Talk:Laurel wilt

Untitled
Would it be worthwhile to merge this page with the redbay ambrosia beetle, and have a redirect to link the two articles and species together? I understand that they are independent organisms, but their symbiosis appears obligate, and thus far the disease has not been observed without the presence of the vector. Aderksen (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Aderksen, I would agree. The beetle and pathogen are essentially obligate mutualists, and most of the same information regarding distribution, history, etc. apply to both.  I work with laurel wilt and see that these pages need some updating, expanding, and referencing - it would be nice to not have to do that to two different pages.  Unfortunately, I'm not yet savvy enough with wiki to merge them myself.Eickwort (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey: I'm just glad that someone else wants to tackle the revisions on this! I spent a lot less time on here after it became a lot less relevant to my job duties. Which research group are you working with on this? I have worked with Peña and Kendra's lab from time to time. Aderksen (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As an aside, there is a growing body of evidence that the beetle can go through development on other fungal sources, and some recent suggestions that other ambrosia beetles may be able to vector R. lauricola. Perhaps it is best if we leave the two pages separate until after ongoing experiments testing those hypotheses are published? Aderksen (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)