Talk:Grasshopper

Redlink
The Pneumoridae appear in the cladogram but we say nothing about them. Would be handy to have an article on them! Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Like this? LittleJerry (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks a good place to start. The other families have articles like this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Taxonomy
This may have been a featured article, but the taxonomy is all over the place! ... with references to the "great-green grasshopper" (obsolete name by the 1970s) and potentially confusing content with other Caelifera: which should not be a redirect page. Roy Bateman (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The only great green thing in the article is a bush cricket, mentioned to say it is NOT a grasshopper. Where other pages redirect is not an issue for this particular article.
 * My point was: why have a picture of a bush cricket under grasshoppers then? (I didn't explain well above - apologies). What I attempted to do was to juxtapose this with the grasshopper picture, partly to make the point - but you just deleted all my edits. Don't understand your point in second sentence. Roy Bateman (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't made any edits. The picture's caption makes (or made) its point simply and clearly: many readers will assume that green insects with long thin legs and long antennae are grasshoppers, so the image shows that they are crickets. Its function (to spell things out rather) is to show by exception where the boundaries of the group lie, i.e. just before you get to the crickets and bush crickets.
 * The "second sentence" states that what other articles may say or contain is not an issue for this particular article. However, if you create a WP:FORK of this article at Caelifera, that is a matter for discussion somewhere. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The mapping of common names to taxa is always loose as there can, by definition, be no formal control of common names; taxonomists necessarily use Latin. However, "grasshoppers" is widely used as a common name for the Caelifera, as at well-maintained and heavily-used sites such as Orthoptera.org.uk, Grasshoppers of Europe, BugGuide.net, and Encyclopedia of Life. The Tree of Life site uses the less snappy "Shorthorned Grasshoppers, Locusts and Relatives". Respected entomology textbooks like Gullan and Cranston use the phrase "grasshoppers and locusts", essentially agreeing that Caelifera and grasshoppers are synonyms, as few would disagree that the locusts are themselves grasshoppers. Other biology books such as Hoffmann's Insect Molecular Biology and Ecology are similarly happy to equate the Caelifera with grasshoppers. In short, while no common name can be a perfect match for a taxon, grasshopper seems a good, widespread, sensible and largely uncontroversial name for the Caelifera. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Roy Bateman, it appears you made your giant changes after Chap addressed your concerns. That is not productive. Please establish a consensus first before you do these changes and don't edit war. LittleJerry (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have reverted Caelifera but will make no more edits to this until resolved HERE - suggest you and Chiswick Chap do the same Roy Bateman (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason we use scientific classifications is precisely to avoid "loose" taxonomy: for example, to include Tridactyloidea under "grasshoppers" is just plain wrong. You are wrong to say that are a "sensible and largely uncontroversial name for the Caelifera".  I could equally quote textbooks going back to Uvarov and Ragge, which would be equally valid for the common terms (the latter being responsible for getting rid of "shorthorned Grasshoppers" I believe).  A page called "grasshoppers" should indeed be 'user friendly' to the public, so I would suggest putting the more technical taxonomic content where it belongs at sub-order level, and focusing on the important and relevant content such as "locusts" being a subset of and taxonomically indistinct from grasshoppers (which is an important point).  I object to the high-handed deletion of my edits. Roy Bateman (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you look at international links, it is also a mess: with some (e.g. French, Spanish) using Caelifera, some using local equivalents of "grasshopper" - is it really too difficult to have 2 separate pages? Roy Bateman (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait until a consensus before you change. Your edits do not get to be the default. It is not our concern what international wikipedias do. Also the sources you are citing, appear to be outdated, Chap's sources are more recent. LittleJerry (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You miss the point and I wrote "... going back to...". As Chiswick Chap observes: ToL has "Caelifera: Shorthorned Grasshoppers, Locusts and Relatives" - accuracy is often "less snappy". Roy Bateman (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The only group where you may have a point is Tridactyloidea (the most basal clade). The other branches on the tree are commonly known as grasshoppers. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Any names other than "pygmy mole crickets" for Tridactyloidea? Then the Tetrigidae are usually called "groundhoppers" (see your Grasshoppers of Europe).  Aren't 2 out of 8 'exceptions', plus Tanaoceroidea & Trigonopterygoidea for which we only have scientific names (so 4/8), enough to just get the science right?  My main points are (1) "grasshoppers" are NOT an internationally recognised scientific taxon and (2) that we need Caelifera (with appropriate links), especially since Ensifera have their own page. Roy Bateman (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The discussion should centre on common usage: it cannot centre on taxonomy as common names are by definition not taxonomic names. Wikipedia policy is to use common names where they exist, plainly the situation here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Tetrigidae= "pygmy grasshoppers", Eumastacidae = "matchstick grasshoppers", Proscopiidae = "stick grasshoppers", Pneumoridae = "bladder grasshoppers", Pyrgomorphidae = "gaudy grasshoppers". Acrididae and Pamphagidae are the typical grasshoppers. Anyway, the fact that some species don't have "grasshopper" in their name does nothing to dispute that grasshopper and Caelifera are synonymous. Not all Coleoptera have "beetle" in their name. LittleJerry (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (1) Who actually uses these names though? ... although I have heard of "monkey grasshoppers" for Eumastacidae - it seems to me many of the so-called 'common names' (on various pages) should be deleted if there is no reference.

(2) LittleJerry - I thought we had agreed to use talk pages in Caelifera and here - I have reported 3 reverts by you.Roy Bateman (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not agree to have your edits be the default. You have to have a consensus to split the pages. You are the one making major changes so you are the one who need consensus and by reverting before the discussion is over you are the one edit warring. Stick to the discussion on this talkpage. LittleJerry (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As for Ensifera. I could easily argue in reverse and say that cricket and Ensifera should be merged because grasshopper and Caelifera are the same page. Hence WP:OSE. LittleJerry (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * In general, high level insect taxa have the page listed under the English language name (Diptera as Fly, Coleoptera as Beetle, Ephemeroptera as Mayfly). Where there is no vernacular equivalent, as in Lepidoptera, the scientific name is used. In this instance, if Roy Bateman thinks that there is sufficient difference between Caelifera and Grasshopper, he could expand the article Caelifera instead of having it as a redirect. However, he should not wreck the present article Grasshopper in doing so. By removing the "Phylogeny" section, he rendered it no longer comprehensive, a requirement for its present FA status. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see no justification in rushing ahead with editing without consensus, nor in creating a WP:FORK at Caelifera. If we have to name this article Caelifera, so be it, but the world is pretty much agreed that Grasshopper is a good and proper name for the group, widely used and accepted by authorities of all kinds. Wikipedia policy strongly favours using common names where they exist, as stated at Names and titles (which cites WP:MOSand WP:Naming conventions (fauna)). The status quo before yesterday was appropriate and by the rules, and should remain. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I may have found a solution: if you really insist on "grasshopper" as a taxon, we have what appears to be the accepted clade Acridomorpha (see: EoL and OSF). If you can live with that: restoring Caelifera as page, replacing it with Acridomorpha and removing Tridactyloidea & Tetrigidae from here - we could all move on and get on with better things like 'filling in gaps'.  For example, providing some content for Tanaoceroidea & Trigonopterygoidea would also be wonderful: volunteers? Roy Bateman (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm good leaving things as is. As others such as Chiswick Chap mentioned already, Caelifera is often referred to as grasshoppers as a common name for better or worse, and we usually redirect a formal taxon to a common name when available even with the understanding that common names don't always mesh great with formal taxonomic names. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Kingofaces43: "often referred to as grasshoppers" doesn't mean it is correct - in fact we know that it is incorrect, since the logical consequence is that pygmy mole crickets are grasshoppers! I think there is a serious dander that WP will loose credibility if we allow these half-truths to just slip through. Roy Bateman (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I object to LittleJerry persistently reverting my work on Caelifera to a redirect page: none of you have given produced a rational argument that a pygmy mole cricket is a grasshopper! Some of us have to teach Orthopteran biology (in my case to masters level) and this is just plain wrong.  See comment by Cwmhiraeth above (if I appeared to "wreck" the phylogeny section here, that was not my intention - and for that I apologise).  If this page is synonymous with anything, it is with Acrididea - a page that was set-up more than a year ago - not by me I hasten to add, but I have attempted to make improvements there recently.  LittleJerry has been editing out all reference to this which IMHO is rather high-handed on his part - he also keeps threatening to report me - for what precisely? Accuracy matters. Roy Bateman (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I am sure that those of you who refer to WP policy on encouraging English language names for pages are quite correct - but only when unambiguous surely - it seems to me that some of the Orthoptera pages illustrate the problem well ...


 * starting with this page: the coding says "{Use British English|date=May 2015}" - yet the first line refers to 'katydids' (which I had to edit to include 'bush crickets' - but it should be the other way round surely).
 * link to 'katydid' or 'bush cricket' and you are redirected to Tettigoniidae - the only sensible resolution of this issue.
 * go to Acrididae: does "spur-throated grasshopper" mean Catantopinae or Melanoplinae? (there is also the spur-throated locust in Australia of course).
 * I suggest that this conversation moves to the Talk:Caelifera page - I will not be making any more edits here. Roy Bateman (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Like I said, the source you cite does not state that only Acrididea are true grasshoppers as opposed to groundhoppers. It only supports Acrididea as a valid clade.LittleJerry (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This should be continued on the Talk:Caelifera page, with full explanation with refs. on the page itself - if LittleJerry will kindly stop deleting my work! Roy Bateman (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomenclature: Caelifera
Having promised not to edit more here, I felt it was necessary to clarify things a bit: no more now until the discussion is resolved!

It all seems rather unnecessary and I think that flawed WP policy is at the heart of the problem (your comments as above). I have also commented where "Diptera means flies" (no mention of mosquitos which are hardly trivial). Botanists do not have this problem because their guidance is different and suggest a discussion is needed on the policy talk page ... Roy Bateman (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grasshopper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161220162119/http://caspar.bgsu.edu/~mooi/Home/Publications_files/MvS_Behav05.pdf to http://caspar.bgsu.edu/~mooi/Home/Publications_files/MvS_Behav05.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Relation to Caelifera
This article says that the grasshoppers are the insects that belong to Caelifera. To me, that means grasshopper and Caelifera are the same phenomenon. But there is a separate article named Caelifera. Caelifera has many more interwiki links. But this article is much better. Should the interwiki links be changed? --Ettrig (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The article says, correctly I believe, that "Grasshoppers belong to the suborder Caelifera. Although, "grasshopper" is sometimes used as a common name for the suborder in general[5][6][7], some sources restrict it to the more "advanced" groups.[8]" The least "advanced" group is the Tridactyloidea, the pygmy mole crickets, which hardly anybody calls a grasshopper. So to a rough approximation, Grasshoppers + Pygmy Mole Crickets = Caelifera. But your mileage may vary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I reread and find it difficult to understand what is meant by grasshopper. Does the article state that the grasshoppers are exactly the taxa listed in the infobox? (Tetrigoidea, Eumastacoidea, Pneumoroidea, Pyrgomorphoidea, Acridoidea, Tanaoceroidea, Trigonopterygoidea) --Ettrig (talk) 08:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it says they're roughly those taxa. Grasshoppers is an informal grouping and no exact match is possible given the informal definition. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Infobox vs. Automated Taxobox
I was wondering why you decided to use an infobox for your introductory picture rather than an automatic taxobox, like the one for Caelifera? The automatic taxobox would allow you to display the upper taxa and then breakdown the various superfamilies and families.

If you can't use an automatic taxobox for some reason, you should think about changing the phrase "informal group" or rephrasing the entire first sentence. "Informal group" doesn't say anything but can lead novices (such as myself) on a goosechase. For example: "Grasshoppers are a subgroup of insects in the suborder Caelifera, which comprise several families and superfamilies. The word grasshopper is used informally but has no place in modern taxonomy." --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Informal says exactly what it is, a grouping without formal structure or status. As you're rightly noted, that means we can't use a formal taxon's taxobox. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Paraphyletic group could be used here rather than a generic infobox. It allows higher level taxa to be displayed. Plantdrew (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be better to use the word "polyphyletic" in the definition, as in Grasshoppers are a polyphyletic group of insects in the suborder Caelifera. Or even Grasshoppers are members of a group of insects that do not share an immediate common ancestor but belong to the suborder Caelifera.


 * Upon thinking it over, my main trouble with this introduction is that we do not have a reversible definition of grasshopper. "Grasshoppers are an informal group of insects in the suborder Caelifera" does not tell us which insects are or are not included. Isn't having a full definition a requirement of a Wikipedia article? Of a featured Wikipedia article? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * No, the first sentence of the lead is never and should not attempt to be a full, comprehensive, legal, watertight definition, which would inevitably be complex and unreadable. Instead, it's a simple, short, first-encounter general overview of the topic, giving a hint as to what the subject is, how it might be defined, and what kind of thing it includes. That's already a tall order for a single sentence: making it full as well is simply impossible, and since that would conflict with readability it would also be undesirable. This is a general question, not really a matter for this article, however. And btw, specialised polysyllabic words of Greek or Latin etymology like polyphyletic are exactly what we should never put in the first sentence, and probably not in the first paragraph either if we can avoid it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

There must be some way of saying that a given insect is a grasshopper, is not a grasshopper or is or isn't a grasshopper depending on who you're listening to. If I was to say that all Acrididea (forgetting the sandgropers, mud crickets and pygmy mole crickets) were grasshoppers, what would I be missing? Are there grasshoppers who are not (or may not be, according to some experts) Acrididea? If so, what? Are there some members of Acrididea who are not (or may not be) grasshoppers? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Everybody who knows what the word means thinks the Acrididea are all grasshoppers, and many zoologists are perfectly happy to call all the Caelifera grasshoppers too. My point remains that this is WAY too technical for the first sentence. You're right into Plato's problem of defining a table, does it have to have four legs, etc etc. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I can't believe that this "debate" has been going on for so long – becoming a bit like Brexit :). I liked your infobox (as on the day it was a featured article).  However if it is to be a taxobox, I have suggested an appropriate taxonomic placement - superfamily group 'Acridomorpha'. Besides the actual meaning of the name (i.e. ~morpha : ~like), references can be found on [the Orthoptera Species File here].  I have understood the authority to be Dirsh, 1966, but am prepared to be corrected on this (I don't have access to original literature here).  I have ranked it as an 'informal group', since WP doesn't currently have 'Subfamily group' (as in OSF) as as a category.  This taxon excludes the Tetrigidae, which in any case are called "groundhoppers", not grasshoppers in British English and are quite distinct both morphologically and in their habits (typically preferring damper places).  I thought that we had now established that "Caelifera" is inappropriate and not synonymous with "grasshopper": as you have pointed out above.
 * Aren't there better things to be doing than arguing over a fairly clear scientific consensus, as represented in OSF? For example, there are literally thousands of tribes, genera and species under this heading that have yet to have WP descriptions, including quite a number of European and N. American spp.  I had not intended to return to this discussion, but "grasshopper" is actually a useful link and a good page (by general consensus), but in my opinion marred by constantly altered and sometimes erroneous terminology at the beginning.  Season's greetings to you and entomologists everywhere.Roy Bateman (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Flying
It's not clear whether all grasshoppers can fly, nor how well they can do it. There is one small reference, but not much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.63.53.152 (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Avoiding edit war: Relevance for common user. Main info first. Removing basic info.
hi. As I have explained in detail in my edit summaries, the common Wikipedia user is who we, editors, have to keep in mind, and not specialists who might or might not look up Wiki. The lead must start with the most basic information, in order to answer those questions which come up first when normal people, aka Wiki users, hear a term they're not (fully) familiar with and come to the article for clarification. That is common practice in all modern encyclopedias, and should be even more so on such a popular tool as Wiki.

What is particularly in need of clarification for the common user about grasshoppers? For sure, the fact that locusts are practically the same, once grasshoppers are creating swarms and start behaving as a large social unit. Locusts is most likely what attracts most curious users onto this page, and it needs to be mentioned in bold right at the beginning, leaving the wikilink to appear very soon after. Just think of the cultural importance of grasshoppers (Bible, news, you name it): it grows exponentially when it's about swarms of locusts, NOT about individuals. English happens to have two separate words for grasshopper and locust; many other languages don't, and great many, if not a majority of Wiki users are not native-speakers, and the identity between the two is not known to them - and it's probably not known to many native-speakers either, I'm quite sure, in our kind of urban and technology-centered society and its education system.

The definition should always be the first topic of any article, once the name and its variations is clarified. Who are the grasshoppers? From a common user's point of view: how can I tell when I see one? As opposed to a taxonomist's or palaeonthologist's, etc. approach, who wants to know about evolution, first apparition in fossil records, morphology etc. The normal encyclopedia user needs to know it's an insect, and how to tell it apart from very similar ones. That's what, I'm quite confident, would concern a vast majority of normal users. Fact which definitely do not primarily concern the common user are that but I am sure that recognising in nature a grasshopper when seeing a very similar - and culturally widely known - insect such as the praying mantis, is very relevant. To be honest, that's why I came to the page: I've seen a huge mantis soon after hearing news about locust swarms, and wanted to know what's what and if they're one and the same. So I'm talking about actual first-hand experience. Just go to the first article I've linked to, the one about the mantis: it's from there that I've taken the queue about insects one commonly confuses grasshoppers with, and there it's also dealt with in the lead.
 * it belongs to the suborder Caelifera
 * it's dating back to the early Triassic around 250 million years ago,

I did indeed make a mistake and pushed the essential information about it being a chewing herbivorous insect to the second (!) sentence of the lead, which I will try to fix right away. You, on the other hand, have completely removed my additional info, as opposed to just placing it elsewhere in the article, and it is relevant and otherwise totally ignored info, fully missing before my edit and again after yours. Not very constructive on your behalf.

Please, once I make the promised edit, don't go into edit-warring; it is especially not a constructive move when the edit summary only states that "it's better this way", full stop. Thank you very much for your understanding. Take care, Arminden (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't object to bolded mention of locusts in the first paragraph, though it seemed redundant as the same information is already in the second paragraph. The "they should not be confused with" bit seems misplaced—and is badly worded (see WP:NOTADVICE); in the Mantis article this matter is relegated to the second paragraph. There are many insects that can be confused with grasshoppers (certain crickets and katydids more closely resemble grasshoppers than do mantises IMO) but I don't think this is vital information for the second sentence of the lead section. Looking at late-model cars, I can tell you from my own first-hand experience that I can rarely distinguish a Toyota from a Ford from a Hyundai without looking for the nameplate, but the second sentence of Toyota Camry should not be "A Camry should not be confused with a Ford or a Hyundai" because this is not especially useful information. My revert of your addition of new, unsourced advice to the lead of an FA is not an edit war; your revert of that revert is the beginning of one. Ewulp (talk) 06:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead of an article is not supposed to be a general introduction to the topic, it is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the text. If your statement "Locusts is most likely what attracts most curious users onto this page" is true, I think they will choose to look at the page on Locust rather than that on "Grasshopper". I preferred the lead before the recent change, and the original version was approved by the folks over at FAC who reviewed the article for FA status. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The latest edit is less bad but remains faulty: "Grasshoppers should not be confused with different, but similarly looking, elongated insects such as the praying mantis, or stick insects (Phasmatodea)" is still unsourced, worded as advice, and contains the awkward "similarly looking". If something of this sort belongs in the lead section at all, I'd suggest "grasshoppers are sometimes confused with crickets, but they differ in important aspects", which is explained and sourced in the "Characteristics" section. Ewulp (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Folks, please stay real.
 * 1) What other insect do you know that has one name as an individual and another one as a swarm?
 * 2) What other insect do you know that has had, and still has, such a huge negative impact on people's subsistence? And has left such an imprint on humanity, from the Bible to this year's Horn of Africa?

Put the two together and you see why you cannot not start with saying right away that it's the same creature.

Why start with the suborder, of all things? If it were some obscure Amazonian insect that attracts, in the field and in real life, only specialists, fine. (Although, I'm being curious now, why the suborder, and not, say, the infraorder, which seems to be derived from the actual Latin name of the grasshopper, or the colour of its lower mandible, really?) Who in this world do you think has ever heard, or ever cared to hear, about Caelifera, if they're not a zoologist, better, an entomologist, or even better, a grasshopper/locust researcher? In honest.

Do whatever you want. I see that you enjoy interminable talkpage discussions over minute issues that also seem no-brainers to most people I know from the field of general education. I took back everything that could have been seen as subjective; but placing taxa in the first paragraph of the grasshopper article, rather than its identity with locusts, means there's no ground here for an efficient dialogue. Adios, and enjoy your toy. Arminden (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Best poison?
What kills them? Like, which can of RAID do I need? NOW! 109.175.107.233 (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)