Talk:Lymantria dispar dispar

Feeding in adults
The article says adults do not feed, but then a few paragraphs later, that females lay eggs then move away to feed. As a non-American and non-expert, I cannot readily verify which, but both cannot be true. -- Liam Proven (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Potential Areas of Expansion
Hello, as part of a Behavioral Ecology course, I am contributing my thoughts on areas of improvement/expansion for this article. While the existing characterization of this moth is interesting, it is mainly focused on the moth's effects as an invasive species in North America, and little discussion of its range, habitat, and ecological positioning in its native Europe is present. If anyone has more information in this regard, I think that would significantly enhance the article. Also, at one point in the article it is stated that adult Gypsy moths "do not possess an active digestive system and cannot feed, but can drink in moisture," but a few sentences later it is stated that "the female leaves to eat, while her eggs are protected." I think it is important to resolve this discrepancy. --Lauraem7 (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Was Trouvelot attempting to hybridize pygmy moths with silkworms?
A recent edit by Liebhold removed the sentence "imported the moths to develop a silkworm industry, with the goal of interbreeding gypsy moths with silk worms".

The summary wrote "(I corrected factual errors. I have published scientific papers about Trouvelot and there is no evidence that he was attempting hybridization of the gypsy moth with other species.)"

The problem is that not only was that sentence sourced ("The Gypsy Moth: Research Toward Integrated Pest Management, United States Department of Agriculture, 1981" - I haven't read it) but the book I'm using to update a different section of the article mentions the same fact in its introduction: "brought the gypsy moth to the USA from France for hybridization with native North American silkworms, to try to create a stronger silkworm". The book is titled "Biological control: A global perspective: Case studies from around the world".

I have not reversed the edit personally since I have no reason to doubt Liebhold's expertise. But it seems necessary to find a source showing the lack of evidence, otherwise it is likely to be added back in eventually by another reader.

Also, two books making the same mistake would suggest a perpetuated myth. So if we can find a correct source, it might be worth adding a sentence in the article which debunks the myth.

J1812 (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Would you like a scan of the book to verify the content? I'll provide one for you if you want. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I left you the citation on your talk page, but I am going to look into the matter in more depth. I'll try and pull my early 1900 sources in a few minutes to double check the information of that time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah looking at the source I am pretty convinced you should keep the fact in the article, especially since Liebhold has not responded.J1812 (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Investigation
This is wiki-sleuthing here, and I do love it.. especially since it is with fellow academics!

My source: "The Gypsy Moth: Research Toward Integrated Pest Management, United States Department of Agriculture, 1981" is what I would call an authoritative publication, but I do understand the concern. Page one details poor wording in the first page no less which was written by Michael McManus and Thomas McIntyre, "Since its accidental introduction into this country from Europe in the late 1860's..." And very next page the timeline begins at 1869-1900, but begins with the opening, "The original infestation increased and spread gradually until, by the summer of 1889 the insect was so abundant and destructive that is attracted public attention (Burgress and Baker 1938)." Meaning the introduction of the specific year and source has been omitted from this introduction (stylistic, relevancy issues perhaps?) Luckily they provide another easy source for this, and other sources in the book are less obvious at times.

Follow that source!

The gypsy and brown-tail moths and their control (1938) is online at Archive.org I suggest reading the version online as the 'full text' is probably made by Captcha, but aside from the typo with 'and' it is readable here as: "'In 1869 a number of egg clusters of the gypsy moth (Porthetria dispar L.) were brought from France to Medford, Mass., by a French mathematician aDd astronomer, who had the idea that he could cross this insect with silkworm moths and thus develop a hardy race of silk-producing insects. In the course of his rearing experiments some of the eggs were accidentally lost or some of the caterpillars escaped, and he made at that time public acknowledgment of this fact, evidently appreciating the danger.'"

So if this is a myth it at least stretches back to 1938, hence why I used the source (page 10 in my book confirms this and other pages in this book refer back to other sources with this.)

What about earlier material, closer to the source of the incident. The gypsy moth was a major priority so such material should exist even earlier.

Report on the field work against the gipsy moth and the brown-tail moth (1910) to which D.M Rogers and A.F. Burgress (of the work above) shows that even in 1910 there is considerable 'insight' into the nature of the work. Though the 1938 work deliberately notes the crossing. Here is the relevant text:

As a result of persistent inquiry among the inhabitants of the infested section it was determined that some of these insects were introduced from Europe, probably in the egg stage, by Prof. Leopold Trouvelot, a French naturalist, about the year 1869. At. that time this gentleman was conducting experiments with silkworms, and also with some of the American species of silk-spinning caterpillars. The evidence seems to show that some of the egg clusters, or young caterpillars, which he secured from Europe, escaped from his house where the experiments were being conducted, and, as he was aware of the dangerous nature of the insect in its native home, he destroyed all the caterpillars that could be found in the neighborhood and made public the fact that it had escaped. At that time the section in which he resided adjoined a large area of waste land, which was overgrown with sprouts and brush, and here the species became established. Its slow development as a serious pest was undoubtedly due to the fact that this area was burned over periodically by brush fires which destroyed large numbers of the insects, and also to the prevalence at that time of many insectivorous birds, which doubtless accomplished much in preventing the rapid increase of the species.

This is why I am concerned about this 'myth' not being so much of a myth. I could look up other individuals and report back on this. Even using other public domain material (curse copyrights on decades old scientific publications!) this myth seems to be split going forward so as not to condemn and remove focus on interbreeding for a sake of simplicity. While the interbreeding suggests advanced purposes, merely 'rearing/raising' or whatever seems to be a bit of take-back for what is known. I do not have a source that lies squarely at Trouvelot, but that would be ideal. Interestingly the 1910 source (which I just found researching this) actually does boast an interesting theory about their delay... which makes me wonder about even older documents.

Andrew Liebhold, I assume, your research interests me and while I am not familiar with your work I did refresh myself and do note in your own joint publication about 'rearing' in The role of Allee effects in gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar (L.), invasions. While I do hold an amateur interest in the gypsy moth, I wonder if you would express your thoughts about this matter. While I would prefer 'truth', verification and the reliability of the sources is the burden of editors. I personally lean towards the interbreeding because of all these sources, but I would like input on a differing opinion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * While this is a bit of WP:OR or WP:SYN on my part, which I cannot add to Wikipedia. A possibility exists the intention to cross-breed, but if he brought eggs over then the eggs had to hatch, some of those escaped and the interbreeding phase never occurred. The assumption would be that eggs to larva to pupa to moth takes a good amount of time. Though the 1938 reference would be okay to label the intention and THEN detail the escape during the rearing. (The unknown synthesis is whether the interbreeding experiment was actually attempted) So a careful reworded to Burgress 1938 would probably be the best that CAN be done. Intent to breed, escaped during rearing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, yes I agree that this idea that Trouvelot was "hybridizing" gypsy moths can be found in written material describing him some time back. But I think this is something of an "urban legend" for which there is no hard evidence. Indeed there is no shortage of such dubious information. For example, one of the publications quoted above describes him as a "Mathematician", but this was not the case. At the time of his "accident" he was employed as a commercial artist. His interest in astronomy did not start until after his gypsy moth accident. If you read any of Trouvelot's own published works, he describes quite a bit about his work with silkworms, but he does not mention anything about hybridization or any such attempts. In my opinion, Trouvelot was rearing gypsy moth simply for "fun". Remember, entomology was his hobby. He, like many other such people that I know today, simply liked to rear any insect he could get his hand on. My guess is that whoever started the legend that he was attempting hybridization, had read "Frankenstein" one too many times. -Andrew LiebholdLiebhold (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Very well, then footnote the matter? Because multiple primary sources were collected and published in a major work by an expert; I do not have access to Trouvelot's work, but on Wikipedia as well as any other scientific paper is verifiability and not exacting truth through speculation. If primary source documents discount this secondary source that has received coverage for over a century, then by all means, I'll be glad to have the record straight. I'm not an expert in these matters and I won't delve into speculation because it is not allowed on Wikipedia. So much seems lost to time; but without evidence the established comments are wrong; I don't know how much can be done besides "clever omission" which is a bit of a disservice. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Lymantria dispar MHNT Chenille.jpg to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Lymantria dispar MHNT Chenille.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 17, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-03-17. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok update done. Thank you. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Range
The section on the Moths' range seems to focus unduly on their range as an invasive species in North America. While this is important and should be covered, I would also like to see more discussion of their native range in Europe and Asia - especially a map. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 17:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing articles in the Lepidoptera WikiProject for a behavioral ecology class at WashU
As a member of this behavioral ecology class, as well as of the Environmental Biology department at WashU, I have learned and continue to learn a lot about biology and ecology, and I found this article very interesting and informative. I appreciate the section about the moth's introduction into North America; I think it adds important historical context to the ecological role the moth fills. However, there are a couple areas, like the taxonomy section, that are highly technical, making them inaccessible to many Wikipedia users (and even some biology undergrads!). As far as the moth's behavior goes, I think more information about the species' mating rituals and competition could be added, and that the information about the its dispersal and migration habits could be condensed into one section and flushed out more.

Thanks!

Hanna peterman 00:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Hanna peterman

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lymantria dispar dispar. 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/20130517073305/http://sfec.cfans.umn.edu/prod/groups/cfans/@pub/@cfans/@sfec/documents/article/cfans_article_380545.pdf to http://sfec.cfans.umn.edu/prod/groups/cfans/@pub/@cfans/@sfec/documents/article/cfans_article_380545.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) 16:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Categorization as venomous
, thanks for your copyedits. Re the categorization as venomous: I don't see any mention of that in the article body. Do you have a source you could cite that describes this moth's venomous aspects? Eric talk 22:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this question, . I now admit that a rash (see citations there) may not fall under the typical definition of venomous. Was it a mistake to include this insect as a Venomous insect? Whatever you decide is best.Magnoffiq (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We could use more sourcing in the area, but the sources so far talk about it as an allergic reaction, not as a venom per se. I've gone ahead and removed the category. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you cc . I wonder if you define "venom" as a layman? From venom, we find that "Venom is a form of toxin secreted by an animal for the purpose of causing harm to another.", and also in the same wiki we find mention of venomous jellyfish and venomous caterpillars, neither of which require to pierce the skin of the victim, or require the victim to ingest orally the toxin. Magnoffiq (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am no entomologist. The venomous cat caught my eye, and after a quick search for venom, toxin, and poison, I posted here. I'd forgotten about the hairs causing a rash, though I presumed that was regarded more as a mechanical irritation than a chemical one. Eric talk 11:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Gypsy moth common name
Why lead the article with a statement about the moth's "controversial" common name, when the article itself makes no mention of any controversy and continues to use the common name? Either a section about the controversy should be added (which I think is unnecessary), or the term "controversial" should be removed. 50.255.144.29 (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Good point. I reverted the anonymous edit for the same reason. Eric talk 13:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Because I didn't have time to do a complete re-write of the article reflecting the current stance of the Entomological Society of America on offensive terminology. Even when that's done, some acknowledgment will need to be made that the "redirects to" link is based on the offensive usage. Suggestions welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribonucleic (talk • contribs)
 * Ribo, are you saying that was you who made the IP edit? Eric talk 14:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. I don't usually bother to sign in for edits. Anyway, I've gone ahead and put in a "Common Name" section after the taxonomy stuff.

Seeing as the Entomological Society of America has officially discontinued the use "gypsy moth" as a common name, and both the Government of Ontario and the Government of Canada are officially using "LDD moth" in the meantime, I think it is important that we discontinue the usage of "gypsy moth" in a regular capacity on the wikipedia page for Lymantria dispar dispar. Anecdotally "LDD moth" is quickly becoming the standard in Canada, based on my experience working in municipal urban forestry in close proximity with an invasive species department. At this point in time I think it is incorrect to refer to the moth using the gypsy slur, however I am still a very new editor to wikipedia and do not want to make an edit of this scale without the assistance of more experienced editors and entomologists.Mintopop (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC) Notified: Talk:WikiProject Lepidoptera. Mintopop (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * As of March 2022, the Entomological Society of America has officially renamed the moth the "spongy moth" . As such I think it is inappropriate to refer to it with the g slur throughout the article, although a short section on the name history/controversy may be warranted. It's especially strange to me that the "common name" section describes the name as an offensive slur but that same slur is used throughout the article. Saliniform (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Gypsy Moth is, and remains, the standard English name in the moth's native area. The Entomological Society of America has no juristiction there, and as Romany people in this area commonly self-identify as Gypsy, the name is not considered a slur where the moth occurs naturally. So it is perfectly reasonable for the name to continue in primary use in the article. There is far too much US-POV in this article about a European species. - MPF (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

New common name
The article section “Common Name” states a change to “Spongey Moth” due to racist implications. But next paragraph starts with Gypsy Moth.

Oh, the irony ! 72.76.205.18 (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)