Talk:Neuroptera

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Daquanhebron.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Planiplennia

The major resources, including the Tree of Life Project, Wikispecies, and the World Neuropterida Catalog, all treat Megaloptera and Raphidioptera as separate orders. There is no substantial resistance to this classification among neuropterists.Dyanega 17:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, but you took out Planipennia and all the families of Neuroptera from the list. I think they need to be put back, otherwise people aren't going to find them without knowing about them first. --Kugamazog 22:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cladogram

I suggest to remove the cladogram, for the following reasons:

it does not add information beyond the list, being very badly resolved and overall dubious
is conflicts with the list - so where do the Psychopsidae go?
Henningian combs are generally unhelpful
it entirely lacks support values or any other measure of its reliability, except the profusion of questionmarks which only serve to show how bad it is
it entirely lacks (this is a code problem) any indication of closeness of taxa, treating them all as equitistant. Bullshit of the highest degree.
most people have trouble reading cladograms, therefore I do not like to use them in Wikipedia - it's a psychological thing, see doi:10.1126/science.1117727. The average layperson is actually more often than not fooled by cladograms into incorrect beliefs about phylogeny.

It would be better to discuss the issues in-text, while noting that neuropterid pyhlogeny is by and large provisional, andf annotating which groups are candidates for being paraphyletic. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. This is the cladogram from ToLweb. But it is from 1995, entirely obsolete. I will remove it and adopt the phylogeny of Haaramo; that is current as of 2008. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

request

As insect larvae often don't resemble their adult forms--and this is particulary true of the neuropterans--could someone please add a photo or two of some neuropteran larvae to this article for comparison? thank you 165.91.64.245 (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)RKH[reply]

Someone also needs to put in here if their poisenous or not, because they will bite humans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.171.183 (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for a Class

This page has a rather large introduction section (the section before the Contents table) compared to the total size of the article. I feel that the entry could be more effective and have greater accessibility if this introduction section was shortened and the content be placed in the contents section in subcategories. This would make it easier to find and sort through the information presented. The article only has 3 sections. The first two, anatomy and life cycle or relatively short and do not provide that much information. The third section is the Taxonomy section and its taxonomy, classification and suborder comprises most of the content in the article. While this information is important it is just a list and doesn’t present anything interesting or informative about the order. The article leaves out a lot of information including its behavior in respect to altruism and its social context. Overall I don’t think that this article is a good article because it doesn’t give that much information about the given topic. However, it is good in the sense that the page has many links to other, more specific, organisms that may have more information. --Jeremy.winkler (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where do they inhabit?

Doesn't seem to say. By that I mean regions. ~ R.T.G 20:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Since 'lacewings' is widely accepted as a common name for the whole order (and yes I've heard of antlions and mantidflies), I suggest we move the title to Lacewing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neuroptera → Lacewing – General preference for English name for insect orders, when one exists. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "lacewing" does not appear to be correct for all of the Neuroptera. For example the owlfly article does not mention the term at all. Needs discussion I think. — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
disagree lacewing is NOT used for the entire order at all, antlions, owlflies, etc are also included in the order and not ever referred to as lacewings. Common does not trump accuracy.--Kev min § 13:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Lacewings" is however often used for the entire order, which does not at all mean that every family in the order is or needs to have "lacewing" in its English name, just that many of them do. For instance it's good enough for the Royal Entomological Society, Buglife, NatureSpot, BioImages, Atlas of Living Australia; though some places still say "lacewings and allies" which is very nearly there, frankly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd use the analogy to articles like Blattodea and Odonata. You may well find people who use "roaches" as if it were synonymous with Blattodea (termites are thereby excluded), and people who use "dragonflies" as if it were synonymous with Odonata (forgetting damselflies), but that doesn't mean that this sort of sloppy usage bears inclusion in an encyclopedic context. Dyanega (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is no general preference for English names for insect orders. 19 of 29 orders in Category:Insect orders use scientific names. Of the 10 that use English names, the English name clearly applies to all members of the order. "Lacewing" is less precise; does it mean cover all neuropterans or just some of them? It's less natural for our editors; the overwhelming majority of links are to Neuroptera. Is it more natural or recognizable for our readers? I don't know for sure, but I suspect people searching for "lacewing" don't really know whether or not they want an article about an order of insects (and people searching for Neuroptera know that they do want an article about the order). Plantdrew (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose I have published papers on neuropterans, and will affirm that "lacewing" is used for "just some of them" (to quote Plantdrew's concern) - I can think of 6 or maybe 7 out of 18 families that use "lacewing" in the common name (in other cases the "common name" is not actually in wide usage; these are neologisms coined strictly to appease people who insist that everything has to have a common name, and do not appear in textbooks or field guides published prior to the 1990s). Even allowing for neologisms, that still means maybe only half the families in the order, and excluding two of the most well-known, antlions and owlflies. Dyanega (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lacewing larvae incapacitate termite prey with the toxic flatulence they emit from their end

According to The Body’s Most Embarrassing Organ Is an Evolutionary Marvel:

Lacewing larvae incapacitate termite prey with the toxic flatulence they emit from their end—“they literally KO their enemies with death farts,” Ainsley Seago, an entomologist at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, told me.

I came to this wikipedia page to read more about it, but it is not discussed in the article.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is known only for one genus in the family Berothidae, and is linked on the page for that genus, Lomamyia. It does not belong in a general article. Dyanega (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the cladograms?

@Chiswick Chap: would you be interested in updating the cladograms on the article with the one from the 2018 article I just inserted? Im horrible with cladogram syntax or I would take a stab at it myself.--Kev min § 19:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]