Talk:Ant/Archive 1

Neotropics/neotropic confusion?
The table in the number of species section links to nearctic, which is the nearctic ecozone, and to neotropics which claims it should not be confused with the neotropic ecozone. Is this correct?

stinger???
the pictured ant has a stinger on it's posterior, to the best of my knowledge this is not right. they bite then squirt acid at the scratch i think, it's not really a proper stinger like that of a wasp or bee. (unsigned question posted by user:Cadmiumcandy)
 * I believe you'll find it is a vestigial remnant of wasp heritage.

He is completely correct. It is a picture, not like he added a stinger on its "posterior"! Duh dude.


 * Many ants have completely functional stingers, it is not "vestigial" at all. Anyone who has ever stepped in a fire ant mound will tell you: you get stung. MANY times. Dyanega 20:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

deleted text
If a man could run as fast for his size as an ant can, he could run as fast as a racehorse. Ants can lift 20 times their own body weight. An ant brain has about 250,000 brain cells and a human brain has 10,000 million so a colony of 40,000 ants has collectively the same size brain as a human. Interesting because humans are about 7.5 billion times as large as ants, yet are brains are only 40 thousand times as big.

.. i actually found it interesting LadyofHats 14:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ants are certainly one of the freakiest creatures on Earth. 18.252.5.157 08:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Stuff like "an ant can lift many times its own body weight" or "if a man could run as fast for his size as an ant can, he could run as fast as a racehorse" is in some senses a hoax. All this can easily be explained by using the laws of physics, and an ant the size of a dog would be so weak it would have problems just to walk (but it would die from the lack of oxygen long before that point). 217.68.114.116 12:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

One of my updates, that the combined mass of all ants on earth is greater than the combined mass of all humans on earth, was deleted as "nonsense" and "vandalism" by fisherqueen. However, this is a sure fact, I just don't have the citations for it. Does anyone have a reference? -wazawak

Ants keeping other insects as 'pets'
Computer scientist and author Rudy Rucker says in his fiction book The Hacker and the Ants that some ants keep other insects in their nests as 'pets' but does not back up this assertion. Does anyone know if this is true? Would it add interest to this article if shown to be true?

Greg 05:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If true, yeah... although I have a hard time believing it could be true. Maybe he's just being colorful about the ant/aphid relationship?  --Allen 13:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is TRUE. Ants do keep other insects as "pets", mainly as "livestock" to get honeydew. Aphids and some scale insects are what is kept to get this honey-like substance. Martial Law 06:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ants FAQ to Wikipedia?
Hello all. I was wondering if there should be an ants FAQ like http://alpha.zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/read/AntsFAQ.txt ... I would like to convert to add to this Wikipedia for it. Is it possible? What do you guys think?
 * Sounds good. That URL is now http://ants.pbwiki.com/ by the way. Jidanni (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ants in initiaiton rites
The Humans and Ants section ends with the sentence:

Others use ant bites in initiation ceremonies as a test of endurance.

Can anyone provide a specific reference/link for this?
 * Uh, I can think of one offhand... It was called "Stranger than Fiction, Killer Bugs"... or something like that. I remember reading it as a young child, a book of interesting killer bug facts and what-not.

--Cje 13:26, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Citations added. Shyamal 03:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup
There is a typographical error under "Morphology": it should be "a node-like petiole" not "node-like a petiole". The article appears to be locked, so I can't fix it. -LL

Could someone with a knowledge of ants please fix this mess? Wyllium 15:06, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

The paragraph on colonies should be moved to the entry on ant colonies, shouldn't it? Etxrge 08:00, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't make much sense to talk about the reproduction or behavior of ants without describing colonies...

I'm not a biologist, but it appears that the ant-eating caterpillars are in a predatory relationship with the ants, not a symbiotic one. Is there an appropriate technical title for this section? Czyl

Im not a biologist eather, but i beleave it would depend on the region. ( Now im speculating ) such as a city witch might have smaller ants and smaller, fewer caterpillars might be a symbotic. whare as in a suburb whare everything is placed togather the ants might be more preditory. Dagbiker 16:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Chalk
I've heard that ordinary chalk can be used to keep ants at bay- apparently, for some unknown reason they refuse to cross it. Google references:

I found this fascinating, and added it to the 'Humans and Ants' section as another method of dealing with ants. If anyone knows a biological reason for this behaviour, or can develop on it, please do. --Psyk0 13:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I assume it would be because the high calcium content of the chalk absorbs the ants' communication pheromones, thereby making a chalk-line an "void space" in the pheromone trail that ants leave when foraging. capnmidnight 11:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Lennigan vs. the Ants" a short story.
Can anyone tell me where to find the story or be able to provide a copy? I remember reading it and it was very good. Anyone??? -G

Lennigan vs. The Ants...does anyone know the author? On the web I've discovered several folks all asking the smae question, including librarians.


 * The author of this story is CARL STEPHENSON, and the name of the story is actually "Leiningen versus the Ants". A search should turn up this story on dozens of web sites. http://www.classicshorts.com/stories/lvta.html, http://www.bygosh.com/Features/012003/leiningenvsants.htm, http://www.moonstar.com/~acpjr/Blackboard/Common/Stories/Ants.html are a few to get you started.


 * Believe me, my search turned up nothing. Hence my cry for help, and it has been answered. I thank you.-G

Do ants really bite? Don't they spray or pee? Can someone help me clear this up, please?
 * Yes, they do really bite, some sting, and there are really agressive ants that will kill you. See Re.: Killer Ants below. Martial Law 21:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC) :)

OtherUses template
Please change the article to use Template:OtherUses instead of Template:otheruses it currently uses. The OtherUses template has information about the contents of the article.

For a sample use of this template refer to the articles Alabama or Algiers-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DuKot (talk • contribs).


 * Note that that functionality is now at otheruses1. OtherUses redirects to otheruses, and is deprecated.--Srleffler 18:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ant Smell
I have heard that only one in three people can smell the smell that is produced when ants are crushed or killed. Does anyone have any information about this.
 * This depends on which species you are talking about... Some species, like Lasius fuliginosus, don't need to be crushed - their colonies emit a "sweet" smell. Other species don't smell at all when crushed.

My mom can smell regular little black ants when they are dead. &rArr;  Jarlaxle Artemis   04:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ants as food
I have added a new subsection in the section Humans and ants. I will in future do some research, but if anyone wants to contribute first, please do. I know that in Santander, Colombia ants are eaten. I have myself. They are called hormigas culonas --Francisco Valverde 17:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Killer Ants
On 4-22-06, at 3pm EST/EDT, the Discovery Channel has aired a program called Killer Ants. Featured ants are the Army ants, Bulldog ants, and a really agressive ant called "Jack Jumpers". See the Discovery Channel article for more info about these ants on their website related to what they show on TV. Martial Law 21:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Pest Removal
A paragraph or two on effective ways to kill, or remove ants would be appreciated.
 * I think I can cover this, using an article I wrote about how to get rid of ants. I've started work on the section, and though it needs some work, I think it's good progress. I know I dropped an external link in there to my own research on the matter, but I'm wondering if there are other more "institutionalized" sources about ant control. --&#91;&#91;User:Samoya&#124;Samoya]] 18:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Origin of ants
As we know, the ants evolved from some wasp ancestor. But what kind of wasp? What we know about ants; their colonies were probably primary made by burrow in the soil, they evolved from a predatory species that did not built comb cells and they evolved from a solitary wasp. Just a theory; a parasitic wasp with a sting to paralyze its victims (like many ants are still doing) made burrows in the ground where the paralyzed victim was dragged into, and laid egg there. To make sure the offspring had something to feed on. In the end, this ancestor used a single burrow only (instead of making a new each time), where all the prey was brought to her and her eggs/larvae. Because she lived in the same hole as her offspring, overlapping generations was a result. After she had mated and made her burrow, she eventually lost her wings. The reason for this was probably because she had specialized on capturing ground living prey. And because she lived under and often on the ground herself, she sacrified her wings to become a more effective hunter in the nivhe she was living, hunting on other small arthropods near her burrow. To do this, she used her eyes, since that's how flying wasps often find their prey, and like bulldog ants still do (and where there is very little difference between the workers and the queen). As more advanced species evolved and they became truly social, many started to use chemical senses instead and the mother stopped hunting and took the role as an egg layer only, while her offspring took care of the food collection. And since then, they are continued to explore the ground, the trees and other niches.

Lost content
Apparently, quite a bit of content was lost when an anonymous user removed the Taxobox and the references and external links (30 May 2006). If I read the revision history correctly, this content has only partially been reconstructed. Is this intentional? &mdash; Tobias Bergemann 13:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Deadly Ants
Besides the well known Army Ants, there are the Bullet Ants, the "Jack Jumpers", which are really agressive ants, then there are the "Saifu" Ants. All were featured on the Discovery Channel's show Killer Ants, which aired 6-17=06 @ 14:30 CST/CDT. The first two live in Australia, and killed people there, the latter lives in Africa and will kill and eat HUMANS and done so. Martial Law 06:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Division of labor
In the article it says that ants follow pathways of strong scents and that they teach each other new routes by following..

I've observed an ant nest, and I've noticed that when a new, strong and strange scent is dropped in the middle of a main pathway on a rock, there will appear in 5 mins a nest maintainter or two with a speficic task to clean up obstacles in the vicinity of my object. The object cause every passing ant to stop and it disrupted the traffic. The maintainers will drag small stones 5 cm away from the pathway until they have found my object. The object was sticky and hard to move (slime), and after the first maintainer failed to move it, though I didn't watch the whole time, the object had been turned so that it no longer blocked the pathway. How can the ants form spesific sub-tasks under the general division of castes? How can they put the info forward about a location of an obstacle? How can they communicate the nature of tasks? Teemu Ruskeepää 16:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember hearing that soldier ants constantly monitor the worker ants and will kill any that are not working or are putting out the wrong pheromone. Could someone include something on this with a reference? Also, what happens if a soldier is not putting out the correct pheromone? Jbottoms76 19:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia version 0.5
I moved it into held nominations because it has 2 section stubs. So it failed on quality. Maybe later, after improving those sections, you could nominate it again. Thanks. NCursework 21:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Biomass
The figure for percent biomass needs a reference. Currently it says up to 15%, the best source I can find suggests even higher. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/26/14028
 * Humans make only 0.33% of the biomass and krill (most successful animal) make 0.66%, 15% is TOO high for the ants.
 * --Mahadeva (Messages) 01:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The reference says "terrestrial animal" biomass. Maybe the other figure includes all life forms. Shyamal 01:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ant lifespan
After a brief perusal through the aritcle, I saw no mention of general or specific ant lifespan. --Stux 17:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Covered. Shyamal 04:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Identifying Ants
Last summer, I had a problem with these tiny ants. Whenever I'd kill one with my hand, I notice they left this really pungent stink. While I haven't seen them since then, I was wondering if anyone knew what type of ant I was referring to? Prey 02:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

GREAT ARTICLE !!
someone should nominate this article for featured status

slapslime needs help
i just created an account and dont know much about graphics can someone tell me how to add pictures and do cool stuff like that

p.s. (i am also a junior programer)Slapslime 15:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * first things first this discussion page is about the article only, posts like that will probably get deleted by mods. go to the help page, and go through the tutorials.  if you want to upload a picture you just have to go to special:upload it's fairly straightforward  Paskari 15:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Finding way home
I have serious doubts on this issue "Home is typically located through the use of remembered landmarks and the position of the sun as detected with compound eyes and also by means of special sky polarization-detecting fibers within the eyes." I don't think ants have memory. if they did they wouldn't need phermones, they'd remember the way to the food source. and how would the position of the sun help? Paskari 15:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting point. I looked for references and found that ants do work with a lot with visual landmarks and added the needed citations. The article does need cite sources and avoid being questionable. Shyamal 04:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ants! Nature's Secret Power
On Ants! Nature's Secret Power, Discovery Science, Directtv#284, I do think that I'd heard that humans & ants {regarding aphids} are the two species most likely to keep domesticated herds.

Thank You.

&#91;&#91; hopiakuta &#124; &#91;&#91; &#91;&#91;%c2%a1]] &#91;&#91;%c2%bf]] &#91;&#91; %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 19:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Morphology
Some of the information in the morphology part is not specific, but includes insects in generel. In my opinion it should be deleted. And does ants really lack a heart? 217.68.114.116 12:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations
To all concerned - this is a great article! 86.136.27.113 16:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Using domesticated animals
I added the following text: "Ants are the only species besides humans that keep domesticated animals-namely mealybugs and aphids. It is a win-win situation where ants protect them and move them to sweeter plant parts to gain energy from their honeydew and secretions." I think this is a very important statement because they are one of two creatures to do so. Please consider readding this statement to the article. 68.17.204.58 20:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed it because the information on tending of aphids is already mentioned. Domestication generally involves selective breeding and control of reproduction. Aphids live and breed quite independently and can fly around. The scientific term for a win-win situation is mutualism/commensalism or symbiosis. If this is called domestication, then there are more species that be claimed to do this. There is a nice review on the Evolution of agriculture in insects. . Many popular articles may try to make the information more interesting by using such anthropocentric terms. So it would be best to include such information only with a suitable reference. Shyamal 02:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I got this informtaion from an Animal Planet television program: "Ants! - Nature's Secret Power". 68.17.204.58 02:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. Interesting, but a half-truth to create greater interest I am afraid. Shyamal 03:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ants as first name
Ants is also Estonian first name. This means not insects, but is the Estonian counterpart for German first name Hans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.40.110.66 (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Sugar Ants
These things are small black colored ants that invade the house. They're about the size of the letter "l" presented here. Had them once. Raid works well on them. Martial Law 00:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A bug expert ID-ed them for me. Martial Law 00:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Talking of sugar, I decided to place a sweet next to an ant nest, not long after an ant appeared to be on the sweet feeding on it instead of taking pieces back to the nest, is this because the sweet is so sugary that it is too irrisistable? Looked like the little ant was enjoying it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.119.110 (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Graphic near "relationships with other species" header
The graphic says 'Polymesia.' There's no such thing as Polymesia. Polymesia does not exist. There is no wiki article on it. There is no article on it anywhere. Polymesia is a fiction; get over it. GET OVER IT, IT'S POLYNESIA!!!


 * Yes, I also think it should be 'Polynesia'. But since it seems to be an honest mistake, please try to be a little more civil.  +A.Ou 04:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed I hope. Shyamal 03:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This page has been vandalized.
I only have a highschool education, but I’m pretty sure there’s no such thing as "cookie crisp ants" or "fatass ants". (70.181.188.194 08:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC))
 * Really nice to see critical reading. The fatass ant appears to be true though, citation added. Not sure about the other but the fact remains that ants are eaten. :) Shyamal 03:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

GA review
I was going to review this now but it's late and I'm tired and decided to go to bed. A few points: I think the family name and classification should be worked into the lead, as well the number of species shouldn't be in its own paragraph. If planning for FA one day, then standardizing the references is essential. Good luck. The isolated sentence in the lead makes me think there could be some copyedit issues too but I haven't looked. cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 15:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To which I'd add a couple of quick comments; this article doesn't conform to the manual of style regarding sandwiching text between images on the left and right; further the 'family tree' is pushed into the main text by the taxobox. The diversity table is also hard to read and looks a mess - maybe remove the 'thumb' attribute and replace it with a suitable width - or better, incorporate a table into the content. I may be back to perform a full review if I get the chance! Verisimilus  T  15:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of these problems should be fixed now. No text is sandiwched any more, and I've recoded the .svg table in wikitable format. I'm not sure what you mean about the cladogram (family tree), so I haven't been able to fix that. --Stemonitis 17:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * With a wide screen size, the cladogram is high enough on the page to be forced to the left by the taxobox. It could probably be moved down a few lines in the text. Congratulations on your GA! Verisimilus  T  15:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, that must be quite a wide screen. I thought I used high resolution, but I have to zoom out to achieve that (but at least I know what you were talking about now). It should be improved now; I've shoved it one paragraph further down the page. --Stemonitis 15:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Passing as a Good Article
I am going to go ahead and pass this as a Good Article; from what I can see, this recognition is long overdue. The article is fascinating and generally well-written, though it could use some grammar/style polishing (I noticed a few awkward sentences). Keep up the good work! - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 21:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Re Death of Ants
I've heard that when an ant dies, it emits a different pheromone signaling other ants to carry it out of the mound or nest. True?? Berserkerz Crit 10:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Both ants and bees show a number of "hygiene behaviours" including the removal of parasites, dead nest mates etc. I am not sure how death is perceived. It is most likely a chemical cue, but chances are that this is not termed a pheromone. Shyamal 17:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Added a section under defense with information on defenses against pathogens, such as undertaking behaviour. In Atta mexicana it is noted that Oleic acid may be a component from dead ants that triggers the behaviour. Shyamal 17:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Mass Die Offs
Is anyone an ant expert here? Has anyone reported mass die-offs of ant colonies? Someone forwarded me an e-mail of where a large amount of ants have been washed-up on MILES of shores of Topsail Island, NC. Kgrr 15:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ant Virus and Pesticides
"SINV-1, has proven to be self-sustaining and transmissible. Once introduced, it can eliminate a colony within three months. ... The virus was found in about 20 percent of fire ant fields, where it appears to cause the slow death of infected colonies. Researchers believe the virus has potential as a viable biopesticide to control fire ants, known to scientists as Solenopsis invicta."

74.61.14.155 17:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If this is noteworthy, then it should be placed on the pertinent page, which is the page for Solenopsis invicta. Dyanega 00:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Kgrr 13:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Total sum of ants
In the opening, it is stated that "When all their individual contributions are added up, they may constitute up to 15 to 25% of the total terrestrial animal biomass". Can someone explain to me (or add in the article, if you will) how many ants there are in total? Kinda wondering, cause I wouldn't really know the total amount of biomass. --Soetermans 21:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * These estimates are arrived by a series of calculations with upper and lower bounds (number of colonies per unit area * number of ants per colony * dry weight of ant * total ant occupied land area). Your question may have a partial answer here Shyamal 01:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Weight & Lifting??
So how much does an 'ant' weigh (yes, yes, different ants weigh different amounts, etc)? Lifting 10-20x your body weight is a great little factoid, but it doesn't tell me much. The french link goes to an access-denied DB, so that doesn't help any. The bounds on ant-weight would be nice to have. ~ender 2008-02-18 20:49:PM MST
 * Not sure about the point. Where are these statements made? If there is a reliable reference on the mechanical abilities, it could be added with citation - but in general individual ant weights can vary from around 0.1mg to 10mg. Shyamal (talk) 06:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ants in Culture section?
In the "Ants in Culture" section, it seems as though there is an inconsistency in the text discussing the word for ants in Asian society. The sentence begins refering to Japanese symbols and end refering to Chinese characters. While something is clearly "off" here, I don't know enough about Asian languages (oh well...) to rectify the error. Those with the knowledge help us out! laonoodlekeemow 06:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * hmm, and the problem has its roots in the original source here. Shyamal 07:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured Status
This article looks pretty good. Why isn't it featured yet? 24.115.203.92 13:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi protection
I have not seen any constructive edits by IP edits for a long time. Have placed a request for semi-protection at Requests_for_page_protection. Please post any concerns here. Shyamal 03:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It has been semi protected for a long time, perhaps it is time to lift this. I promise to help out removing vandalism. GameKeeper (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. It gets more than 3000 page hits a day on average and it has been a magnet for vandalism. I would be pleasantly surprised to see drive by IPs add anything new and useful in the right locations. Shyamal (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

some stuff
hi guys, i'm just getting my feet wet in this wikiediting thing. strange process! i just went through the article and cleaned up a bunch of language and added tiny bits of content.

some thoughts:

the section on development mentions polymorphism but not by name, the section on polymorphism is a little weak.

section on ant cooperation and competition seems weak

minor quibble, this is confusing:

>Charles Thomas Bingham notes that in parts of India, and throughout Burma and Siam, a paste of the green weaver ant, Oecophylla smaragdina, is served as a condiment with curry. Saville Kent, in the Naturalist in Australia wrote "Beauty, in the case of the green ant, is more than skin-deep. Their attractive, almost sweetmeat-like translucency possibly invited the first essays at their consumption by the human species." Mashed up in water, after the manner of lemon squash, "these ants form a pleasant acid drink which is held in high favor by the natives of North Queensland, and is even appreciated by many European palates."[50]

same or different ants? two different continents!

overall i think some paragraphs can be rewritten and i think some major general concepts about ants are missing. if i get inspired, i'll suggest them. afraid to rewrite whole sections because i'm no expert, though i did study ants.

p.s. how do i get my name on the wiki arthropod project? now i can't remember where i saw that page.. Wikiskimmer 04:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a link at the top of this page to wp:arthropods. Presumably the quotation refers to palates of European colonists. This section is copied straight out of the linked reference so should be rewritten too. Go for it!. Bendž|Ť 05:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is the Arthropods project. Feel free to make improvements to the text. Regarding Oecophylla, note that many ant species are quite widespread and are not restricted to continents, for instance the Indo-Malayan region does meet up with the Australian biogeographical region. Some species can cross the lines, particularly pioneer species with the ability to reach by drifting or flight. The quotes were added as a reaction to disbelief and citation needed tags added in the past. Shyamal 05:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hauled off a brass nail
I saw ants in my house here in Taiwan hauling off a brass nail to their hole. Diet supplement? Secret operations command center construction? The nail I'm certain was not specially flavored. Do mention something about this type of case. Jidanni 00:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * taiwan? eh? i'm not familiar with your ants..  but i had 5 different ant colonies once who i fed honey to.  Only the Aphaenogasters did this:  they would grab bits of moss and humus from all over their vial and bring it and stick it into the honey drop until the honey was all soaked up.  what can i say?

p.s. you changed "mutualism with trees" to "mutalism with plants" do you have any refs for such mutualisms with plants that aren't trees? i know where to find refs to acacia trees. but i've only SEEN Camponotus protecting a Viccia spp. that had nectaries. but that's OR.Wikiskimmer 01:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * All I know is here at elevation 777 meters in Taiwan, there the ants are, waiting on various weeds in their karate stances, or loitering, etc. Certainly they are running some protection racket. But I am not a scientific observer. Jidanni 08:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I know they polinate some bushes as well. I think it's safe to leave as is now. Plants are inclusive of trees but not the other way around, so it's more accurate even if imprecise without being OR. The brass nail tale is interesting. It's a lot of effort for more mineral supplement than they could ever use. Bendž|Ť 09:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Landmasses without ants
The introductory section states that the only landmasses without ants are Antarctica, Greenland, Iceland, and Hawaii. Does this mean that places like Ellesmere Island and Franz Josef Land have majorly cold-resistant ants hiding on them, or did the person making this claim just miss them in the research? BTW, the source given to support this statement only supports the claim for Hawaii; I'll put the citation needed tag on it. --Nucleusboy 00:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Rafting
Where you mention rafting, also mention that, well, I opened one of my 1500 liter seldom used water storage tanks here in Taiwan, only to find them rafting peacefully in two chunks of 100, eggs and all. A whole virtual community on the surface of the water, and in the dark too. Jidanni 04:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds more like an accident. Shyamal 04:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I lifted the lid for the first time in weeks and there they were, floating. They didn't fall in from me lifting the lid or anything. Jidanni 20:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I just now lifted it again and they were living on the side of the tank. Hmmm. Jidanni 01:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Motivation of cooperation
Mention when they carry a heavy object all the way back to the nest, do they at least get a virtual "round of applause or some beers" for their effort? Or are they like tireless nuns and monks, devoted to some leader? Say what human model fits best. Jidanni 04:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No human model completely fits. Haplodiploidy runs "thicker than water". See kin selection, inclusive fitness all (indirectly) linked in the article. Shyamal 05:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

scientific name
Does anyone know the ants scientific name? --Mydachshunds2 21:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * All the scientific names are in the box on the right, just below the first picture. Or are you looking for a name of a perticular species? Calamarain 21:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ants that plant
You may thought humans and squirels can be the only creatures that plant. WRONG! Attini ants care and grow fungus gardens for food. Fungi? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.253.46.49 (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This already is discussed in the article, and also in greater detail in the Ant-fungus mutualism article. Dyanega (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Useful link to add?
(Commercial link, posted by its author.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobthebugman (talk • contribs) 19:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are numerous WP policies in place which would be violated by the inclusion of such a link. The fact that the site has useful information on it is overridden by the fact that it is a commercial site, selling products and services, and that you are the author of that site, promoting it here in Wikipedia. If you don't believe me, please familiarize yourself with WP:SOAP. There are literally thousands of useful commercial websites that are not linked to in Wikipedia, and this is another one, I'm afraid. Dyanega (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Injured compatriots
Mention what do ants do with injured compatriots. We know assume they take them back to the nest. Is it for rehabilitation hospitalization, or um... reprocessing. Jidanni (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is unknown for most ant species, and the remainder do all sorts of different things; they do NOT all "take them back to the nest". In fact, it is typical that when an ant dies inside the nest, the carcass is taken OUT and disposed of. That's good hygiene; a dead ant can have a contagion, and the sooner the dead body is removed the lower the risk to the colony. It's the same with the risk of bringing a dead compatriot back: it's not a good idea, and few ants would ever do such a thing. I have no idea where you got this idea from. Dyanega (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

exarate
you can find the word "exarate' in this article.

I'm sure most people don't know what this word means. I looked it up - it means 'plow up' or 'engrave'. It still makes no sense to me:

'...develop by complete metamorphosis, passing through larval and pupal stages (with the pupae being exarate) before they become adults.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.45.215 (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Because it's an entomological term, referring to the form of the pupa; some editor simply copied this text into the article from an entomological text, without realizing they might need to make a wikilink to explain the term. Most pupae are either exarate or pharate, the former having the appendages (all or some) free, unfused to the body, the latter having no free appendages. Ant and bee pupae are exarate, while butterflies and moths are pharate. Dyanega (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The pupa link has the information on this and as of now exarate redirects there but maybe there should be wiktionary entries for exarate and obtect. Shyamal (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ants as sutures
The use of ants as a kind of suture sounds like a complete myth to me. I read the article cited at Note 69, but that article also does not cite its source for this idea. Google brings up a few other mentions of the same "ants as sutures" idea, but no solid citations. More suspicious: google produces absolutely no photos of this phenomenon. If it actually existed, it would certainly be worth a photo! -Wayne, 7 Apr 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.207.149.47 (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are some additional notes I found.

Shyamal (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,752462,00.html
 * http://www.sutures-bbraun.com/index.cfm?917A74A92A5AE6266700AD9ACBE9432C
 * http://www.arthurleej.com/Ants.pdf
 * Medical News 79:388, 1901 “The Ant as a Surgeon” R. Loud
 * Journal of the American Medical Association 84:1861, 1925 “Stitching Wounds With the Mandibles of Ants and Beetles” E.W. Gudger
 * Ackerknecht, Erwin, in a note under the title, "An Ingenious Device for Stitching Wounds.'' Ciba Symposia, vol.10, July-Aug., 1948, p.924
 * Lewis Cutlow of Amazon Head Hunters by E. A. Underwood, in Nature, Feb. 19, 1955, p.318.

Images
The images are quite good in this article. The only ones I have an issue with are 3 near the end. These are in the Humans and ants section, but seem out of place there.
 * Image:DirkvdM ants on a leaf.jpg, an OK picture but not appropriate here.
 * Image:Rainforestants.jpg, a poor photo and out of context.
 * Image:AntsDismemberingBigBug.jpg, again an OK picture but not appropriate here.

I found a few in other articles, etc. I'd like to find a nice 'ants as food' example. I have been looking on Flickr and Commons but not found anything worthy yet. GameKeeper (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Pharaoh Ant close up.JPG, you can hardly see the ant but thats almost the point. A Caption like "the tiny Pharaoh ant is a major pest in hospitals and office blocks, it can form nests between sheets of paper"
 * Image:Leaf-cutting ant.jpg or Image:AntsStitchingLeave.jpg are IMHO superior to the above, but again not in context of humans & ants. (not that keen on these actually)
 * Image:Miners.jpg or Image:Ant Farm Tunneling.jpeg Ants in a gel ant farm. (to illustrate Studying ants)
 * A potential find on flickr its a suitable CC license, ant eggs being sold for food in Thailand GameKeeper (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure a picture of a gel ant farm would be suitable for illustrating the subject of studuying ants. Gel ant farms are not a good environment for ants to live in, merely a novelty. Calamarain (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I was seduced by the fact that the photo was quite nice. Now removed. GameKeeper (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Corvus coronoides talk 14:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Nasa Gel
Hello, I just found the following pic, and according to the picture legend, this is a NASA's ant-friendly gel. I both think the article (protected) should include this image, and that an article "NASA's ant-friendly gel" should be create, citation:

"These are harvester ants with powerful jaws. In a strange coincidence, a harvester ant colony has a comparable number of neurons as a human brain. There are about 1.6 million ants for every person on earth. The ants you see crawling around are all female. This gel farm was developed by NASA to survive Space Shuttle launches (sand would shift and crush the ants under many G’s). They wanted to study tunnel formation in microgravity. The gel does not collapse during launch, and it contains all the food and water the ants need. It also has some antibiotics and anti-fungal agents." 140.122.97.172 (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought of including a similar image but as you can see in the Talk:Ant section above it was pointed out that these are more novelties than serious ways to study ants. The NASA ant farm was an experiment suggested by high school children, there is something about it [here http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/news/shuttle/sts-107/STS-107-08.html], on the mission which Columbia was destroyed whilst performing. I could not find any references to gel ant farms in any academic papers etc. Since this is a general page on ants I don't think such a specialist item should be here. There is already a page on ant farms or Formicarium which has a gel ant farm picture. GameKeeper (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Other methods of recruitment
I thought it would be neat to add some information about other methods of recruitment that ants use, because not all ants make trails. I created a short article about tandem running. Would a more established user be willing to link these articles for me? Thanks! Michelanious (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * tandem running was already linked as a WP:REDLINK, so now you have created the article the link goes to your article. GameKeeper (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Brazilian population eating ants
The source talks about the insect eating habits of the "INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS of Brazil"

But the article talks about "part of the population of Brazil". This is clearly misleading. The indigenous population of Brazil is a very small part of the population.

If the original article was about the native americans of US, the article would refer to them instead of saying "part of the population of US". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.41.10.61 (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The | source of this info contains many references to non-indigenous people also enjoying eating ants but also suggesting this was more common in the past than currently, perhaps it would be better to describe ants as 'traditionally eaten' and remove the 'part of the population'. GameKeeper (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Cladogram
I produced the following but it just looks awful if I try to insert it in the text anywhere as it is too big and breaks up the text. I wanted to associate it with the ant section. Any ideas of what to do with it are welcome .GameKeeper (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I bodged it into the navbox, I could not get the 1st label of Formicidae to work in the navbox so removed it. Since it duplicates and extends the info in subdvisions, perhaps the list of familys should be enturely replaced with the cladogram. GameKeeper (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Cladogram of ant subfamilies
A cladogram showing one model of the extant ant subfamilies based on molecular phylogenetic studies. Ant taxonomy remains ever-changing, and genetic analysis will continue to provide more information about the relatedness of the various species. * Cerapachyinae is paraphyletic

Baroni Urbani C. 2005. Phylogeny and biogeography of the ant subfamily Prionomyrmecinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Ann. Mus. Civ. St. Nat. 'G.Doria' Genova 96: 581-595.

Baroni Urbani C. 2008. Orthotaxonomy and parataxonomy of true and presumed bulldog ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Doriana 8, N. 358: 1-10.

disambig
Regurgitation and solenopsis need a disambig. Randomblue (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ GameKeeper (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

additional pictures.
there are a couple of ant images that I would like to include but I don't want to crowd the text. ( or confuse things this late into the WP:FAC). If we were to lose anything to make way for these we may have too many ants collecting honeydew from various species images, however all of there nice images. GameKeeper (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Myrmarachne-plataleoides1.jpg or Image:Myrmarachne-plataleoides.jpg. The mimicry of Myrmarachne plataleoides is stunning and is especially impressive when the sexual dimorphism is considered (the female is also a mimic but in a different way.
 * Image:Atta.cephalotes.gamut.jpg Illustrates the castes of leafcutters nicely, in particular the lower image section of workers.
 * Commented out an image Image:Ant hole activity.jpg titled "Ant hole in a flurry of activity during swarming" inside the "Communication" section - artistic but there is also another swarming photograph. Maybe images in a zigzag layout would be nice. Shyamal (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've stuck with all on the right side for now. I could not resist adding those two images. GameKeeper (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Image placement
Can we have a few on the left rather than a "strip" down the right-hand side? Graham. Graham Colm Talk 15:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ GameKeeper (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevamped Intro
Does this belong in the Lead, it's not about Ants:
 * Some wingless female wasps of the family Mutillidae, known as velvet ants, can appear like large ants. Termites, sometimes called white ants, are not closely related to ants, although they have similar social structures.'

And the last sentence about computers needs some attention. (Despite losses ???) Graham. Graham Colm Talk 17:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently handled. Shyamal (talk) 06:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sections
The polymorphism section seems to fit as a subsection within morphology. Development is definitely not, have promoted the section. Wonder if a reordering is needed. Shyamal (talk) 06:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support that. If that is done paragraph 2 from development should be moved to the 1st paragraph of Polymorphism as ant castes need to be explained before the current polymorphism paragraph. GameKeeper (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Did this and found a few more stay sentences that seemed out of place. Taking a beak now. GameKeeper (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Double punct. question marks
I removed a few instances of double fullstops in the references, but there are still problems with references with titles that end in a question mark. Because of the template used these finish with a '?.'. Options.
 * Live with it.
 * Stop using the cite templates and manually code the reference.
 * Remove the question mark so the sentence ends with a full stop. GameKeeper (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Last would be alteration of reference which is a no no. I have raised bug note on Template_talk:Cite_journal Shyamal (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

From the Lead
This sentence is bad: Able to occupy and use a wide area of land to support itself, ant colonies are sometimes described as superorganisms as they appear to operate as unified entities. "Colonies" is plural, "itself" is singular, and the prepositional phrase doesn't sound idiomatic. Graham Colm Talk 18:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've changed the case to singular to emphasize the singular nature of the superorganism entity. I don't like the 1st bit Able to occupy and use a wide area of land to support itself, because this is not the reason an ant colony is seen as a superorganism. The reason is that many individuals strive towards a singular goal, with a seemingly unified purpose, the individual being prepared to sacrifice itself for the greater good and the subdivision of labour of the individuals resembles the functions of organs in an animal with their specialism. (the reference is very florid in this description!) Just need to make that snappy enough for the intro! GameKeeper (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Taxobox image
I'm not a big fan of the photo currently being used in the taxobox. It's a bit out of focus and it doesn't show an ant in it's natural environment. Any thoughts on replacing it with a better image ? There are some pretty good images in commons. I like the primitive Myrmecia Image:Bullant_apr07.jpg personally but there several others that might be suitable.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the current image, parts are out of focus (the legs and tip of the abdomen) but the majority of the key features are in focus. the white background makes a nice contrast. I was considering flipping the image left/right so the ant looks into the text (WP:MOS recommends that for the portraits). As for alternative suggestions Image:Formica high res.jpg is very nice, but taxbox images look best when they are longer than wide. GameKeeper (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose having more than 1 image in the taxobox is another option (see WP:Taxobox_usage).  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Great dishwashers
In perhaps mention that they make great dishwashers: rinse dish and leave outside. The next day I find the dish is squeaky clean, no oily residue remaining. Jidanni (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Dishwashing ability varies greatly between species. For example, in my area
 * Various Pheidole - not really interested
 * Various Poneromorph ants - hopeless, staff shortage, poor communication skills
 * Various Leptanillinae - hopeless
 * Camponotus...of some sort - only willing to work at night and then only sends minor workers despite having hundreds of majors available
 * Weaver ant - Oecophylla - too busy fighting neighbours and you don't want those guys figuring out where you live
 * Some kind of Solenopsis - too busy killing things and avoiding weaver ants
 * Some kind of Technomyrmex - nice work
 * Ghost ant - Tapinoma melanocephalum - very good attention to detail, recommended.
 * Crazy ant - Paratrechina longicornis - the perfect ant for all your dishwashing needs and with the added bonus of predicting heavy rainfall hours in advance so you can bring your washing in...somehow.
 * I fear that including their dishwashing abilities may trigger calls for other additions like how useful they are for understanding quantum electrodynamics, combustion and various other processes with the help of a lens and a smallish star.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's too bad this can't be included in the article. This is why we need a Wiki-spin-off for personal research. Schwael (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

War
Shouldn't we note that ants engage in war? NerdyNSK (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "War" is not a term that is well defined. Even humans use different kinds of terms "genocide", "mass killing", "mass destruction" etc. And journalistic articles use the term "war" for any conflict - like this one on chimpanzee wars . There are conflicts between colonies of the same species of ants and predation/competion across species and you will find that it is mentioned in the article. The text you introduced talks about "the ant species" which is also problematic in usage. Hope you can see the reasons for the removal of the text. Cheers. Shyamal (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Odorous House Ants
In many parts of the world, odorous house ants are considered a major pest species.

The National Pest Management Association has an overview at http://www.pestworld.org/For-Consumers/Pest-Guide/Pest/Odorous-House-Ants. Many states in the US consider this species to be among the most common household ants- http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7411.html#TABLE1.

Having been a sales inspector in Virginia for 11 years, I can say that this species is among the most prevalent in this region in terms of home infestations, accounting for 30% or more of the calls I would investigate.

Please change "Ants classified as pests include the pavement ant, yellow crazy ant, sugar ants, the Pharaoh ant, carpenter ants, Argentine ant, imported fire ant and European fire ant." to "Ants classified as pests include the pavement ant, yellow crazy ant, sugar ants, the Pharaoh ant, carpenter ants, Argentine ant, odorous house ants, imported fire ant and European fire ant." —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankZoid (talk • contribs) 21:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Clark89 (talk) 04:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Number of Ants Known to Science, wrong # in article
the article says 12,000 classified estimated 14,000 known. I was just reading the California Academy of Sciences website and it said their are 22,000 ant species known to science. http://www.calacademy.org/science/heroes/bfisher/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.119.19 (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where that figure came from (or more specifically the 'known to science' part) given that it conflicts with the current statistics maintained by his organisation in antweb.org and other sources.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The 22,000 number is an ESTIMATE, not the number of known species. The article gives the number of known species correctly. Dyanega (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For interest, Brian Fisher kindly provided the following clarification of the 'There are an estimated 22,000 ant species known to science' statement in the CAS article.


 * "Known to Science is vague but does not mean "described" in this sense. There are, as of today, around 14,000 described ant species, but scientists know that in our collections there are a large number of undescribed species too."
 *  Sean.hoyland  - talk 01:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Spelling style
British English seems to be the way we are going. If all agree I'll tag this talk page with British-English. GameKeeper (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the page has been largely dealt with in the past by folks with a BrE leaning. Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 09:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently nobody was paying attention when this change of national varieties of English was sneaked in here seven months ago, in an article which had been pretty stable for years going back to its creation (it was over 6½ years old at the time). This is a misrepresentation of the state of the article at the time.  Here is the version 23 hours earlier than the first posting in this section, before Jimfbleak, GameKeeper, and Shyamal started changing the spellings:
 * American English: organized, colonized, polarization, defense (4 times not counting autogenerated TOC), fertilize, hospitalizations, color, colors, specialize, specialized (doesn't count, in quotation), synchronized, parasitize, behavior* (7 times + 4 in quotes or proper names), appetizer
 * British English: behaviour* (5 times), colour
 * Other than the mixed usage for behavior*/behaviour* and one instance of colour vs 2 of color ("bicolor" in species name doesn't count), it was clearly American English. From random checking of earlier versions, it likely had always been so. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and it says "The English Wikipedia has no preference for any major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than another. Editors should recognize that the differences between the varieties are superficial. Cultural clashes over spelling and grammar are avoided by ....."
 * What are you proposing ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You left off the important points, following "they are avoided by ...". Changes such as that done here should be corrected when they happen.  The two involved in this discussion last June were, of course, aware of their misrepresentations; they changed the existing American English, yet deceptively made it appear that they were acting in accordance with the long-established national varieties of English rules.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that there was a coup d'etat by a secret society of British English speakers intent on misrepresenting the true and righteous American English nature of this page through the use of covert deception, template propaganda and revisionism ? If so it raises a number of issues for me.
 * As a British English speaker I'm wondering why I wasn't recruited for this important mission. Possibly because having lived in the US I use both British and American spelling on an entirely random basis like many other people around the world nowadays. I blame the media.
 * Phrases like "aware of their misrepresentations" and "deceptively" are puzzling phrases because they imply that uniquely on this planet, you have an error free implementation of the intentional stance module in your brain. You should alert the scientific community.
 * Regarding "Consistency within articles", yes, I guess we need to get rid of variations but I would think the most sensible approach would be to minimise the number of amendments required to standardize on one variety, doesn't matter which one that ends up being. If you feel this is important would you be willing to spend time doing it ? I doubt that anyone would object if it resulted in a switch of varieties because it doesn't matter which one we use.
 * There are no "Strong national ties to" the topic of ants. => it doesn't matter what we use.
 * Regarding "Retaining the existing variety". Well, what's done is done. See 3. Small number of editors -> English variety analog of genetic drift. You say "corrected" and yet the guideline says "No variety is more correct than another" so I guess it really depends on when you decide to sample and establish what the "existing variety" was/is. Bottomline for me, it's not important. It's a guideline, we can follow it or not follow it.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't we compromise? The Azores archipelago is roughly halfway between Britain and the US. Let's spell things the way they do. I'll start by changing all the 'the's to 'el's. Secret Squïrrel , approx 09:25, 22 Johnuary 2009 (Earth Standard Time)
 * Get's my vote.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

so...what do they eat?
there's a bit about honeydew (not all ants do this), and another about fungus growing (hardly any do this), so what do the rest of them eat? There needs to be a paragraph or two on this. I've been through the article twice. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is also seed feeding, slave providers mentioned within. But yes a line to cover the diversity of food habits is in order. Shyamal (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * the article talks about their diet in the diversity section, does this suffice? If we did make a diet section it should talk about trophic eggs and the ants that consume the hymolymph of the larvae as nutrient sources.- FUNK A MATIC     ~talk   19:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "Invasive Species"
Article currently states:

"Some species, such as the red imported fire ant, are regarded as invasive species, since they can spread rapidly into new areas." [My bolding.]

Is an "invasive species" one which has the potential to colonize rapidly -- or the de facto state of being a foreign organism multiplying in a new habitat (due to human transportation)?

an invasive species is a relational term. species aren't inherently invasive. one of the classic examples of an invasive species is the zebra mussel. the wiki site when introducing this fact states: "This species was originally native to the lakes of southeast Russia. However, it has been accidentally introduced in many other areas, and has become a problematic invasive species in many different countries." this treatment of the term seems acceptable to me. invasive species are by definition non-indigenous and do not necessarily have to out-compete native species but the nefarious examples often do. in sum - invasive species = non-native species therefore it can only be used from a geographic point of view and not a descriptor of the animal itself.LazyMapleSunday (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone tried to fix it. It now reads: Some species, such as the red imported fire ant, are regarded as invasive species, since they can establish themselves in new areas where they may be accidentally introduced.
 * This too is incorrect. It should read: Some species, such as the red imported fire ant, are regarded as invasive species, since they have establish themselves in new areas where they may be accidentally introduced.
 * I'll fix it, but I believe that more should be said about the Solenopsis invicta (red imported fire ants). They have plenty of notoriety.  -- FUNK A MATIC     ~talk   15:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

social or eusocial?
Why does it say ants are social animals, but the word social links to eusocial, which is far better suited for them? Shouldn't it read "ants are eusocial" animals instead? Dream Focus (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess it's because social is less technical and more generic than eusocial...and I suppose ants are so diverse that some species barely even qualify as eusocial whereas others are type species for eusociality.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are some primitive taxa that at some points lack queens at certain points, but still have division between reproductives and non-reproductives. I'll find a reference.  In my opinion this does need to be changed to eusocial. --<font face="Copperplate Gothic Light"> FUNK A MATIC  <font face="Impact">   ~talk   18:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and at the other extreme there are many workerless parasitic ant species. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

what is 'terrestrial animal biomass'?
What is meant by terrestrial animal biomass? The article says "Ants dominate most ecosystems, and form 15–20% of the terrestrial animal biomass". Does it relate anyway with Biomass (ecology)? (If yes, then 15-20% sounds like too much). - manya (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, same thing as Biomass (ecology). It might sound too much but the ref says "On average, ants monopolize 15–20% of the terrestrial animal biomass, and in tropical regions where ants are especially abundant, they monopolize 25% or more". Obviously it varies a lot and there probably aren't that many studies that address this specific issue but the ones I've seen concur with these figures, very approximately anyway. For OR interest, in my garden it's probably about 30%. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a sub-set of biomass. So ants are not 15%-20% of all living things, only animals (not plants, fungus, bacteria etc) on solid land (no fish, whales, shellfish etc). There are probably not many animals in a typical backyard apart from insects and rodents, so i would not be suprised if it were even higher in that ecosystem.

With that in mind, it doesn't seem so huge, though still an impressive factoid.Yobmod (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

reproduction???
Where is info about reproduction?? How can it become featured article without info about reproduction?? Tubes2actor3 (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you found it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

ninja edit
As you can see from this diff the article was vandalised by what I would regard as a ninja edit and I reverted. Having said that, the ref cited p. 471 of what I assume is The Ants doesn't support the entire sentence strictly speaking because p. 471 is about symbiosis. We need to fix this at some point. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Iceland and Hawaii
I was hoping to find the answer to a long-held question of mine - are there currently any ants in the areas (such as Iceland and Hawaii) where they are not native? i.e. have they been brought in from other areas and now prevalent? The article doesn't quite make this clear. SteveRwanda (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, there's no escaping them. Hawaii Antweb, Hawaii Ant Group. Not sure about Iceland now but Hypoponera punctatissima made it there. I'd be amazed if there weren't any. Go and have a look. Bring a coat. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 14:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The section suggesting that Ants evolved
It is stated in the beginning of the article that Ants evolved 110 - 130 million years ago.

This is clearly not an all round opinion but simply states something as a fact when in reality it is total theory. It either needs to be removed to keep neutrality or every other possible theory of how ants got to be how they are today should be listed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoyo895 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see Evolution as theory and fact, Talk:Evolution/FAQ, Introduction to evolution, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and read the references cited in the Taxonomy and evolution section. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This has been fixed, it now has "suggests" in the sentence, which is correct.--<font face="Copperplate Gothic Light"> FUNK A MATIC <font face="Impact">   ~talk   19:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Biomass citation
The article says: "Ants dominate most ecosystems, and may form 15–25% of the terrestrial animal biomass." cited to

Now the source is certainly published in a reputable journal, but it is nonetheless a poor citation for this factoid. The problem is that the article being cited is merely making a background comment without any analysis or reference. Hence there is no data about how the 15-25% figure was arrived at or supported. A much better citation would be find the paper(s) that arrived at this conclusion and cite that. I found the 15-25% figure surprising, and wanted to look at the data behind it, but I can't easily do that because this citation doesn't give me any real data relevant to the fact being cited. This citation, while adequate to satisfy WP:V, simply isn't very useful here and it would be better if it were replaced with something more informative. Dragons flight (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You can google ant biomass. You'll see a number of studies there with various figures depending on the location. You're right though. It would perhaps be better with some example papers cited. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

regarding "Ants dominate most ecosystems, and may form 15–25% of the terrestrial animal biomass" i don't like the beginning of the sentence as it equates domination of ecosystems (what does that even mean? human whim can dominate ecosystems) with a proportional biomass of 15-25%. a better term is needed to describe the relatively high proportion of ant biomass in selected terrestrial ecosystems.LazyMapleSunday (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You're both right. It's not a great a ref, and the wording is a little dramatic (I already toned down "monopolize" to "may form"). However, I am disinclined to spend much effort fixing things up while there is so much ass-hat activity going on. I would have changed "dominate" to "rule with an iron fist" but I don't think ants can make fists. Secret Squïrrel , approx 00:55, 22 Johnuary 2009 (Earth Standard Time)

i went ahead and changed "dominate" to "thrive in," i feel it fits better with the tone of the preceding sentences LazyMapleSunday (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

wording in Taxonomy and evolution section
In the second paragraph of Taxonomy and evolution section it starts stating the biodiversity of ants in the crustacean period and other related histories. Being as that there is insufficient data to prove this, I recommend that the wording be changed to reflect that the fossils found indicate what is stated. --<font face="Copperplate Gothic Light"> FUNK A MATIC <font face="Impact">   ~talk   18:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, there is a lot of data that prooves this, even without the fossils. It is by far the common opinion amongst Myrmecologists, the fossils simply confirm it and are thus used as references. Genetic evidence suggests it and it had been assumed before the fossils were discovered based on traits (some of the refs refer to the genetic infomation). The fossils are not the only evidence, they are the crowning cap that confirming much research, they almost perfectly match anticipations too, having a number of wasplike characteristics and yet being antlike at the same time. They are an example of a predicted missing link that was found. There is no need to make the statements any more vague. Perhaps it is time to start the Evolution of Ants article to expand on this area. GameKeeper (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but to be fair the sources do use words like 'evidently arose', 'appear to have been', 'indicate that', 'suggests' and 'presumably'. What ? No evolution of ants article ? Blimey. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute the use of the terms within the sources, in the context of the refs there is nothing vague about 'evidently arose', or 'indicate that', they link the evidence to the theory. In the context of the article it is not valid to use such specific terms as the refs don't show 'only' the fossils indicate this. The originator of this thread says due to 'insufficient data to prove this', he wants to make the statements more vague. This is incorrect. GameKeeper (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see what you mean. I was actually looking at the first paragraph in that section...oops. Yes, vagueness would be incorrect and we aren't just talking about fossil evidence. I don't interpret what is being proposed as making things more vague though. My understanding of the gist of what Funkamatic is saying is that there is a degree of uncertainity (e.g. limited fossil record etc) and that something should be included to acknowledge that, hence 'evidence indicates' or something similar. I have to say though that of greater concern to me is that the refs we cite do not support the statement "During the Cretaceous period, only a few species of primitive ants ranged widely on the Laurasian super-continent (the northern hemisphere)" in Wikipedia's passive voice. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So for example our ref 13 says "Specimens have been found in deposits of Late Cretaceous amber (fossilized resin) in Asia, Siberia, and North America, hence across much of the northern supercontinent of Laurasia"...which is obviously quite different from the Wiki article saying "only a few species of primitive ants ranged widely on the Laurasian super-continent (the northern hemisphere)". Maybe it is kind of thing that Funkamatic is talking about. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what Funky meant, but you are now providing a more coherent argument. I totally disagree with you about the interpretation of the ref. What is amazing is that so many similar ants are found in amber deposits over such a wide area, this suggest a 'flowering' of the species in this era. This suggests that ants quickly came to dominate ecosystems, while only coming from a small number of species, i.e. they found a niche and managed to grab it nearly worldwide.
 * Well for a start I was wrong because having made the enormous effort to lift my copy of the Ants up and open it to page 23 I see that it says pretty much exactly that "fossils seem to present us with the following picture...a few species...primitive...ranged widely across the northern hemisphere...super-continent Laurasia". It's still the 'only' that bugs me though. Maybe it's just the way I'm reading the 'only' but the sources say fossils have been found all over Laurasia so we know ants were there whereas our 'only' can suggest that ants were 'only' present in Laurasia which is not what the sources are saying. I tried to find a good source for early ant distribution e.g. in Africa but I haven't managed to find a free one yet. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 11:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree I don't think the article loses anything from losing the 'only' so I have removed it. I think it is clearer now. I totally agree with you about 'The Ants' being a bit massive to lift! My copy is about 10 years only now and getting a bit battered. I would happily buy an electronic version to replace it as it would be so much easier to use. GameKeeper (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A search showed up this for Cretaceous ants in Africa (Gondwana). GameKeeper (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Taxobox image again
The curretn taxobox image has significant motion blur and an unnatural environment. I suggest replacing it with my image, File:Camponotus sp. ant.jpg which shows the ant more clearly, in a natural environment and is more aesthetic. --Muhammad (talk) 05:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree and can I ask you Muhammad to stop doing whatever you are doing right now and go out and take some more excellent ant photos instead please ? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree also, great photo. I think a crop would be better for the taxobox as there is a lot of 'space' above and to the left of the ant itself. GameKeeper (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Muhammad, your suggested replacement is a nice photo but I oppose using it in the taxobox. While the existing photo does have some elements that are out of focus due to a too narrow depth of field, it shows important features of the ant really clearly - eyes, mandibles, the structure of the antennae and legs, etc. The eyes of your ant are less obvious because of the lack of contrast with the ant's black head and the mandibles look like a snout because of the lateral aspect you have chosen. It's difficult to see the segmentation of the antenna and the legs don't show the fine structure of the tarsi. Furthermore, your ant is incomplete - it is missing most of the front-left tarsus and all of the right funiculus (segmented part of antenna). Aesthetically it is a pleasing photo but I don't  think it will improve the article, and that is the sole criteria for inclusion.  Secret Squïrrel , approx 02:25, 18 Markh 2009 (Earth Standard Time)
 * Couldn't that also be an argument for replacing the existing image with this one, File:Dinoponera_sp_33559c_R.L.jpg ? It's an unusual ant admittedly but if it's anatomy we are after then this image seems to be better. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No. That one is too scary. Actually, I'm sure I read somewhere (not going to go looking for it now) that there is a preference for depicting animals in their natural environment. That's another argument against the existing pic which doesn't look natural. More below. Secret Squïrrel , approx 09:05, 19 Markh 2009 (Earth Standard Time)
 * Secret squirrel, I understand your concerns. I will see if I can get a better picture. For the time being, here is another image to consider --Muhammad 14:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, while I have a "thing" about people spamming Wikipedia with photocruft and using it as their personal wildlife photo album, I am in favour of improving it with clear, well-framed photos that help to illustrate the subject or an important aspect of it. I think the very few of us having this discussion now, all agree that the current photo can be bettered. The alternative photo that you proposed is better but still not there yet. You've got the ant doing a neat trick but it would probably be better if it was in its more usual prone position. (A photo of an aggressive ant might be suitable elsewhere in the article, though). The orange blur (your finger?) is also distracting.


 * Muhammad, do you have another ant or is that the only one that lives near you? A red one will show features more clearly. Imagine that the ant came in a box. A photo from the upper front left (or right) corner would probably be the best aspect. It wouldn't matter if the ends of the rear legs were not sharply in focus as long as detail of the head, antennae and front legs was clear. Also, I don't think you need to shoot from so close (which gives you a tiny depth of field). There's nothing wrong with the ant not completely filling your viewfinder as you have plenty of resolution to crop some waste and still produce a decent pic. Good luck with finding another ant! Secret Squïrrel , approx 09:30, 19 Markh 2009 (Earth Standard Time)
 * The orange blur is rotting meat tha ant was feeding on :) These are the largest ants in my area. I will look for bigger ones without any missing body parts and bring this matter up later. --Muhammad (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A comment on this one, it does show the Metapleural gland very clearly, which is one of the defining attributes of an ant. My ideal ant image for the taxobox would clearly show, 1) the elbowed antennae 2) the 6 legs 3) the metapleural gland, 4) The petiole. It would also be of a living ant in good health with as much depth of focus as possible performing a routine task (the ant linked is shown in a aggressive stance which is not what I would consider a routine task). GameKeeper (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No section on sex
How come there's a section on "Defence" and no info on their sexual behaviour? --Sum (talk) 09:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There's already a large chunk of text on that topic, under "development"; "Most ant species have a system in which only the queen and breeding females have the ability to mate. Contrary to popular belief, some ant nests have multiple queens while others can exist without queens. Workers with the ability to reproduce are called "gamergates" and colonies that lack queens are then called gamergate colonies; colonies with queens are said to be queen-right.[42] The winged male ants, called drones, emerge from pupae along with the breeding females (although some species, like army ants, have wingless queens), and do nothing in life except eat and mate. During the short breeding period, the reproductives, excluding the colony queen, are carried outside where other colonies of similar species are doing the same. Then, all the winged breeding ants take flight. Mating occurs in flight and the males die shortly afterwards. Females of some species mate with multiple males. Mated females then seek a suitable place to begin a colony." That's all there is to ant sexual behavior, for most species. They fly out, mate, land, and start laying eggs. Dyanega (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference between a "queen" and a "gamergate"? --Michael C. Price talk 23:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In terms of the morphology, you can see either the wing or the stubs of their bases on the queens. Shyamal (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes For example, the same species might have queen+workers in one colony and no-queen, just gamergates+workers in another colony. Or other species may never have queens at all and just have gamergates. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * queens can mate+produce offspring and look like queens
 * gamergates can mate+produce offspring but look like workers

Honey or syrup?
There are two images of ants eating honey. My personal observation is that ants don't like honey (to my surprise), but prefer sweeter stuff such as golden syrup.--Michael C. Price talk 08:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll bite. I'm curious whether you mean your ants don't like honey and refuse to eat it or whether they prefer golden syrup when given a choice ? I've never seen an ant refuse honey. Maybe they're trying to tell you something about your brand choice. :) In fact in my area ants like honey so much that they eventually forced these dwarf honey bees to abandon their nest and all of the honey through sheer weight of numbers. Boldly assuming that a) you live in the UK and that b) the ants you refer to are the common black ant Lasius niger then according to this they prefer trisaccharides (over disaccharides and monosaccharides) and higher sugar concentrations. I imagine honey would have more trisaccharides (don't know) but you say golden syrup has more sugar than honey so maybe higher sugar concentrations wins in a choice test for your ants. For the article though maybe it would be nice to expand on "Most ants are generalist predators, scavengers and indirect herbivores", maybe rename Food cultivation to Diet or something like that and have a little bit more detail about majority rather than focusing on the gardeners. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The ants were from various colonies of wood ants (probably Formica rufa, UK ants) and all they refused all offers of honey on its own. Later I offered them gold syrup and they went crazy over it, as expected.  Perhaps it's just a peculiarity of that species, genus or sub-family.  Or perhaps some bees have evolved ant-repellent honey.... --Michael C. Price talk 09:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have heard ant folks talking about meat and sugar-loving species and they use different baits for different species. Shyamal (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

IPA
Well, I would just have made a quick edit, but waddaya know, it's locked. The IPA for "c" is definitely not /c/, a palatal plosive, which doesn't exist in English. In this case it's /s/. 91.107.190.124 (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Changes made, you could edit it if you were logged in on an account with a couple of days of editing. Shyamal (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ants in Quran and Islam
Hello I added in the Culture section, the description of ants in Islam and cited the the holy Quran passages that deals with it. please give me feed back about it. Thanks!--Saab 1989 (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC) "In the holy Quran The story of the prophet Sulayman(سليمان) and his encounter with the ants. Sulayman was a prophet that Allah granted him the ability to speak with all creatures languages. In the holy Quran Sulayman was marching his army when he came across a colony of ants. The ants panicked and warned each others to run to their home before Sulayman  army wipe them out without noticing the ants colony . 027.017 YUSUFALI: And before Solomon were marshalled his hosts,- of Jinns and men and birds, and they were all kept in order and ranks. PICKTHAL: And there were gathered together unto Solomon his armies of the jinn and humankind, and of the birds, and they were set in battle order; SHAKIR: And his hosts of the jinn and the men and the birds were gathered to him, and they were formed into groups.

027.018 YUSUFALI: At length, when they came to a (lowly) valley of ants, one of the ants said: "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it." PICKTHAL: Till, when they reached the Valley of the Ants, an ant exclaimed: O ants! Enter your dwellings lest Solomon and his armies crush you, unperceiving. SHAKIR: Until when they came to the valley of the Naml, a Namlite said: O Naml! enter your houses, (that) Sulaiman and his hosts may not crush you while they do not know."


 * I have removed the above text as it is outside the primary scope of the article. It may be acceptable in some other suitable article. Shyamal (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * i've added it back as a single sentence so that it has equal weight to the biblical ref although personally i would rather remove both the biblical and quranic refs and just have "are also mentioned in religious texts". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 01:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough and like you I had initially thought it would be fairest to remove them all. Otherwise we could be swamped by trivial mentions in a large number of texts (such as these, ), religious and literary. Shyamal (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait..."hedgehogs are not dogs"...that kind of notable info needs to be in an encyclopedia. Had I known that I wouldn't have wasted so much money on dog food over the years. :) <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Japanese
From the "In culture" section:
 * The Japanese character for ant, ari (蟻), is represented by an ideograph formed of the character for insect (虫) combined with the character 義 (giri), signifying moral rectitude, propriety. So the Japanese character could possibly be read as The Propriety-Insect.

Firstly, 義 is gi, not giri; gi-ri is a compound, written 義理. Secondly, this "Japanese character" originated in China (as almost all of them did), and was formed on normal Chinese principles: one component represents the meaning (in this case 虫 "insect"), and the other represents the sound (in Mandarin 義 is yì and 蟻 is yǐ). It tells you nothing about the cultural perception of ants in either Japanese or Chinese culture.

The source cited is a book of folktales, not a book on linguistics or kanji, and is too outdated to be considered a reliable source. --Ptcamn (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Would you be willing and able to correct it using/citing a reliable source ? You sound qualified. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The basic argument used in Hearn’s book should not be dismissed out-of-hand; it is based off the character’s traditional Chinese etymology, which is recorded in English in Rick Harbaugh’s “Chinese Characters: A Genealogy and Dictionary,” as “Insect 虫 which behaves properly 義 (phonetic).” Harbaugh explains in his book that despite controversy concerning the accuracy of these etymologies, he believes that they are in general relevant and meaningful. It does, however, seem more appropriate to register this point as cultural information relating to China rather than Japan, since it was in China where the character originated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.203.227 (talk) 04:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be good if the exact page and text can be used in citing this. Seems like this whole bit has been taken out due to citations problems. Here is the reference template to use Shyamal (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

How about this link instead? http://zhongwen.com/cgi-bin/zipux2.cgi?b5=%C3%C6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.231.72.88 (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Have added a note back to the article, please check if it shows up fine. Do also consider signing up for an account. Shyamal (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)