Talk:Crab louse

Self-contradictory
Wait, it says that they can survive being away from the human host for like a week, and then it lists one of the reasons that they arent transmitted via toilet seat as it not living long without a human host... edit: ALSO, it says that it dies within 1-2 days of falling off the host under life cycle...

Mpawluk 04:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Well then is it possible to get crabs from a toilet seat?

It may be possible if one rubs ones hairy pubic bits on the toilet seat while one pisses/shitsPeter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Charming. Atypicaloracle (talk) 12:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Another contradiction: first it says that adults have it more often, but children could get it via sharing towels and laundry. Then at the end it says children (and teens!!) having it is a sign of sexual abuse. Really? If nothing else, at least delete the 'teens' from that unless you're prepared to make a serious value judgment regarding consent. We can't let things like this slip through! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Reid
I have removed the statement "They were originally discovered by Scientist Joseph Reid in 1842." They have obviously been known to humankind for a long time an d were described by Linnaeus. Joseph Reid Leach established the genus Phthirus. See http://www.phthiraptera.org/taxonomy.html. William Avery 21:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If it meant that the stages in the life cycle were first described by Reid, can someone put that back in as a sourced statement. William Avery 21:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverted vandalism by user Tom1234567
--Atomicskier 20:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy
Is it really neccessary to state so many times how crabs got the nickname? 64.184.139.58 18:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely only one image is needed?
It seems unnecessary to have two identical images. SteveRamone 21:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC) : agreed --Casket56 (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take two out, then. - 124.168.110.99 (talk) 07:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Unsigned contribution
I forgot to sign in when I made edit on December 12, 2007, which is credited to IP address 66.237.109.194. Rick lightburn (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Vector?
Is the crab louse a vector of other diseases? The head & body louse pages discuss this, but there seems to be no mention one way or the other here. 144.124.16.33 (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Toilet Seat
My friend just got crabs when he was at an airport. It was on the toilet seat in one of the restrooms. Should this be added as a transmission source? Public bathrooms like that are used so often the crabs can be spread within the period of time they will live. 96.248.98.212 (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Bleach as a means of Removal
Does the traditional/media usage of bleach as a means to remove pubic lice have any relevancy in this post? I.E. "Sailors used bleach as a means to remove crabs." Or is this considered an urban myth?Jcook5 (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While bleach would indeed work for killing the crabs the amount of 'collateral damage' to the areas you used it on could quite easily result in permanent scaring or worse. --212.140.128.33 (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hosts other than Humans
If anyone's an expert on these things, there's been a question at the reference desk as to why humans are the only hosts for these critters. If anyone knows, feel free to drop by at the following link: Editing Reference desk/Miscellaneous. Buddy431 (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Suitability?
Is it really suitable to have the 'conservation status' of crab lice? Where did anyone even FIND this? Are you sure this isn't the conservation status of the crustaceans? Sorry, it simply seems rather gross, and again, I don't think they are under any sort of conservation watch. I googled the subject and could find NOTHING.

Carolina de Witte —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.180.248 (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is parasites like this that should be extinct, not nice harmless creatures!86.141.94.42 (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have this from slate. But yes, calling conservation is a bit odd. https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/01/pubic-lice-and-brazilian-waxing-could-the-pubic-louse-go-extinct.html 73.114.3.32 (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Order
As this article is about the disease not the crab louse itself the disease box should go first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it? It looks like an article about an animal to me, but then I'm a biologist. You're a medic, so you see an article about a disease. Quite probably, it's an article about both. To the casual reader, there may not be a distinction, and I would imagine it is more useful for them to see the animal in question, and be given some information about it, than it is to see meaningless identifiers from medical databases. External links normally go at the bottom, and that's all Infobox disease contains in this case. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is actually about Pediculosis pubis to which I suggest we move it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is a good example of a layout this page should resemble Hepatitis B. Moved based on Wikipedia's naming convention here  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We have three pages on the three human infection. We can create a page for crab louse much like we have one for Body louse keeping the biological and medical aspects linked but separate. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Whoa there. We haven't even started to discuss this. I see no consensus at all for this move, which you must have realised was going to be contentious. I'm going to put it back, and then we can all calm down and put our cases forward to the community. If you want a separate article about the disease, then fine, do that. If you want to take the material from this article to do so, then fine, do that. Do not simply usurp another article and change its scope unanimously, when you know there will be opposition. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This page is about the disease as one can easily see by reading it. I will request outside input.  Here is the naming guideline   Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The MEDMOS guideline says the most common name used in recent papers should be used. It's a fairly crude way, but searching google scholar for papers in the ten years shows that Phthirus pubis is the most common. If we were to use COMMONNAME, it looks to me as though it should be named pubic lice, as it's the only name I'd ever heard of for this disease and animal until 15 minutes ago. Smartse (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

FWIW in this case I can't see how it's possible to separate the disease and the animal and I think the taxobox should go first. I think there are probably more important things to work on in the article though than arguing over this - it would seem like a better idea to concentrate on adding content using some of these and these references. Smartse (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We separate this sort of content as suggested on many articles such as Hepatitis B and Hepatitis B virus. I have moved the medical content to Pediculosis pubis and will continue working on it there while this is discussed.  I am fine with Stemonitis suggestion to split this page.  If the community feels that the content here deals with the crab louse in a format deemed suitable by Wikiproject Insects I have no problems. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree that the name should be Phthirus pubis as this is what is used in the ICD10. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Misread the ICD 10. The correct name is indeed Pediculosis pubis per Uptodate.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The comparable guideline at wp:Naming conventions (fauna) seems to be at least as applicable, if not more so, than wp:MEDMOS. As presently written, however, this article is far more focussed on the infestation than on the organism. A serious buildup of content by WP:WikiProject Insects would give more reason to maintain this article, as distinct from the medical focus it presently has, which really belong to a distinct article such as Doc James has started. I'd suggest, for instance, an examination of its physiology, reproductive cycle, other hosts, endoparasites, symbionts, global prevalence are all worthy of expansion. LeadSongDog  come howl!  21:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I would support a separation into (1) an article on the organism, and (2) an article on the cutaneous condition. ---kilbad (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Kilbad; support split. --Arcadian (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, believe it or not, I actually came here looking for information about the animal, not the disease. It seems that we now have two articles with nearly identical content, both of which talk far more about the disease than the animal.  The header even reads "This article is about the animal. For the disease...", which just comes across as pretty obviously contradictory once one begins actually reading the article.SMTBSI (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Size
There is nothing about how small these critters are.--194.72.120.131 (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the photo of the louse needs a scale. Also the photos showing "crabs on abdomen" and so on don't appear to be photos of crabs, but of maculae caeruleae — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.18.18.188 (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how this will go with copyright issues, but here: http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/parasitology/ppubiadt.jpg  is a good image with a scale bar. So a body length of about 2mm (not 2μm as one article has!). Old_Wombat (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Zoology, not medicine
Medical aspects are covered at Pediculosis pubis (which seems to have split off from this article in late 2010). This article, then, should cover the zoology of the animal, not the infestation it causes (insofar as the two can be separated, at least!). I've done a certain amount of shuffling of material to make it less medical, but it really needs more zoology! Anyone care to join with me in improving it? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 21:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Name
There is a request to move this article to public louse. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably a good idea. Pubic louse is (AFAIK) more widely used. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This article claims that "Phthirus" is a misspelling of "Pthirus". The article on Pthirus gorillae claims that "Pthirus" is a misspelling of "Phthirus". It seems that both spellings are widely used by people who ought to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lingvano (talk • contribs) 15:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 19:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Legs
"...the rearmost two pairs of legs of a crab louse are much thicker than the front legs and have large claws."

From the images we can see that actually the second and third pairs of legs are much thicker (ends with claws adapted to attach the insect to the hair). While "the first pair of legs attaches it to the skin during suctioning of the blood" (description from ptwiki). -- Termininja  07:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

First paragraph louse distribution
The first paragraph of the article states that lice can infest "in men practically the entire body" implying that all men have coarse hair covering their entire body, when there are entire populations where men's bodies are largely hairless. The statement "in men practically the entire body" is inaccurate and Eurocentric, this map shows the vast majority of the world male population does not have hair covering "the entire body". https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Weltkarte-K%C3%B6rperbehaarung.png

The sentence should be modified to be more accurate such as saying "in hirsute individuals, anywhere on the body that grows coarse hair such as the chest, abdomen, arms, etc" rather than "in men" because not all men have coarse hair covering their entire body, as well as the possibility of a hirsute individual being a woman who does not undergo body hair removal. The distribution of body hair is not uniform across individuals either, for example some may have hair on their chest but not their abdomen, or vice versa. The reference to gender should be removed entirely and the word "individual" or "person" used instead.

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2023
Change "The crab louse usually is usually found in the person's pubic hair" to "The crab louse is found in the person's pubic hair and attaches itself using claw-like appendages on the terminal parts of their legs that are designed to match the diameter of pubic hair." CatherineA04 (talk) 01:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, "are designed" is wrong, "have evolved" would be better and we need WP:MEDRS compliant sources. Graham Beards (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)