Talk:Aedes aegypti

Interesting info
This could be added to the article: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/dengue/map-ae-aegypti-distribution.htm XApple 16:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Octenol Chirality
I found it strange that the chirality of octenol was discussed in this article. It seems trivial in this context, and anyone that knows about chirality would assume that the bioactive enantiomer is the one that is found in nature. For instance, lactic acid also has a chiral center, but we are assuming the mosquito is attracted to naturally-occurring lactic acid, (the L enantiomer). I propose deletion of the following sentences:

"Scientists at the USDA Agricultural Research Service have studied the specific chemical structure of octenol to better understand why this chemical attracts the mosquito to its host.[5] They found the mosquito has a preference for "right-handed" (dextrorotatory) octenol molecules."

However, I think the reference could be retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.158.206.218 (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Life
EOL has more information than we do...it's the fifth-most-popular article there. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Focus on disease
I feel as though this article talks more about the diseases that the mosquito transfers, as opposed to the mosquito itself. Should there not be a separate subsection to refer to the pathology, while the rest of the article focus on the general aspects of the mosquito such as its life cycle, difference in physiology to other mosquitoes, etc...?

109.175.147.112 (talk) 14:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be useful to include a range map and perhaps a prevalence chart. In some areas, the mosquito is possible but unlikely, whereas in other areas it is frequent.

In addition to separating sections that discuss the pathology (which is currently discussed in depth) and the general behavioral characteristics of this species (which is very lacking), this article lacks pertinent behavioral information even in relation to pathology. For example, the behavior surrounding reproduction (where, how often, number of females breeding with any given male) is very relevant to understanding the feasibility of instituting a population control via artificial genetic suppression of reproductive genes in males. Olivia.urso (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

userpage 00:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a new article. Pathology of mosquitoes or something. I did a rudimentary search and could not find any articles, drafts, draft talk or article talk pages about or discussing such topic.  TheKuygerian  contribs

Also: The summary of the article regarding what diseases Aedes aegypti transmits doesn't cite any sources. TheKuygerian contribs userpage 00:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

confusing syntax in an important sentence
I found this sentence to be confusing.

"Several commercial insect repellents had little, short duration or no effect, unlike DEET (particularly concentrated products) and Cutter lemon-eucalyptus product, while AVON So Soft products had ´low or no effect in a scientific study with Aedes aegypti' "

Is DEET effective? Certainly an important item that should be in a simple statement alone rather than tangled up as a negative. I'm not qualified to modify this myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.39.201.132 (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Aedes aegypti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050715084225/http://www.cdc.gov:80/ncidod/dvbid/dengue/ to http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/dengue/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081022191822/http://www.wrbu.org:80/SpeciesPages_non-ANO/Non-ANO_A-hab/AEaeg_hab.html to http://www.wrbu.org/SpeciesPages_non-ANO/Non-ANO_A-hab/AEaeg_hab.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aedes aegypti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301053431/http://www.mosquitocatalog.org/files/pdfs/087700-0.pdf to http://www.mosquitocatalog.org/files/pdfs/087700-0.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110313044321/http://www.mosquitocatalog.org/files/pdfs/MQ0183.pdf to http://www.mosquitocatalog.org/files/pdfs/MQ0183.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed detail about female wing length in Peru.
This level of detail does not belong in the introduction and unless there is similar detail elsewhere in the article, it doesn't belong in the article at all. Jojalozzo (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC) Jojalozzo (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

On the controversy of the scientific nomenclature for this species
I've recently stumbled in social media into a few posts claiming (apparently erroneously, as I will explain and as is currently already shown in the main page) that the genus of this species had been renamed to Stegomyia after all, citing sources from 2006. However, the later sources already cited here, including the guidelines from the Journal of Medical Entomology, indicate that this was not adopted. Maybe we should expand the relevant section, citing new sources like this one. Maybe we should also indicate something about the topic on the Aedes and Stegomyia pages too. intvl (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Having a paper like that does seem to seem warrant of a sentence or two, but it'd be easy to get into the weeds. That said, the Clements & Harbach paper seems a bit too "charged" for a single source to rely on when they kind of seem to be casting shade about Stegomyia being more valid, and Aedes more convenient despite the most recent phylogenetic reanalysis. If there is that much controversy and those authors seem that hot under the collar in the relative sense for a journal publication, I'd probably want to lean on an additional one or two sources alongside this describing the controversy, or rather the real WP:WEIGHT of it. KoA (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)