiracle is appropriate for this page. Should this be identified as being from a cricket? If the spiracles of a grasshopper are similar to a cricket's, then I think it's okay to leave it as long as it is properly identified. If they're not similar, perhaps someone can substitute a better image.--CheMechanical 06:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] White space in Biology section
It's probably being caused by the taxobox (or whatever it's called). Anyone know a way it could be fixed? -Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 14:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Spelling
Wikipedia requires pages to use a standardized version of English for each article. The spelling for this article is all over the place, as this long-standing introduction sentence illustrates:
Species that change color and behaviour at high population densities are called locusts.
Although this is a compromising sentence, it does look a bit weird having an -our and -or ending in the same sentence, and goes against the Manual of Style. If you read on a bit further, you find, within two sentences:
There is also a neuropile in the centre, through which all ganglia channel signals. The sense organs (sensory neurons) are found near the exterior of the body and consist of tiny hairs (sensilla), which consist of one sense cell and one nerve fiber, which are each specially calibrated to respond to a certain stimulus.
Here we see -re conflicting with -er.
It could be argued that the article should use Commonwealth spelling, as the creator of the article is an Australian; but it could also be argued that the first divisive spelling introduced - on the seventh edit - was American hemolymph (as opposed to haemolymph).
Personally I would be in favour of using Oxford spelling, as it is often seen as a compromise, is the international form of English spelling (used by the United Nations etc.), and because of the simple fact that grasshoppers are an international subject.
Swedish fusilier (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] how grass hoppers have sexual intercourse!
bang bang skeet skeet crickit crickit! htat is how it goes in the middle of the night wehn all the nasty dirty dirty grasshoppers come out to play ( if you know what i mean) and sometimes they have sexul intercourse they use three people! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.118.173 (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Disruptively large taxobox
| Caelifera Fossil range: Phanerozoic (Permian-Triassic, 250mya) to Recent |
||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Immature Grasshopper
|
||||||||||||
| Scientific classification | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Families | ||||||||||||
|
Superfamily: Tridactyloidea
Superfamily: Tetrigoidea Superfamily: Eumastacoidea
Superfamily: Pneumoroidea
Superfamily: Pyrgomorphoidea
Superfamily: Acridoidea
Superfamily: Tanaoceroidea
Superfamily: Trigonopterygoidea
|
I'm trimming all the families out of the taxobox, which is disruptively large and ruins the formatting for all the images. Here is the full taxobox, including the families, for reference.--ragesoss (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
