Talk:Mosquito

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.
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: 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.

To-do list for Mosquito:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do: Verify: Verify evolutionary lineage claim Cleanup: Tidy up lead section (too large) Expand: Morphology Behavior Evolution Habitat Global distribution lasting effects

Contents 1 Protection time 0 minutes 2 Hot water 3 DIY Mosquito Control Link 4 Linguistics snob? 5 Old Wive's tales 6 Anopheles gambiae fecundation 7 Web Producing Mosquitoes? 8 And the correct term is? 9 Portuguese 10 References 11 Bats 12 Habitat 13 Attractants 14 Why was the evolution of Mosquitoes removed? 15 Mosquitoes vs. Ticks 16 There's a Skeeter on My Peter? 17 Genera 18 Balance of this article 19 Treating mosquito bites 20 Original Research 21 mosquito bite 22 Why females target people 23 Thermal Mosquito Traps 24 WTF? 25 Evolution? 26 Mousquito 27 Copy vio 28 tempature and humidity 29 Question 30 Life cycle: what happens in winter? 31 Crane Fly vs. Male Mosquito 32 Last pair of legs upward 33 Size vs. biting success 34 Detection distance 35 Larvae 36 Aids - HIV 37 Noise tradeoffs: redesign with quieter wings

[edit] Protection time 0 minutes

"Consumer Report retests in 2006 show that a 7% solution of picaridin now has a protection time of about 0 minutes and a 15% solution was only good for about one hour."

I'm pretty sure this is wrong, can someone change it? im noob. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.255.73 (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hot water

Can anyone tell me why was this removed:

Another treatment is the direct application of a cloth soaked in very hot water - steaming, but not boiling.[28] The purpose is to trigger the release of all the histamine in the area at once, thus removing the source of the itching sensation until more histamine can be reproduced, about 8 to 10 hours.

[edit] DIY Mosquito Control Link

Would it be pertinent to add an external link to a page like this one? Or are you looking for external links to larger institutions? I've done my research and I'm pretty happy with the page. Sorry, I should have created an account first. Done.

[edit] Linguistics snob?

"The word derives from Sanskrit maksh (fly) via the Latin word musca (fly) and the Italian moschetta or Spanish mosquito (little fly). The French word is moustique."

In my opinion, this should read: "The word derives from the Latin musca, cf. Sanskrit maksh (fly), via the Italian moschetta or Spanish mosquito (little fly). The French word is moustique."

The last time I took a linguistics class, Italian and Spanish were derived from Latin, while Sanskrit developed in parallel thousands of miles away. Because they are both derived from Proto-Indo-European, the cf. does not need to be justified.

-tomd (I'm pretty sure I have a username, I've just forgotten it.)

Your reading is a possible one, but it's also possible that the Latin musca was borrowed from Sanskrit maksh (closely related languages do, after all, borrow words). I frankly don't know which solution is correct -- maybe someone else will chime in.

Regardless of the relationship between musca and maksh, the Spanish, Italian, and French words were derived from Latin. The cf. implies some relationship between the Latin and Sanskrit without specifying any. The Italian and French are cognates of the Spanish, and the Latin and Sanskrit are cognates, but the Sanskrit is not a cognate of the Spanish.

[edit] Old Wive's tales

Mosquitoes seem to attract old wives tales and fradulent businesses as well as - uh - as well as the smell of people attract mosquitoes.

Talc powder, bats, ultrasonic devices? It is hard to find any evidence that these "solutions" work. In fact, it is far easier to find studies refuting many antimosquito claims and even lawsuits against companies selling some of these "solutions". Before adding claims about what "we've heard" works against mosquitoes, let's add references to supporting sources! -David

Discovery channel has shown some documentaries where scientists demonstrated that mosquitoes were attracted to the odours the human body emits. Remember that all insects use their sense of smell like ants. When a scientist applied a chemical on his hand which masked the natural odours of his body and then dipped it in a glass container full of mosquitoes, he did not get bitten. However when he dipped his hand after washing it clean of all chemicals, he was instantly bitten. Thus proving that the mosquitoes are attracted to the human bodies odours. Second, they created the same smell that the human feet creates and applied the chemical with that smell to the hand and dipped it in the mosquito container. This time around, the number of mosquitoes that attacked was like 5 times higher. This was shown on the Discovery channel a few years ago. There is a product called "Mospel" by Abbott Laboratories (Pakistan) that claims that it's a product of research by the U.S. Department of Defence. I bought it and applied it to myself and sure enough the mosquitoes are gone.

I've never heard dragonflies referred to as mosquito hawks, up here mosquito hawks are the larger version that eat other mosquitoes. -Greggae

This sentense appears in the last paragraph of section 2: "Bell noticed that an electric generator behind a tent party was invisible beneath a carpet of male mosquitos all attracted to the tone produced by a motor within the machine." What's this, some kind of crazy run-on sentence? Someone who understand it please correct it.

"Bell noticed that an electric generator used in a tent party was attracting male mosqutios, so much so that it was now completely hidden under them. A motor within the machine was emmiting a tone which was attracting them." does it really need the bit about a tent party? without it it would be even simpler. I'll edit it wihtout it if anyone wants they can re add it. Wolfmankurd 12:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I've read many online articles about mosquitoes but none contained the answers to the following questions. I was hoping to find them on Wikipedia.

• If females only bite when they need to reproduce, how come we only notice them in some types of weather? Do they migrate and are away the rest of the time? Do they live without reproducing throughout Winter?
  • varies from species to species, most overwinter as eggs, some as lavae or adults. culex sp. in particular overwinter as mated adult females. (culex is a vector for St. Louis encephalitis)
• Some people are more likely to be bitten by mosquitoes. Why? The article mentions pregnant women, but which other factors come into place and what are their causes? eje211
  • Being male, being overweight, having type O blood are possible factors.
    • I don't think so. How could the mosquitos possibly know what's your blood type? And why would they care?

Thanks for the information. Should this be included in the article? Eje211 17:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've already included it.Zeimusu

[edit] Anopheles gambiae fecundation

Please somebody help me to find an article (or something like that) about de anopheles gambiae (mosquito)fecundation system. I bag your pardon for mystakes, I'm new in wikipedia comunity.--Betoquadros 23:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) Thanks

[edit] Web Producing Mosquitoes?

Hello. Lately in my house there have been many giant (Hand size) mosquitos-like creatures that reproduce very rapidly and somehow produce a web like substance. They're not spiders, for the can fly and do not look like them. Anyone have any clue what I'm talking about? Thanks for reading.

most likely wasps. they also have a web like substance that they use to build nests and they fly and can grown very big. watch out their sting can carry quite a punch. hope that helps --Idleguy 05:39, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like the crane fly, except for the webs. PrometheusX303 20:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And the correct term is?

From article: The female mosquito (in almost all species) sucks the blood of mammals, including humans - commonly referred to (incorrectly) as a 'bite.' Mosquito bites often swell up.......

Well, I don't know if there IS a special name for it, but the mosquito does not bite in the true sense of the word (i.e.: is not closing its jaws on your skin). It uses the proboscis to pierce the skin and suck the blood out.

If you think about it, its sort of like giving blood, except that it's not really giving. If there's an opposite for the word 'injection' - do NOT say 'outjection' - then that's what mosquitos do. -Litefantastic 23:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

So the term would be Mosquitoes SUCK? Sounds funny Idleguy 16:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe this phrase "- commonly referred to (incorrectly) as a 'bite.'" is important to the article as it clarifies the next use of the term "mosquito bites". The term is not really scientifically accurate, yet it is the correct term for this action. I believe the phrase should be edited back in for these purposes. I am not changing this at this time, though I may come back and do so in the future. I'm not exactly sure how to go about this: reverting or just re-adding, so I'll wait a bit to see: A) a possible second opinion or B) someone who agrees and knows the best way to fix this. By the way, I know I'm the one who wrote that bit about mosquito bites and what they look like, but I don't think I was signed it at the time. It was a while ago, so I don't know whether this hyphenated phrase was also originally mine, but I do believe it is important to not confuse visitors as to the correct nature of "mosquito bites", as they are called. Garnet avi 10:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portuguese

I removed the mention about "mosquito" being a spanish "or portuguese" word for "little fly". Altough the word "fly" is the same in both languages ("mosca"), the portuguese word for "little fly" is "mosquinha", and not "mosquito".

[edit] References

This article has a LOT of information without ANY real references to where the info comes from. It needs to be put in. --zandperl 04:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bats

One of the external links (mosquito-pictures.com) not only sucks, but also contradicts some of the info in this article, in particular the ideas about bats controlling mosquitoes. The other site says no, wikipedia predictably says yes (because obviously manipulating the ecosystem with other animals is "better" than doing it with chemicals). Perhaps that section should be deleted, else that link can be removed.

--

A Wisconsin DNR site says that bats have been successful in controlling the mosquito population in Yellowstone Lake State Park. I'd take this as a pretty solid contradiction to the paragraph mentioning that bats are ineffective at popuation control. Maybe it depends on the bat?

Anyhow, I suggest dumping that paragraph. --njvack 00:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Habitat

Can anyone add a map or at least a couple sentences on the worldwide distribution of mosquitos? (I'd do it but I don't know where they live -- I came to the page trying to find out.)

Yes, A lot of natural history articles on Wikipedia, that I have seen, seem devoid of the habitual nature of the creatures involved.

When will sombody add a map! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.201.62 (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attractants

I have read secondary articles suggesting that limburger cheese is an attractant, as well as smelly feet (with a theory that a common bacterium is responsible). Also that consumption of alcohol can increase your allure to mosquitos. If anyone had a primary source, I think it would make a good addition.

I heard that Mosquitos are lured to citronella.

[edit] Why was the evolution of Mosquitoes removed?

I was searching the web for information about when moquitoes evolved (wanted to see if Jurrasic Park's idea was plausable). Surprisingly, this information was hard to find, for some reason. I figured wikipedia would have it for sure. So, I checked... and guess what... it didn't! Then, I checked an outdated wikipedia mirror, and IT DID have an evolution of mosquitoes section! So, my question is, why was the section on mosquito evolution removed? Is this a young earth creationism issue? Or something else?

• Apparently 68.211.52.239 (Talk) had vandalized the article, removing the information regarding mosquito evolution (refer to this [comparison] which shows that the vandal simply removed the paragraph on evolution, contributing nothing). This vandalism was followed by another, more vulgar [vandalism], unrelated to the first one. When the vulgar vandalism was noticed, it was reverted back to the edit by 68.211.52.239, and therefore the "creationist vandalism" went unnoticed and ended up being preserved. I restored the text on evolution, which I hope will end this mess. I'm providing this lengthy explanation on the Talk page because it took me a while to unravel the whole sequence of events, so I thought I'd share my discovery. -Alexanderj 21:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• something should be done to the vandalism. XU-engineer 12:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Living in S.E. Asia I can report growing concerns about the rapid changes in the physiology of mosquitos. I am not a scientist, however I'm happy to help someone augment this section with valid information from current events. Perhaps someone could assist a non-Ph.D in sorting fact from fiction regarding related current news? Tinkertim 14:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mosquitoes vs. Ticks

I have read many times that when a tick is sucking your blood you must remove it with care to avoid its head or mouth getting stuck in your skin. This piece of information leads me to my question: when a mosquito is sucking your blood, and if you smack it, will the proboscis get lodged into your skin? If so, does this increase the risk of getting a disease? Thanks--71.98.17.223 01:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There's a Skeeter on My Peter?

Is this link really necesary?

See also There's a Skeeter on My Peter

see it at the end of the page. It{s not related to mosquitos in a scientific way. thank you. Minako-Chan* 05:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please delete this link. Childish to keep the link.

Done, but the page will have to be watched better to keep the kids from vandalising it again. Pollinator 04:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

First off, this is not vandalism. The link is to a legitimate wikipedia article that is undeniably related to mosquitos. How could such a link be "vandalism"? What this is is a valid content dispute. Although the two users above think this link does not belong and claim this on the basis that the article is limited to scientific informaton, myself and at least one other user (see history -- a user reverted him/herself when "on second thought" this person decided the link was important) seem to think that this link is relevant. Although most of the article is scientific, the very idea of "see also" is to link to articles that are about the specific topic being discussed (that is, about the insect and not about some other meaning, such as the mosquito airplane) but which don't fit with the main thrust of the article. Here we have a notable song that is undeniably about mosquitos but which is not related enough to the content of the article (a scientific introduction to mosquitos as insects) to have its text included as part of this article. As such, this is a fine example of a situation where a "see also" link makes sense -- too related to b disambiguated but not quite with the main thrust of the article. Moreover, the criteria noted above for removing this link ("unscintific" and "childish") have no basis in wikipedia inclusion guidelines. Wikipedia is not censored. Content is includable on the wiki if it is notable and verifiable. The fact that There's a Skeeter on My Peter survived a deletion debate and has been contributed to by several experienced editors speaks to both notability and verifiability. Thus, what we have here is a notable and verifiable article that is related to mosquito in a way that fits with the standard use of "see also" links. As such, well-established wikipedia criteria support this link's inclusion. Again, this is not vandalism, and given my long history of good faith contributons to this encyclopedia, I resent that charge and believe that it borders on a personal attack. Interestingstuffadder 12:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you in junior high? Do you really get your "yuk yuks" out of adding childish links to otherwise encyclopedic articles? The word "Skeeter" doesn't even appear in this article as an alternate name to "mosquito". Why don't you start by improving the article in ways like that? As I pointed out in my edit summary, why don't you go and add "Itsy Bitsy Spider" to the Spider article? Oh I know, that one isn't 'dirty' in a juvinile way <rolls eyes> Not to mention things like Insect repellent or Citronella would make fine See Also links, but you didn't bother adding them. Yeah, I know, those don't mention peters or whacking off either... --Rehcsif 00:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Unclear why what I have and haven't added is even relevant. A link to this song is includable based on standard wikipedia criteria (notability and verifiability) and because it is undeniably a topic related to mosquitoes. That is, this link is itself encyclopedic per wikipedia's own standards. Whether I get my "yuk yuks" from adding this link is simply irrelevant; inclusion in wikipedia has nothing to do with my motives. However, if you are curious about my motives, I suggest you read my user page. It may help you understand why I do what I do. Interestingstuffadder 12:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That username may qualify as a sock puppet. Squamate 13:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If you read the wikipedia policy on socks, you will find that there is no policy forbidding users from having two usernames so long as they are not used improperly (such as to rig votes, avoid blocks, etc). I freely admit that user:interestingstuffadder is not my primary username and I provide a rationale for having more than one user name (read my user page). I have never, however,used my multiple usernames in violation of wikipedia policy. Interestingstuffadder 15:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It is true that you have not violated the three revert rule, but this is starting to look like an edit war. Perhaps there should be an attempt to arrive at consensus by adding a request for comment to this page regarding the content of the article. Squamate 16:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I was referring specifically to the unfounded accusation of sockpuppetry. Could you respond to my response to that accusation. Thanks. Interestingstuffadder 16:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry page: "A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name." Squamate 16:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I should have been more specific. I was refering to the implication that I had used socks in violation of wikipedia policy, which i have not. Interestingstuffadder 18:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to take that up with whomever made the implication. In the meantime, a request for comment should help to sort out this edit war. If the consensus is to include the link, so be it; if the consensus is to exclude it, so should that be as well. Squamate 18:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The edit war continues. The edit war page contains the following: "... reversion by two or more people often demonstrates that such reversions are probably not fundamentalistic or in bad faith, but instead closer to an objective consensus." The ellipsis and italics are mine; they are not in the original. It appears (to me, at least) that there is a developing consensus that this link does not belong on this page. I searched for the term "skeeter" and was redirected to the mosquito page. In the interest of settling this ongoing problem, what about the following suggestion: make a disambiguation page for "skeeter", explaining that it is both a colloquialism for mosquito and the subject of an off-color children's song, and including links to both pages on the disambiguation page? This would maintain the integrity of the mosquito article as an encyclopedic article, and would also allow those users who wish to read about the kiddie song to do so. Remember, "don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". Squamate 15:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Or we could create a "mosquitoes in popular culture" page analogous to the similar page that has been created for spiders. There would be a brief section on this main article mentioning the place of mosquitoes in popular culture and more detail would be provided by that longer article. And the "integrity of this article as an encyclopedia article" has npothing to do with it, as 1) the cultural context of mosquitoes is encyclopedic 2) the "kiddie song" itself has been confirmed as encyclopedic. Interestingstuffadder 18:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That might work, too, unless the "mosquitoes in popular culture" section on this page becomes a "stealth" link to the kiddie song within the mosquito article. In that case it very possibly might be a violation of consensus as described on the Wikipedia:Consensus page: "insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors has been judged a violation of consensus" (italics mine). No one should want to see a violation of consensus, à la the Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute. That would lead to a request for arbitration, which I doubt anyone wants. Squamate 20:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No. The section would say something like [and this is really just for illustration purposes, i need to determine what is really out there first] "many cultural works regarding mosquitos have been created. these have included movies, songs, tv shows and paintings. for more information see mosquitoes in popular culture". Another issue we should consider is whether it makes sense to include a parenthetical "also known as" list, which would include "skeeter" and other colloquial expressions; there are precedents for doing this literally all over wikipedia (for another insect article that does this, see Ceratopogonidae). Interestingstuffadder 21:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, we've got two suggestions for how to end the edit war and let us all get back to working on the encyclopedia. Now we need to arrive at consensus. Anyone else want to weigh in? Squamate 03:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyone willing/interested in writing a "mosquitos in popular culture" article? If so, wonderful (I know I'm not...). If not, and it sits as a stub with a link to the so-called 'kiddie' song (which I'm only familiar with via John Valby, whose audience is definitely [i]not[/i] children), then I don't think this helps uphold the consensus. As it stands, we have a pseudo-sockpuppet who is only interested in stirring the pot with semi-vulgar references, and has already admitted above he's not interested in doing other expansions beyond this little ditty. --Rehcsif 03:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

For your information, I am quite interested in "doing expansionsbeyond this little ditty". Have you seen my recent additions to the see also section? I hardly think mosquito net is "semi-vulgar". Please avoid attacking me. And as for the sockpuppet thing, I have never used multiple accounts in violation of wikipedia policy, so it is pretty unclear to me why people keep making such an issue out of the fact that I have an account (this one) by which I am carrying out a specific wikipedia purpose(see my usertalk for more info) and another with which I am doing conventional edits and shooting for adminship. Interestingstuffadder 04:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected on your willingness to add additional info beyond the 'skeeter' song. As for the sock -- I don't get it. If what you're doing is above-board, and not simply designed to rock the boat, you should be able to do it with your main ID. Most of us have only one ID, why should you need more? (Doesn't really matter regarding this issue -- just curious) --Rehcsif 04:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read my user page for a detailed explanation of why I do what I do. The fact is, there is a systemic bias on wikipedia about controversial (some say "vulgar") content that satisfies the standards of notability and verifiability. I think you know as well as I do that, regardless of whether what I post is in violation of any wikipedia policy (and it is never), having these edits on my primary profile would definitely interfere with my chance at adminship one day. If you read the sockpupper policy, you will see that it acknowledges a divide in opinion as to whether socks are appropriate. I would maintain that what matters is not whether someone has a sock, but whether it is used inappropriately. Interestingstuffadder 12:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

We're trying to reach a consensus here . . . there are two suggestions on the table . . . surely after all of the complaining and edit warring other editors have opinions on how to resolve this issue. Squamate 13:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As I noted above, I prefer the Mosquitos in Popular Culture option with a link from this article, provided that it can be fleshed out. There are plenty of popular references (here in Minneota, for example, we refer to the mosquito as our "unofficial state bird", and there are a number of places that have sculptures of giant mosquitos). I don't feel qualified/have interest in writing this article, however...--Rehcsif 18:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been ten days and so far Interestingstuffadder and Rehcsif are for making a Mosquitos in Popular Culture page. No one else seems to have an opinion. If I decide to support the creation of a Mosquitos in Popular Culture page, does that mean we have consensus? If so, then I'll support creation of the page. Squamate 14:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If the purpose of the alternative page is just to be able to insert juvenile jokes, I certainly can't give it my blessing, but I won't bother it. I suspect a lot of others will. If it's trash on this page, it's trash anywhere. But my primary interest is in keeping this a good informative, scientific article. Pollinator 17:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't take that link as vandalism (or something bad). i think that we should just keep it there since it has some connection. its there, so what? this discusion is growing way too complicated and long. if anything else happens like this and from the same user, lets talk it about it then. XU-engineer 12:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genera

Potential problems with the list of genera: 1, text says three genera in Anophelinae, but hasn't Bironella been synonymized?; 2, Reinert and coworkers have greatly expanded the number of genera within Aedini; 3, has Deinocerites been "sunk" into Culex as a subgenus or not? Squamate 00:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balance of this article

I was reviewing various insects as possible nominees for Version 0.5, and since my 6 year old daughter is greatly interested in mosquitoes I took a look here. However, I noticed that the article has quite a heavy slant towards "trouble with those pesky mosquitoes", and by comparison the general topics on the creature itself receive rather scant attention. If you look at related articles like ant or spider these do cover much more about the morphology, life cycle and development (not too bad here), ancestry/evolution. Would it be possible to add more in these areas? What (if anything) do they eat besides nectar and blood? It would also be nice to see some more description of the main types of mosquito, how common they are and where they live. Some references would be needed for the article to progress further. Thanks! Walkerma 05:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've seen this trend in many other articles too, such as the flea article which I've recently worked on a little. To address the issue I've split the article into biology and anthropic sections, which highlights the balance issue, and added a stub template to the biology section. I've then added a to do list at the top of the page to clarify what needs work. As a side note, I lowered the rating to a B-class, clearly the article is missing too much material to be A-class material. A low B-class or high start class is more appropriate, but may become an A-class with some well referenced material on biology. Richard001 23:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Treating mosquito bites

An anon added ([1]) this advice in:

Drops of ammonia applied to a mosquito bite will stop the itching and eliminate the swelling. By the next day, the bite site shows only a small hole where the mosquito bit.

Perhaps someone in the know could check this is good advice? I'd hate to think that this was put in there and could potentially be harmful to someone. Thanks. --Tim1988 ^talk 12:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I remember a few remedies my mother had that contained ammonia. One was a stick for mosquito bites, the other a tube for stings. A Google search for "mosquito bite ammonia" gives 41,600 hits, most of the highest ranking are forums. PrometheusX303 13:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

Very few sentences in this article contain citations for the information they present. Thus, per wikipedia policy, which permits users to delete uncited information, I would be free to delete much of this article. As it is, much of this article seems like original research. Just a heads up so interested editors can start providing citations that confirm the verifiablity of this article's assertions before I start deleting uncited material. Interestingstuffadder 20:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In particular, observations regarding standing water, etc read as original research. Interestingstuffadder 01:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That's like saying that you're going to remove a statement that honey is produced by bees because it isn't sourced. It's such common knowledge for anyone that deals with mosquitoes, that no one got around to it. I don't think deleting this important information is the correct solution though. --70.81.251.32 22:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you haven't bothered to check any of the external links, several of which give references on source reduction. I don't suppose you've noticed either that I'm also discriminating in reverting your edits. If you make a good one, great! If you are getting far afield I revert. Since you seem to find this controversial, why don't you check the many common sources on this, and add the cites yourself, rather than just deleting useful information. My time on Wikipedia is very limited; and you seem to have a lot of it. And your remarks on my talk page show that your edits have at least an element of a personal grudge in them, so I mention again, WP:POINT which obviously is very relevant. Pollinator 02:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith (as wikipedia policy requires you to do). This has nothing to do with a personal grudge. Cites should be at the end of individual sentences; users and editors should not have to dig through "common sources" to verify what is stated in articles. Wikipedia policy on verifiability clearly puts the burden of providing sources on the person who inserts information -- I can legitimately remove unsourced information and policy imposes no obligation to add citations upon me. Interestingstuffadder 03:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the edits you propose to make re references on this page are not "vulgar" (the term you used in defense of your repeated addition of the kiddie song (see above)), why not make the edits under your primary account instead of your sock? And why don't you link your sock to your primary account, i.e., Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Alternate accounts? It's not like sock puppets are a means of complete anonymity; there are ways to check user identity. All one has to do is request a check of a user's identity. Squamate 14:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed some blatant examples of original research w/o citation -- the abstract of this paper, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15691131 is pasted directly without reference. In my opinion it doesn't even fit the flow of the article. I just wanted to point this out. If others agree, feel free to take action. 128.2.222.195 17:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mosquito bite

hi! musquito bites me seldom .. if a person did bite by musquito 25 times means, i'm only once. my blood group is O+ve.. can u tell me d reason..

[edit] Why females target people

I know this is the case with me, and I think I'ver heard a doctor say this, but I need confirmation before this could be added under "Life cycle and Feeding Habits". Do female mosquitoes have a way of sensing if your blood vessels are closer to the surface of your skin than other people? I think I've heard that you have a greater tendency to be bitten if your blood vessels are closer to the surface. --Arwen undomiel 18:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thermal Mosquito Traps

I work in an Plastic Injection Molding Factory and we have a part that goes inside of a vacuum cleaner which is made of clear Lexan polycarbonate (the same stuff that the clear surface of CD's are made of). I have often seen mosquitoes attacking these warm parts and trying to feed on them. The parts come out of the press around 120 °F (the thermal level might be an attractant or the parts could be emitting a mosquito-attracting odor when warm). Usually, given the heat of the part, the mosquito dies after a second or two of contact. I could easily see using a coffee cup warmer or a simmering scent heater with a Lexan polycarbonate body (filling the sealed container with water or wax with safety venting) to attract the mosquitoes to a "dead target" where they pretty much die on contact.

There are some Thermal Mosquito Lures on the Internet, but I wonder if Lexan polycarbonate would be a more efficient bait material. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.93.81.124 (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] WTF?

I'm deleting the line below. bolshy 05:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• what line?? XU-engineer 12:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Cultural views

It is amaizing to see that recent discoveries have shown that there are a number of different species of parasitic and phoretic mites (Arrenurus and Nilotonia spp.) that can be found on mosquitoes. This is amaizing because a verse in the Quran mentioned this 1400 years ago when no one had a microscope. This serves to prove the divine nature of the Holy Quran, the muslim's holy book which was revealed to prophet Mohammad 1400 years ago.

This is the verse: "surely Allah is not ashamed to give the example of a mosquito and that which is above it. Those who believe know that it is the truth from their Lord; but those who disbelieve say: What doth Allah wish to teach by such a similitude? He misleads many thereby, and He guides many thereby; and He misleads thereby only wrongdoers; "(chapter 2, verse 26)

There's plenty of information about mosquitoes. That's great, but I can't find the information that I'm looking for. What does mosquito larva eats?

[edit] Evolution?

Once again, I come in contact with the Theory of evolution. I would be happier if it was mentioned to be a scientific theory, not fact. Once evolution is proven, the word "theory" can be removed. -Yancyfry 02:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand what a scientific theory is? Evolution isn't "proven" because that's not how science works. Science doesn't "prove" things, it forms theories. A theory is the closest thing you can get to a fact in science. Gravity is no more a fact than evolution, from a scientific standpoint. - furrykef (Talk at me) 18:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you were meaning to knock down Yancyfry's statement, and you only succeeded in backing it up. Evolution and gravity are both theories, and thus the word "fact" should not be used about either one. However, most articles that discuss evolution label it as fact, including this one, which I agree should be remedied. AffirmationChick 05:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The most important point to me was that Yancyfry said "Once evolution is proven...", when in fact there is no such thing as proving a theory. So I think Yancyfry perhaps had a fundamental misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. Anyway, I would like to retract my statement that "a theory is the closest thing you can get to a fact in science". This is what I had been taught in high school, but I think science does have a notion of a "fact". For one thing, Wikipedia itself indicates this: Fact#Fact in science. For another, it's just plain impractical to not be able to take things like gravity for granted. We shouldn't have to explain what a scientific theory is whenever we say anything about science. Anyway, this paper more or less says what I want to say on the specific point of facts, theories, and evolution: [2] - furrykef (Talk at me) 00:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope you are kidding and not really that stupid, Yancyfry.--Svetovid 21:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mousquito

Is this an accepted spelling anywhere in the world? Firefox isn't correcting it, but it turned up nothing here. (BTW, there don't seem to be any links here from the Biology portal, or at least not under Insects of North America. I can tell you at least 2 places in Canada that are swarming with them!) 142.59.172.187 08:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy vio

This is not a copy vio, a user has mistaken an About.com mirroring of Wikipedia content for a reverse situation. VanTucky 02:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As I noted on VanTucky's page: "I know a lot of sites do but that particular page claims to have been written by Anne Marie Helemstine and the page indicates the copyright belongs to The New York Times Company. The text has been on that page since 2003 and was only introduced into the Wikipedia in the past few days. Are you sure that they are mirroring the Wikipedia article? It does not seem to be the case this time." --Yamla 02:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe it is then. VanTucky 02:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Which parts of the text are allegedly on that site? I couldn't see it on the link that was given. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Search for "Floral or Fruity Fragrances", that entire section (at least) was lifted directly. I wasn't able to figure out what other parts, if any. I did confirm that the text was on the about.com site years before it made its way to Wikipedia, though. --Yamla 02:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

<reindent>Probably this seciton [3]Since the about.com article is only about the chemistry of repellents I don't see how the whole article can be a copyvio. --Versageek 02:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Slapping a copyvio tag on a whole page is pretty heavy-handed editing, and could lead to the deletion of a lot of previous work. I have reverted the page to a version before the copyrighted material. Pollinator 02:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tempature and humidity

It appears mosquitoes breed faster in warmer Hummid enviroments. does any one have research on tempature and humidity related to mosquito breeding.

• i dont really agree that, because every morning (mild, around 70 degrees F. and not so humid) i get up very early to exercise and those pesky mosquitoes (if you interrupt the grass), they will come out and attack you and reak havoc on your body. i live in Texas. XU-engineer 12:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see though why you would say that, though...usually the humidity forms dew on the grass or puddles of water which mosquitos can lay their eggs in. It is hard for a mosquito to lay eggs if the area is not human, but as XU-engineer said, it is not impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.53.225 (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Well, I figure while I'm here, I mind as well ask a question. I'll probably just delete this from the discussion page after someone answers it. Now, i'm no biologist or scientist of any kind, and with the rapidly increasing number of bites I recieve each day (mosquitoes find ways into my house), I just had to ask something. Why in the world do mosquito bites grow when you itch them, and sort of shrivel up when you don't? I mean, I understand the whole antibody thing that makes them itch, but why in the world do they grow?

Also, someone might want to consider putting the answer in the actual mosquito page...seeing as there's no "mosquito bite" page and that all the info on the itchy red bumps are on this page. I mean, it only has to be one sentence, mabye I'll do it once I get an answer. Thanks in advance. 24.15.53.225 13:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Life cycle: what happens in winter?

I always wondered how mosquitoes come back next year even after frost-filled winters. Is some part of their life cycle hibernating or something? That'd be nice to have in the article. 64.231.203.234 00:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crane Fly vs. Male Mosquito

I have searched around, and not found any information about how to distinguish the Crane Fly and the Male Mosquito. Diagrams appear extremely similar. Could any information be added to the article about this?

--JamesGecko 07:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Mouthparts and dorsum of thorax. Squamate (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Last pair of legs upward

Mention why Mosquitoes don't seem to use their last pair of legs, just having them point upward and sometimes twiddling them. Jidanni (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Size vs. biting success

Perhaps mention that the very large Mosquitoes might not be able to bite except in noisy environments where they stand a chance of not getting noticed. Jidanni (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Detection distance

Perhaps the article should mention at what distance a mosquito can detect a human? --Son (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Larvae

Should a page for mosquito larvae be added? There's a link to the non-existant page on larvae page. Or, should that link just go straight to the mosquito article? (ApostleJoe (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Aids - HIV

can mosquitos infect people with HIV ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HeX-4869 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

NO, it was shown that this is not a route in which HIV can be transmitted ^[1]. --Charanti^Talk 12:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Noise tradeoffs: redesign with quieter wings

Mention what the tradeoffs would be if the mosquito was redesigned with quieter wings.

What do mosquitos get for the price of making all that noise, (hence so easy to notice), greater maneuverability?

Or are we humans located in quiet environments such a small part of their diet market, that we can be neglected?

Probably most animals don't hear them, except cats? Jidanni (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)