Talk:Moth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
 |
||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Top | This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: Hi. I have difficulty pronouncing the scientific names used in the article(and in general). It would be helpful to have some sort of pronounciation included. Thanks |
|||
 |
 |
||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: Hi. I have difficulty pronouncing the scientific names used in the article(and in general). It would be helpful to have some sort of pronounciation included. Thanks |
|||
[edit] Images available
There is a large collection of amateur moth photos available for use on Wikipedia here: http://www.origins.tv/entomology/moths/moths300ident.htm (The page is image-heavy -- best for broadband users.)
Just include this text on the Image page if you choose to use them:
"You are free to use any photograph of mine for educational, non-profit purposes. Wikipedia qualifies. Any photograph of mine appearing on the Wikipedia website should be acknowledged somewhere (not necessarily at the point of use) by the legend "© 2004 by Robert Patterson," and with a link to my website."
The website link: http://www.origins.tv/entomology/mainmenu.htm
Catherine 19:24, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- That looks to me like a ((noncommercial)) licence, and we have a policy against non-commercial use only images. Sorry. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 14:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Literary Imagination?
The "Place in the Literary Imagination" would look to be execessively flowery, if not altogether unneeded. Would anyone object to me removing it, or at least, putting it in somewhat more concrete terms? 66.25.120.166 00:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Attraction to light
In the "Attraction to light" section, the first paragraph states that the reason that moths are attracted to light is unknown. However, the third paragraph makes it seem like they are "attracted" to artificial light only because they mistake it for the moon's light, which helps them navagate. Given the third paragraph, I wouldn't say that there's any mystery regarding why moths fly toward light. Can anyone clarify this? --Anakolouthon 07:17, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] List of moths
This list seems to be getting unwieldy. I say it should be broken off into its own page, or at least classified into families. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 14:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] silk
130 million kg yearly for 250 million US dollar? That is 2 dollars per kg: that can't be true. Way too cheap. Han-Kwang (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Reproduction
How do moths reproduce? I assume they lay eggs same as butterfly. Also does anyone have any idea how the eggs survive the arctic winter. CambridgeBayWeather 09:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Curious as to why there's not much information on such a common thing as a moth...
[edit] Dubious paragraph
I've removed the following paragraph from the text; I'm unacquainted with the terms mentioned, and I'm afraid it might be a joke. I'd like to have a native speaker review it, preferably one well-versed in entomology, in any case.
- People who study butterflies and/or moths are called lepidopterists; the study of butterflies is known as butterflying, and the study of moths mothing, the latter giving rise to the term mother for someone who takes part in this activity - sometimes written with a hyphen inserted: moth-er - to distinguish it from the word for a female parent (in spoken English, confusion does not arise as the two are pronounced differently).
Taragüí @ 16:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- "Mothers" is real. See ALS Guide to Moth Trapping. Tearlach 16:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Confirmed. I sometimes go mothing with more dedicated moth-ers. Andy Mabbett 17:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Announcing WikiProject Lepidoptera
This is inform you that Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera is up and about. The aim is to support article creation on Lepidoptera and accordingly make a collective contribution to the global community in this field.
Since I am a 'butterfly person', I feel acutely conscious of my lack of knowledge of such a large part of the same order. The division of people into 'aurelians' and 'moth-ers' is traditional due to single minded focus of most butterfy people, especially myself, but is scientifically incorrect and not in the best interests of anyone. We all need to be 'Lepidopterists'.
I request the support of all moth-ers in Wikipedia for making the Lepidoptera knowledgebase on Wikipedia a success.
May I request that WikiProject Lepidoptera be monitored to see that any unintended bias in favour of butterflies does not take place?
Henceforth I shall use the term 'Lepidopterists' for all concerned.
Hoping for a creative, cooperative, innovative and enriching experience for all concerned.
Regards, AshLin 03:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Moth Stub
For information of all Lepidopterists,
I am proposing a stub, called 'moth stub', as a sister stub to 'butterfly stub' and a subcategory of 'insect stub'. The procedure requires that we justify by showing that a 'good number |over 60 articles' of moth articles are stubs requiring attention and thus require a categorty of their own. So I am in search of all moth articles which are not yet full fledged articles (very easy, majority of Lepidoptera articles are stubs). I intend to mark them with a generic 'insect stub' and list them on a new project page called Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera/Moth Stubs. When we get the list done, I shall propose a 'moth stub'. I have requested User:Kugamazog for some moth images for use in this stub and other places in WikiProject Lepidoptera.
Regards, AshLin 07:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lifespan
I guess it varies from species to species, but is there a general lifespan for moths? I'm always interested to know such things. Jono 20:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lifecycle?
Hi. In reading about the Indianmeal moth I came across this interesting quote: "Practically all moths eat nothing; the very limited exceptions are the moths that have special mouth parts for taking nectar from flowers." [1] Is that correct? If so, I'd love to see a section on the moth lifecycle here. William Pietri 22:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hercules Moth
I would to know if the Hercules Moth is rare or not.
Thanks.
Callum —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.27.90.126 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] moths
are moths atrakted 2 light?
- Yes. This article has a whole section explaining that. Kgrr 10:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Other uses of "moth"
There exist more uses for the term "Moth" than just the insect and the Indian town. For example, there is a band by the same name. I think the disambiguation statement should include "for other uses of" rather than just forwarding to the town. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jon Park (talk • contribs) 07:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
- Does the band Moth have a page? Are they really significant? Can you list all the other instances of "Moth"? If so then you can build a disambiguation page and link it to the town, the band, etc. similar to the one built for Tiger moth. If you feel it's all justified, be bold and do it. Kgrr 10:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What is the dust that the moths give off when they die
(I didn't start this, but I have a question that could relate) And also does it taste good? I ask because my dog loves to eat moths, and we are not sure why. --Zaybertamer 07:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, cant say. Probably you mean the powdered scales falling off. As far as dogs are concerned, some dogs do gobble up insects at times and some dont! No scientific explanation available as regards moths. AshLin 19:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- A friend noticed that his dog was eating moths and also that they seemed to be coated in a fine powder, thus he figured the logical conclusion was the lick the moth and taste it. He assured me it did not taste good at all. As for what the powder is called I can't recall, although I seem to recall reading somewhere that it had something to do with the moth's ability to fly. --Col.clawhammer (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Cladistics
What would help this article look professional would be a cladistics of how moths and butterflies are related to each other and other insects (especially flies). Same thing should go for the article butterflies. þ 20:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actually disregard the butterfly link, I see they have it represented. But anyway if anybody has a reliable information source this article would be much appreciated. þ 21:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Moth ingesting nectar Picture - a butterfly
Hmmm... the last pic with the "moth" on the flower looks more like it's a butterfly (like a skipper or a Lycaenidae). It's a nice picture but it doesn't seem to be a moth. If it is, perhaps someone could someone point out what species it is. The antennae are usually the most reliable distinguishers of butterflies and moths - more so than how much hair they have or how colorful they are. Even moths with club-like antennae are not THAT clubbed. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.213.220.62 (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe you are correct. That photo was of a skipper (butterfly) and not a moth. My apologies for my error. Flippedgazelle 05:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Moth Pie
My gram makes something called "moth pie". When I ask what's in it, she gives the typical grandmotherly response, "Oh, it's an old family recipe". It tastes like socks and it's really chalky. Any chance it's made of real moths? Anyone else ever heard of this? D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 04:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unidentified Specimen Photographs
I'm of the opinion there are enough credible online sources for images of reliably identified moth species that we really don't need external links to galleries of (albeit interesting and beautiful) anonymous insects. Ditto the butterflies; this page heading is "Moth." Nickrz 13:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Another Perspective, Please!
I am not an expert on moths; I am the owner of a plant nursery. I was astonished to come upon this article and see moths denigrated for their "destructiveness" with no mention of their essential role as pollinators, particularly for monocots. They also play important roles in the decomposition of plant materials. Is there someone out there with the background to clean this up, or do I have to hack away at it myself?Carlaclaws (talk) 05:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
