Talk:Jerusalem cricket

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.

it is unable to produce a sound? Hmm... I saw one the other day and, when I gently poked it to see if it was alive or not, it scurried a few feet, making what definitely sounded like a hissing sound.

Is it possible that the crying sound they produce is caused by them beating their abdomen at a high frequency on some surfaces? Also isn't it a bit contradictory to say they have 'songs' played on the ground and not be able to hear them? Maybe they feel the vibrations on the ground? (67.151.201.82 18:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] I stand corrected - citations given for sound production

Thanks for prodding me into doing a little more searching. The 2001 book was one I had never seen. Dyanega 21:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "True" bugs, crickets

I think the statements about Jerusalem crickets not being true crickets or bugs are silly and not very informative. I realize that entomologists have attached the common name cricket to Gryllidae and bug to Hemiptera, but bug and cricket are not scientific names, they are common names. Bug is used to refer to all manner of arthropods, as well as bacteria and, on occasion, other phyla of invertebrates. I assume the word predates its application to Hemiptera, and trying to restrict its usage to Hemiptera now is absurd. The article would be more concise and effective if it talked about what Jerusalem crickets are instead of all the things they are not. Justinleif 02:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The idea is precisely the opposite, I assure you - telling people that these are not crickets IS very informative - that sort of thing is the essence of BEING informative, just like informing people that crocodiles and alligators are NOT lizards, or that gorillas and chimpanzees are NOT monkeys. There's nothing silly about using names correctly. The common name for one group is "crickets" and the common name for this group is "Jerusalem crickets". The common name for Hemiptera is "true bugs", not "bugs". "Bug", as you note, is used for many different things - the term "true bug" is NOT used for anything else, and it is not just a recent change - the common name "true bug" has been in use for more than a century. Dyanega 23:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The text as written does not convey a phylogenetic statement, it conveys a semantic one. A phylogenetic statement would be: "Jerusalem crickets are a distinct lineage within the Orthoptera, separate from crickets (eg Gryillidae)." If you accept that only the term "true bug" applies to the Hemiptera, and not "bug", then there is no need to mention that the Jerusalem crickets are not Hemiptera. People call Stenoplamtidae "potato bugs", not "potato true bugs".Justinleif 00:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This kind of cricket in Jerusalem,(Jerusalem cricket) is a new kind of species. Like a theorist named Charles Darwin, well, he studied different kinds of animals and compared their blood. He took the blood of another animal to another animal. And that creates a new species of an animal. And so, this theorist came up with the word "breed". Maybe that was how a Jerusalem cricket was created.((User:SaralynnLaveai)) 03:30, 26 November 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.10.60.1 (talk)