Talk:Mosquito/Archive 1

Initial comment
Has anyone heard how effective Carbon Dioxide is at attracting mosquitoe's? Several Mosquito Traps claim to significantly reduce mosquito populations by attracting mosquitoe's with Carbon Dioxide and several other attractants. These traps claim that over a period of several weeks, the breeding cycle may be significantly reduced by the use of these attractants. Are there better attractants for trapping mosquitoe's? (These traps seem very expensive too me and I am not sure if I want to invest in one.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.44.39 (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2004 (UTC)

Protection time 0 minutes
"Consumer Report retests in 2006 show that a 7% solution of picaridin now has a protection time of about 0 minutes and a 15% solution was only good for about one hour."

I'm pretty sure this is wrong, can someone change it? im noob. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.255.73 (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just checked with my account, and this is true for the type tested with one type of mosquitoes: Type -- Formulation -- Andes mosquitoes, Culex mosquitoes, Ticks

Cutter Advanced Sport -- picaridin 15% -- 1, 4.8, 11.5

Cutter Advanced -- picaridin 7% -- 0, 2.5, 5.3 Wesley crossman (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Old Wive's tales
Mosquitoes seem to attract old wives tales and fradulent businesses as well as - uh - as well as the smell of people attract mosquitoes.

Talc powder, bats, ultrasonic devices? It is hard to find any evidence that these "solutions" work. In fact, it is far easier to find studies refuting many antimosquito claims and even lawsuits against companies selling some of these "solutions". Before adding claims about what "we've heard" works against mosquitoes, let's add references to supporting sources! -David
 * Discovery channel has shown some documentaries where scientists demonstrated that mosquitoes were attracted to the odours the human body emits. Remember that all insects use their sense of smell like ants. When a scientist applied a chemical on his hand which masked the natural odours of his body and then dipped it in a glass container full of mosquitoes, he did not get bitten. However when he dipped his hand after washing it clean of all chemicals, he was instantly bitten. Thus proving that the mosquitoes are attracted to the human bodies odours. Second, they created the same smell that the human feet creates and applied the chemical with that smell to the hand and dipped it in the mosquito container. This time around, the number of mosquitoes that attacked was like 5 times higher. This was shown on the Discovery channel a few years ago. There is a product called "Mospel" by Abbott Laboratories (Pakistan) that claims that it's a product of research by the U.S. Department of Defence. I bought it and applied it to myself and sure enough the mosquitoes are gone.

I've never heard dragonflies referred to as mosquito hawks, up here mosquito hawks are the larger version that eat other mosquitoes. -Greggae

This sentense appears in the last paragraph of section 2: "Bell noticed that an electric generator behind a tent party was invisible beneath a carpet of male mosquitos all attracted to the tone produced by a motor within the machine." What's this, some kind of crazy run-on sentence? Someone who understand it please correct it.
 * "Bell noticed that an electric generator used in a tent party was attracting male mosqutios, so much so that it was now completely hidden under them. A motor within the machine was emmiting a tone which was attracting them." does it really need the bit about a tent party? without it it would be even simpler. I'll edit it wihtout it if anyone wants they can re add it. Wolfmankurd 12:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read many online articles about mosquitoes but none contained the answers to the following questions. I was hoping to find them on Wikipedia.


 * If females only bite when they need to reproduce, how come we only notice them in some types of weather? Do they migrate and are away the rest of the time? Do they live without reproducing throughout Winter?
 * varies from species to species, most overwinter as eggs, some as lavae or adults. culex sp. in particular overwinter as mated adult females. (culex is a vector for St. Louis encephalitis)
 * Some people are more likely to be bitten by mosquitoes. Why? The article mentions pregnant women, but which other factors come into place and what are their causes? eje211
 * Being male, being overweight, having type O blood are possible factors.
 * I don't think so. How could the mosquitos possibly know what's your blood type? And why would they care?

Thanks for the information. Should this be included in the article? Eje211 17:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I've already included it.Zeimusu

Anopheles gambiae fecundation
Please somebody help me to find an article (or something like that) about de anopheles gambiae (mosquito)fecundation system. I bag your pardon for mystakes, I'm new in wikipedia comunity.--Betoquadros 23:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) Thanks

Web Producing Mosquitoes?
Hello. Lately in my house there have been many giant (Hand size) mosquitos-like creatures that reproduce very rapidly and somehow produce a web like substance. They're not spiders, for the can fly and do not look like them. Anyone have any clue what I'm talking about? Thanks for reading.


 * most likely wasps. they also have a web like substance that they use to build nests and they fly and can grown very big. watch out their sting can carry quite a punch. hope that helps --Idleguy 05:39, July 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds like the crane fly, except for the webs. PrometheusX303 20:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

And the correct term is?
From article: The female mosquito (in almost all species) sucks the blood of mammals, including humans - commonly referred to (incorrectly) as a 'bite.' Mosquito bites often swell up.......
 * Well, I don't know if there IS a special name for it, but the mosquito does not bite in the true sense of the word (i.e.: is not closing its jaws on your skin). It uses the proboscis to pierce the skin and suck the blood out.
 * If you think about it, its sort of like giving blood, except that it's not really giving. If there's an opposite for the word 'injection' - do NOT say 'outjection' - then that's what mosquitos do. -Litefantastic 23:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * So the term would be Mosquitoes SUCK? Sounds funny Idleguy 16:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe this phrase "- commonly referred to (incorrectly) as a 'bite.'" is important to the article as it clarifies the next use of the term "mosquito bites". The term is not really scientifically accurate, yet it is the correct term for this action. I believe the phrase should be edited back in for these purposes. I am not changing this at this time, though I may come back and do so in the future. I'm not exactly sure how to go about this: reverting or just re-adding, so I'll wait a bit to see: A) a possible second opinion or B) someone who agrees and knows the best way to fix this. By the way, I know I'm the one who wrote that bit about mosquito bites and what they look like, but I don't think I was signed it at the time. It was a while ago, so I don't know whether this hyphenated phrase was also originally mine, but I do believe it is important to not confuse visitors as to the correct nature of "mosquito bites", as they are called. Garnet avi 10:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Portuguese
I removed the mention about "mosquito" being a spanish "or portuguese" word for "little fly". Altough the word "fly" is the same in both languages ("mosca"), the portuguese word for "little fly" is "mosquinha", and not "mosquito".

Both -inho and -ito can be used for diminutives in portuguese. 84.91.78.42 (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right about the use of -inho/ -inha or -ito/ -ita to describe small in Portuguese. So mosca in Portuguese would be mosquinha,mosquinho, mosquita or mosquito describing a small fly.Although mosco/mosquinho is no longer much in use in Portuguese, the word subsisted as a name for a very annoying and persistent person or as a family name. It is possible that centuries ago, the word would have became a name due to the characteristics shown by someone much in the same way Smith was transferred from an activity to a name, just to give an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.84.209 (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add to this discussion that the source presented in the main article (source number 2) also refers that the word mosquito derives from the Portuguese or Spanish word. So for the people that doubted it, there is a source that demonstrates it. Tacv (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Both Spanish and Portuguese have this word, as well as in English, but the origin of this word is Spanish, I m talking the origin of the word existent in all these three languages, if the origin was Portuguese it would be mosquinha, but it is mosquito.--Luizdl (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. In Portuguese the diminutive -ito is correctly used (e.g. narizito, rapazito, portuguesito, sapatito, etc.). This was already explained to you. Besides the source presented on the main article already states that the origin of the word "Mosquito" is of Spanish or Portuguese origin. So please read the source correctly and stop reverting without a correct reason. Tacv (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What the source says is it:

''Origin: 1575–85; < Sp, equiv. to mosc ( a ) fly (< L musca ) + -ito dim. suffix''


 * somewhere after this text in the sources says the word is also Portuguese

[Spanish and Portuguese, from diminutive of mosca, fly , from Latin musca .] 


 * anywhere in the source says that the origin may be Portuguese, we must fit the source here.--Luizdl (talk) 03:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Read the source correctly. It states in the Word History among other things " (...)This Latin word became mosca in Spanish and Portuguese, Romance languages that developed from Vulgar Latin. Mosquito, the diminutive of mosca,  was borrowed into English (first recorded around 1583) with the same sense "mosquito" that it had in Spanish and Portuguese." meaning the word mosquito was borrowed to the English language from Portuguese or Spanish since both languages use mosquito. Once again stop reverting without a reasonable reason. Tacv (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, the source is saying the word exist in both languages, but says it comes from Spanish.

1575–85; < Sp, equiv. to mosc ( a ) fly (< L musca ) + -ito dim. suffix''


 * And about the suffix "ito" of your examples, they sounds Portunhol to me, in the same way you may affirm it is a Portuguese diminutive without sources, I can argue it isn't, I've never listen anyone saying narizito, rapazito, portuguesito, sapatito, etc, given in your examples.--Luizdl (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Adding to this source which says the word was borrowed into English from Spanish, there are several others etymology sources affirming it, I found other 2 easily on Google.


 * etymonline
 * c.1583, from Sp. mosquito "little gnat," dim. of mosca "fly," from L. musca "fly," from PIE base *mu-, perhaps imitative of the sound of humming insects. Colloquial form skeeter is attested from 1839.


 * allwords
 * (term, mosquito, lang=es,, small fly), from (term, mosca, lang=es, , fly), + diminutive suffix (term, -ito, lang=es), from Latin (term, musca, lang=la)

Luizdl (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The source clearly states that Mosquito is a Portuguese word and a Spanish word. It also clearly states in the Word History amongst other places that the word was borrowed to English from Portuguese or Spanish. You keep discarding this fact. How can you say the word is not Portuguese or it was not borrowed from this language if a source say so. If you keep reverting and insist in not acknowledge the fact that the source state that the word is both Portuguese and Spanish and that the word was borrowed to English from this two languages then we are entering in a edit war. I would recommend you to read these 3 sources before we reach that point: Department of Agriculture of Maryland, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language  and American Mosquito Control Association Tacv (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me also add that if you still have doubts about -ito suffix usage in diminutive in the Portuguese language,including in the mosquito word, please read these (in portuguese) Tacv (talk) 03:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Bats
One of the external links (mosquito-pictures.com) not only sucks, but also contradicts some of the info in this article, in particular the ideas about bats controlling mosquitoes. The other site says no, wikipedia predictably says yes (because obviously manipulating the ecosystem with other animals is "better" than doing it with chemicals). Perhaps that section should be deleted, else that link can be removed.

--

A Wisconsin DNR site says that bats have been successful in controlling the mosquito population in Yellowstone Lake State Park. I'd take this as a pretty solid contradiction to the paragraph mentioning that bats are ineffective at popuation control. Maybe it depends on the bat?

Anyhow, I suggest dumping that paragraph. --njvack 00:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Habitat
Can anyone add a map or at least a couple sentences on the worldwide distribution of mosquitos? (I'd do it but I don't know where they live -- I came to the page trying to find out.)

Yes, A lot of natural history articles on Wikipedia, that I have seen, seem devoid of the habitual nature of the creatures involved.

When will sombody add a map! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.201.62 (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This a major oversight in the article. Mosquitos obviously have an extremely wide range, but which areas, specifically, have them? This is an important question - 66.17.110.245 (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

---

I also thought that it should be important to mention that as global warming effects are more prudent the altitudes that mosquito's can be found at is increasing.

Also important to note that the ever expanding city environment is offering a year round micro-climate for them to continue breeding. In some areas where they would normally die out over the winter they are surviving in the sewer systems, and in our houses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.107.2.126 (talk) 09:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Why was the evolution of Mosquitoes removed?
I was searching the web for information about when moquitoes evolved (wanted to see if Jurrasic Park's idea was plausable). Surprisingly, this information was hard to find, for some reason. I figured wikipedia would have it for sure. So, I checked... and guess what... it didn't! Then, I checked an outdated wikipedia mirror, and IT DID have an evolution of mosquitoes section! So, my question is, why was the section on mosquito evolution removed? Is this a young earth creationism issue? Or something else?


 * Apparently 68.211.52.239 (Talk) had vandalized the article, removing the information regarding mosquito evolution (refer to this [comparison] which shows that the vandal simply removed the paragraph on evolution, contributing nothing). This vandalism was followed by another, more vulgar [vandalism], unrelated to the first one. When the vulgar vandalism was noticed, it was reverted back to the edit by 68.211.52.239, and therefore the "creationist vandalism" went unnoticed and ended up being preserved. I restored the text on evolution, which I hope will end this mess. I'm providing this lengthy explanation on the Talk page because it took me a while to unravel the whole sequence of events, so I thought I'd share my discovery. -Alexanderj 21:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * something should be done to the vandalism. XU-engineer 12:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Living in S.E. Asia I can report growing concerns about the rapid changes in the physiology of mosquitos. I am not a scientist, however I'm happy to help someone augment this section with valid information from current events. Perhaps someone could assist a non-Ph.D in sorting fact from fiction regarding related current news? Tinkertim 14:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)''

Mosquitoes vs. Ticks
I have read many times that when a tick is sucking your blood you must remove it with care to avoid its head or mouth getting stuck in your skin. This piece of information leads me to my question: when a mosquito is sucking your blood, and if you smack it, will the proboscis get lodged into your skin? If so, does this increase the risk of getting a disease? Thanks--71.98.17.223 01:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well again i hate mosquitoes. and yes you can have an increased chance of getting a disease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.134.59 (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a Skeeter on My Peter?
Is this link really necesary?

See also There's a Skeeter on My Peter

see it at the end of the page. It{s not related to mosquitos in a scientific way. thank you. Minako-Chan* 05:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please delete this link. Childish to keep the link.


 * Done, but the page will have to be watched better to keep the kids from vandalising it again. Pollinator 04:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First off, this is not vandalism. The link is to a legitimate wikipedia article that is undeniably related to mosquitos. How could such a link be "vandalism"? What this is is a valid content dispute. Although the two users above think this link does not belong and claim this on the basis that the article is limited to scientific informaton, myself and at least one other user (see history -- a user reverted him/herself when "on second thought" this person decided the link was important) seem to think that this link is relevant. Although most of the article is scientific, the very idea of "see also" is to link to articles that are about the specific topic being discussed (that is, about the insect and not about some other meaning, such as the mosquito airplane) but which don't fit with the main thrust of the article. Here we have a notable song that is undeniably about mosquitos but which is not related enough to the content of the article (a scientific introduction to mosquitos as insects) to have its text included as part of this article. As such, this is a fine example of a situation where a "see also" link makes sense -- too related to b disambiguated but not quite with the main thrust of the article. Moreover, the criteria noted above for removing this link ("unscintific" and "childish") have no basis in wikipedia inclusion guidelines. Wikipedia is not censored. Content is includable on the wiki if it is notable and verifiable. The fact that There's a Skeeter on My Peter survived a deletion debate and has been contributed to by several experienced editors speaks to both notability and verifiability. Thus, what we have here is a notable and verifiable article that is related to mosquito in a way that fits with the standard use of "see also" links. As such, well-established wikipedia criteria support this link's inclusion. Again, this is not vandalism, and given my long history of good faith contributons to this encyclopedia, I resent that charge and believe that it borders on a personal attack. Interestingstuffadder 12:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you in junior high? Do you really get your "yuk yuks" out of adding childish links to otherwise encyclopedic articles?  The word "Skeeter" doesn't even appear in this article as an alternate name to "mosquito".  Why don't you start by improving the article in ways like that?  As I pointed out in my edit summary, why don't you go and add "Itsy Bitsy Spider" to the Spider article?  Oh I know, that one isn't 'dirty' in a juvinile way  Not to mention things like Insect repellent or Citronella would make fine See Also links, but you didn't bother adding them.  Yeah, I know, those don't mention peters or whacking off either...  --Rehcsif 00:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Unclear why what I have and haven't added is even relevant. A link to this song is includable based on standard wikipedia criteria (notability and verifiability) and because it is undeniably a topic related to mosquitoes. That is, this link is itself encyclopedic per wikipedia's own standards. Whether I get my "yuk yuks" from adding this link is simply irrelevant; inclusion in wikipedia has nothing to do with my motives. However, if you are curious about my motives, I suggest you read my user page. It may help you understand why I do what I do. Interestingstuffadder 12:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That username may qualify as a sock puppet. Squamate 13:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you read the wikipedia policy on socks, you will find that there is no policy forbidding users from having two usernames so long as they are not used improperly (such as to rig votes, avoid blocks, etc). I freely admit that user:interestingstuffadder is not my primary username and I provide a rationale for having more than one user name (read my user page). I have never, however,used my multiple usernames in violation of wikipedia policy. Interestingstuffadder 15:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is true that you have not violated the three revert rule, but this is starting to look like an edit war. Perhaps there should be an attempt to arrive at consensus by adding a request for comment to this page regarding the content of the article. Squamate 16:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I was referring specifically to the unfounded accusation of sockpuppetry. Could you respond to my response to that accusation. Thanks. Interestingstuffadder 16:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * From the Sock puppetry page: "A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name." Squamate 16:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I should have been more specific. I was refering to the implication that I had used socks in violation of wikipedia policy, which i have not. Interestingstuffadder 18:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to take that up with whomever made the implication. In the meantime, a request for comment should help to sort out this edit war. If the consensus is to include the link, so be it; if the consensus is to exclude it, so should that be as well. Squamate 18:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The edit war continues. The edit war page contains the following: "... reversion by two or more people often demonstrates that such reversions are probably not fundamentalistic or in bad faith, but instead closer to an objective consensus." The ellipsis and italics are mine; they are not in the original. It appears (to me, at least) that there is a developing consensus that this link does not belong on this page. I searched for the term "skeeter" and was redirected to the mosquito page. In the interest of settling this ongoing problem, what about the following suggestion: make a disambiguation page for "skeeter", explaining that it is both a colloquialism for mosquito and the subject of an off-color children's song, and including links to both pages on the disambiguation page? This would maintain the integrity of the mosquito article as an encyclopedic article, and would also allow those users who wish to read about the kiddie song to do so. Remember, "don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". Squamate 15:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Or we could create a "mosquitoes in popular culture" page analogous to the similar page that has been created for spiders. There would be a brief section on this main article mentioning the place of mosquitoes in popular culture and more detail would be provided by that longer article. And the "integrity of this article as an encyclopedia article" has npothing to do with it, as 1) the cultural context of mosquitoes is encyclopedic 2) the "kiddie song" itself has been confirmed as encyclopedic. Interestingstuffadder 18:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That might work, too, unless the "mosquitoes in popular culture" section on this page becomes a "stealth" link to the kiddie song within the mosquito article. In that case it very possibly might be a violation of consensus as described on the Consensus page: "insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors has been judged a violation of consensus" (italics mine).  No one should want to see a violation of consensus, à la the Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute.  That would lead to a request for arbitration, which I doubt anyone wants. Squamate 20:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No. The section would say something like [and this is really just for illustration purposes, i need to determine what is really out there first] "many cultural works regarding mosquitos have been created. these have included movies, songs, tv shows and paintings. for more information see mosquitoes in popular culture". Another issue we should consider is whether it makes sense to include a parenthetical "also known as" list, which would include "skeeter" and other colloquial expressions; there are precedents for doing this literally all over wikipedia (for another insect article that does this, see Ceratopogonidae). Interestingstuffadder 21:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, we've got two suggestions for how to end the edit war and let us all get back to working on the encyclopedia. Now we need to arrive at consensus. Anyone else want to weigh in? Squamate 03:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there anyone willing/interested in writing a "mosquitos in popular culture" article? If so, wonderful (I know I'm not...).  If not, and it sits as a stub with a link to the so-called 'kiddie' song (which I'm only familiar with via John Valby, whose audience is definitely [i]not[/i] children), then I don't think this helps uphold the consensus.  As it stands, we have a pseudo-sockpuppet who is only interested in stirring the pot with semi-vulgar references, and has already admitted above he's not interested in doing other expansions beyond this little ditty.  --Rehcsif 03:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * For your information, I am quite interested in "doing expansionsbeyond this little ditty". Have you seen my recent additions to the see also section? I hardly think mosquito net is "semi-vulgar". Please avoid attacking me. And as for the sockpuppet thing, I have never used multiple accounts in violation of wikipedia policy, so it is pretty unclear to me why people keep making such an issue out of the fact that I have an account (this one) by which I am carrying out a specific wikipedia purpose(see my usertalk for more info) and another with which I am doing conventional edits and shooting for adminship. Interestingstuffadder 04:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected on your willingness to add additional info beyond the 'skeeter' song. As for the sock -- I don't get it.  If what you're doing is above-board, and not simply designed to rock the boat, you should be able to do it with your main ID.  Most of us have only one ID, why should you need more?  (Doesn't really matter regarding this issue -- just curious) --Rehcsif 04:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read my user page for a detailed explanation of why I do what I do. The fact is, there is a systemic bias on wikipedia about controversial (some say "vulgar") content that satisfies the standards of notability and verifiability. I think you know as well as I do that, regardless of whether what I post is in violation of any wikipedia policy (and it is never), having these edits on my primary profile would definitely interfere with my chance at adminship one day. If you read the sockpupper policy, you will see that it acknowledges a divide in opinion as to whether socks are appropriate. I would maintain that what matters is not whether someone has a sock, but whether it is used inappropriately. Interestingstuffadder 12:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

We're trying to reach a consensus here. . . there are two suggestions on the table. . . surely after all of the complaining and edit warring other editors have opinions on how to resolve this issue. Squamate 13:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, I prefer the Mosquitos in Popular Culture option with a link from this article, provided that it can be fleshed out. There are plenty of popular references (here in Minneota, for example, we refer to the mosquito as our "unofficial state bird", and there are a number of places that have sculptures of giant mosquitos).  I don't feel qualified/have interest in writing this article, however...--Rehcsif 18:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been ten days and so far Interestingstuffadder and Rehcsif are for making a Mosquitos in Popular Culture page. No one else seems to have an opinion. If I decide to support the creation of a Mosquitos in Popular Culture page, does that mean we have consensus? If so, then I'll support creation of the page. Squamate 14:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If the purpose of the alternative page is just to be able to insert juvenile jokes, I certainly can't give it my blessing, but I won't bother it. I suspect a lot of others will. If it's trash on this page, it's trash anywhere. But my primary interest is in keeping this a good informative, scientific article. Pollinator 17:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't take that link as vandalism (or something bad). i think that we should just keep it there since it has some connection. its there, so what? this discusion is growing way too complicated and long. if anything else happens like this and from the same user, lets talk it about it then. XU-engineer 12:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC) [[Category:]]

Well i think i hate mosquitos they have no meaning or do do anything good for this earth so i would kill all if posibal

Genera
Potential problems with the list of genera: 1, text says three genera in Anophelinae, but hasn't Bironella been synonymized?; 2, Reinert and coworkers have greatly expanded the number of genera within Aedini; 3, has Deinocerites been "sunk" into Culex as a subgenus or not? Squamate 00:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Balance of this article
I was reviewing various insects as possible nominees for Version 0.5, and since my 6 year old daughter is greatly interested in mosquitoes I took a look here. However, I noticed that the article has quite a heavy slant towards "trouble with those pesky mosquitoes", and by comparison the general topics on the creature itself receive rather scant attention. If you look at related articles like ant or spider these do cover much more about the morphology, life cycle and development (not too bad here), ancestry/evolution. Would it be possible to add more in these areas? What (if anything) do they eat besides nectar and blood? It would also be nice to see some more description of the main types of mosquito, how common they are and where they live. Some references would be needed for the article to progress further. Thanks! Walkerma 05:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've seen this trend in many other articles too, such as the flea article which I've recently worked on a little. To address the issue I've split the article into biology and anthropic sections, which highlights the balance issue, and added a stub template to the biology section. I've then added a to do list at the top of the page to clarify what needs work. As a side note, I lowered the rating to a B-class, clearly the article is missing too much material to be A-class material. A low B-class or high start class is more appropriate, but may become an A-class with some well referenced material on biology. Richard001 23:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Treating mosquito bites
An anon added this advice in:


 * Drops of ammonia applied to a mosquito bite will stop the itching and eliminate the swelling. By the next day, the bite site shows only a small hole where the mosquito bit.

Perhaps someone in the know could check this is good advice? I'd hate to think that this was put in there and could potentially be harmful to someone. Thanks. --Tim1988 talk 12:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I remember a few remedies my mother had that contained ammonia. One was a stick for mosquito bites, the other a tube for stings.  A Google search for "mosquito bite ammonia" gives 41,600 hits, most of the highest ranking are forums.  PrometheusX303 13:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Original Research
Very few sentences in this article contain citations for the information they present. Thus, per wikipedia policy, which permits users to delete uncited information, I would be free to delete much of this article. As it is, much of this article seems like original research. Just a heads up so interested editors can start providing citations that confirm the verifiablity of this article's assertions before I start deleting uncited material. Interestingstuffadder 20:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In particular, observations regarding standing water, etc read as original research. Interestingstuffadder 01:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's like saying that you're going to remove a statement that honey is produced by bees because it isn't sourced. It's such common knowledge for anyone that deals with mosquitoes, that no one got around to it. I don't think deleting this important information is the correct solution though. --70.81.251.32 22:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously you haven't bothered to check any of the external links, several of which give references on source reduction. I don't suppose you've noticed either that I'm also discriminating in reverting your edits. If you make a good one, great! If you are getting far afield I revert. Since you seem to find this controversial, why don't you check the many common sources on this, and add the cites yourself, rather than just deleting useful information. My time on Wikipedia is very limited; and you seem to have a lot of it. And your remarks on my talk page show that your edits have at least an element of a personal grudge in them, so I mention again, WP:POINT which obviously is very relevant. Pollinator 02:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith (as wikipedia policy requires you to do). This has nothing to do with a personal grudge. Cites should be at the end of individual sentences; users and editors should not have to dig through "common sources" to verify what is stated in articles. Wikipedia policy on verifiability clearly puts the burden of providing sources on the person who inserts information -- I can legitimately remove unsourced information and policy imposes no obligation to add citations upon me. Interestingstuffadder 03:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the edits you propose to make re references on this page are not "vulgar" (the term you used in defense of your repeated addition of the kiddie song (see above)), why not make the edits under your primary account instead of your sock? And why don't you link your sock to your primary account, i.e., Sock puppetry? It's not like sock puppets are a means of complete anonymity; there are ways to check user identity. All one has to do is request a check of a user's identity. Squamate 14:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed some blatant examples of original research w/o citation -- the abstract of this paper, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15691131 is pasted directly without reference. In my opinion it doesn't even fit the flow of the article. I just wanted to point this out. If others agree, feel free to take action. 128.2.222.195 17:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Why females target people
I know this is the case with me, and I think I'ver heard a doctor say this, but I need confirmation before this could be added under "Life cycle and Feeding Habits". Do female mosquitoes have a way of sensing if your blood vessels are closer to the surface of your skin than other people? I think I've heard that you have a greater tendency to be bitten if your blood vessels are closer to the surface. --Arwen undomiel 18:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thermal Mosquito Traps
I work in an Plastic Injection Molding Factory and we have a part that goes inside of a vacuum cleaner which is made of clear Lexan polycarbonate (the same stuff that the clear surface of CD's are made of). I have often seen mosquitoes attacking these warm parts and trying to feed on them. The parts come out of the press around 120 °F (the thermal level might be an attractant or the parts could be emitting a mosquito-attracting odor when warm). Usually, given the heat of the part, the mosquito dies after a second or two of contact. I could easily see using a coffee cup warmer or a simmering scent heater with a Lexan polycarbonate body (filling the sealed container with water or wax with safety venting) to attract the mosquitoes to a "dead target" where they pretty much die on contact.

There are some Thermal Mosquito Lures on the Internet, but I wonder if Lexan polycarbonate would be a more efficient bait material. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.93.81.124 (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

WTF?
I'm deleting the line below. bolshy 05:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * what line?? XU-engineer 12:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Cultural views
 * It is amaizing to see that recent discoveries have shown that there are a number of different species of parasitic and phoretic mites (Arrenurus and Nilotonia spp.) that can be found on mosquitoes. This is amaizing because a verse in the Quran mentioned this 1400 years ago when no one had a microscope. This serves to prove the divine nature of the Holy Quran, the muslim's holy book which was revealed to prophet Mohammad 1400 years ago.


 * This is the verse: "surely Allah is not ashamed to give the example of a mosquito and that which is above it. Those who believe know that it is the truth from their Lord; but those who disbelieve say: What doth Allah wish to teach by such a similitude? He misleads many thereby, and He guides many thereby; and He misleads thereby only wrongdoers; "(chapter 2, verse 26)

There's plenty of information about mosquitoes. That's great, but I can't find the information that I'm looking for. What does mosquito larva eats?

Evolution?
Once again, I come in contact with the Theory of evolution. I would be happier if it was mentioned to be a scientific theory, not fact. Once evolution is proven, the word "theory" can be removed. -Yancyfry 02:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you understand what a scientific theory is? Evolution isn't "proven" because that's not how science works. Science doesn't "prove" things, it forms theories. A theory is the closest thing you can get to a fact in science. Gravity is no more a fact than evolution, from a scientific standpoint. - furrykef (Talk at me) 18:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you were meaning to knock down Yancyfry's statement, and you only succeeded in backing it up. Evolution and gravity are both theories, and thus the word "fact" should not be used about either one. However, most articles that discuss evolution label it as fact, including this one, which I agree should be remedied. AffirmationChick 05:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The most important point to me was that Yancyfry said "Once evolution is proven...", when in fact there is no such thing as proving a theory. So I think Yancyfry perhaps had a fundamental misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. Anyway, I would like to retract my statement that "a theory is the closest thing you can get to a fact in science". This is what I had been taught in high school, but I think science does have a notion of a "fact". For one thing, Wikipedia itself indicates this: Fact. For another, it's just plain impractical to not be able to take things like gravity for granted. We shouldn't have to explain what a scientific theory is whenever we say anything about science. Anyway, this paper more or less says what I want to say on the specific point of facts, theories, and evolution: - furrykef (Talk at me) 00:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope you are kidding and not really that stupid, Yancyfry.--Svetovid 21:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Mousquito
Is this an accepted spelling anywhere in the world? Firefox isn't correcting it, but it turned up nothing here. (BTW, there don't seem to be any links here from the Biology portal, or at least not under Insects of North America. I can tell you at least 2 places in Canada that are swarming with them!) 142.59.172.187 08:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Copy vio
This is not a copy vio, a user has mistaken an About.com mirroring of Wikipedia content for a reverse situation. VanTucky 02:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As I noted on VanTucky's page: "I know a lot of sites do but that particular page claims to have been written by Anne Marie Helemstine and the page indicates the copyright belongs to The New York Times Company. The text has been on that page since 2003 and was only introduced into the Wikipedia in the past few days.  Are you sure that they are mirroring the Wikipedia article?  It does not seem to be the case this time." --Yamla 02:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, maybe it is then. VanTucky 02:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Which parts of the text are allegedly on that site? I couldn't see it on the link that was given. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Search for "Floral or Fruity Fragrances", that entire section (at least) was lifted directly. I wasn't able to figure out what other parts, if any.  I did confirm that the text was on the about.com site years before it made its way to Wikipedia, though.  --Yamla 02:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably this seciton Since the about.com article is only about the chemistry of repellents I don't see how the whole article can be a copyvio. --Versageek 02:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Slapping a copyvio tag on a whole page is pretty heavy-handed editing, and could lead to the deletion of a lot of previous work. I have reverted the page to a version before the copyrighted material. Pollinator 02:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

tempature and humidity
It appears mosquitoes breed faster in warmer Hummid enviroments. does any one have research on tempature and humidity related to mosquito breeding.


 * i dont really agree that, because every morning (mild, around 70 degrees F. and not so humid) i get up very early to exercise and those pesky mosquitoes (if you interrupt the grass), they will come out and attack you and reak havoc on your body. i live in Texas.  XU-engineer 12:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see though why you would say that, though...usually the humidity forms dew on the grass or puddles of water which mosquitos can lay their eggs in. It is hard for a mosquito to lay eggs if the area is not human, but as XU-engineer said, it is not impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.53.225 (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Question
Well, I figure while I'm here, I mind as well ask a question. I'll probably just delete this from the discussion page after someone answers it. Now, i'm no biologist or scientist of any kind, and with the rapidly increasing number of bites I recieve each day (mosquitoes find ways into my house), I just had to ask something. Why in the world do mosquito bites grow when you itch them, and sort of shrivel up when you don't? I mean, I understand the whole antibody thing that makes them itch, but why in the world do they grow?

Also, someone might want to consider putting the answer in the actual mosquito page...seeing as there's no "mosquito bite" page and that all the info on the itchy red bumps are on this page. I mean, it only has to be one sentence, mabye I'll do it once I get an answer. Thanks in advance. 24.15.53.225 13:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Life cycle: what happens in winter?
I always wondered how mosquitoes come back next year even after frost-filled winters. Is some part of their life cycle hibernating or something? That'd be nice to have in the article. 64.231.203.234 00:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Crane Fly vs. Male Mosquito
I have searched around, and not found any information about how to distinguish the Crane Fly and the Male Mosquito. Diagrams appear extremely similar. Could any information be added to the article about this? --JamesGecko 07:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Mouthparts and dorsum of thorax. Squamate (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Last pair of legs upward
Mention why es don't seem to use their last pair of legs, just having them point upward and sometimes twiddling them. Jidanni (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Size vs. biting success
Perhaps mention that the very large es might not be able to bite except in noisy environments where they stand a chance of not getting noticed. Jidanni (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Detection distance
Perhaps the article should mention at what distance a mosquito can detect a human? --Son (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Larvae
Should a page for mosquito larvae be added? There's a link to the non-existant page on larvae page. Or, should that link just go straight to the mosquito article? (ApostleJoe (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC))

Aids - HIV
can mosquitos infect people with HIV ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HeX-4869 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

NO, it was shown that this is not a route in which HIV can be transmitted. -- Charanti Talk  12:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact in Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" he says that the HIV virus is destroyed by the digestive system of the mosquito, and therefore is not passed on. As he goes on to say: if HIV mutates its way around this then we are all in serious trouble! Dharma6662000 (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I think Mr Bryson is being a bit misleading there. HIV would need to do a lot more than just avoiding getting eaten to be able to be transmitted by mosquito. I'm just a layperson but I would have thought that it's already pretty easy for HIV to avoid getting eaten by associating with mosquitos carrying filarial nematodes. And given the positive correlation between HIV and filariasis it's not as if the virus hasn't had the opportunity to exploit this mechanism. This is a good site with details about why mosquitos aren't a vector for HIV . It's such a common question that I wonder whether it's worth putting something in the article.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand the logic of my statement. I did not say that the only reason that HIV is not transmitted from human to human via mosquito is that it is destroyed by the digestive system of the mosquito. I said that because it is destroyed by the mosquito's digestive system then HIV is not passed from human to human by the mosquito. Being destroyed by the mosquito's digestive system is not a sufficient condition, and I did not claim it to be. A subtle difference I agree, but a difference nonetheless. Dharma6662000 (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Noise tradeoffs: redesign with quieter wings
Mention what the tradeoffs would be if the mosquito was redesigned with quieter wings.

What do mosquitos get for the price of making all that noise, (hence so easy to notice), greater maneuverability?

Or are we humans located in quiet environments such a small part of their diet market, that we can be neglected?

Probably most animals don't hear them, except cats? Jidanni (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Since many mosquito species use sound to find mates of the same species, quiet mosquitos might have some trouble passing their genes on.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What are they for?
We are told by environmentalists that we shouldn't tinker with nature, everything is sacred and balanced and you can't affect one without the other. So my question is, what would the damage to nature be if we eliminated all mosquitoes? Really, what? Would we suffer? They are responsible for so many deaths and problems. 82.193.205.61 (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, this isn't really a question for wikipedia. Comments on talk pages are to help improve the artical. If you really want your question answered I suggest you go here. Thanks Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have a go at responding to this/putting the case for the defence because I think the question is relevant to the page in the sense that it touchs on some important points that seem to be absent. Firstly, there are what, 3000+ species of mosquito. A few species bite humans and even less are serious human disease vectors. In other words, killing them all might be a bit harsh (apart from being impossible). Secondly, which species bears the most responsibility for the global distribution and population levels of mosquito species that are vectors for diseases like yellow fever, malaria, dengue fever etc ? It's not a mosquito. Lastly, what are they for ? They're for making more mosquitos. By the way, while typing this I managed to kill 2 Aedes albopictus so that's 2 down.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 11:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. My point was, Nature is not sacred. I was thinking what a happy coincidence our existence as a species is, we are constantly buffeted on so many sides, by bacteria, viruses, natural disasters, etc., and of course, mosquitoes. And we are told that Nature is such a wonderful thing. Oh yes. In fact Nature cares nothing for us, and how could it, it's not sentient. Our first responsibility should always be to our fellow Man (or Woman). Let us not worship Nature. And yes, down with mosquitoes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.133.253 (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Which environmentalists say everything's sacred? That'd make action impossible. Imagine Reason (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

so you would just have us destroy entire ecosystems because it was convenient to the furthering of humankind? imagine what our world would be like if we did that... I agree that it is not necessary to worship nature because we would have to drastically alter our lifestyle. However, that is no reason to take the opposite route, and actively destroy things. If we destroyed everything in the way of us, our lifespan and population would increase greatly, and we would have a space and resources problem, ultimately dooming us. This wouldn't happen just from eliminating mosquitoes obviously, but if you apply your suggestion of eliminating entire species that aren't beneficial to us, this situation could definitely become reality. Why not kill all the wolves next, or the bears or lions? You suggest taking a risky path that could become a cycle of human destruction. Cactus Guru (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Bat Contradiction
This article says both that bats are effective and ineffective at controlling mosquitoes. Whats with that? Rds865 (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you point it out please? I found the spot where it says that bats are ineffective (Natural Predators section, lines 3 and 4), but not where it calls them effective. Cactus Guru (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Health section
Suggestion: this section would look much better with some kind of analysis of the more significant diseases carried by mosquitos (malaria, dengue fever, others?). Just a thought. --Legis (talk - contribs) 20:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Article Issues
I know I'm not the first one but I think that most people can clearly see that this article has many issues. Apart from a few style issues and trivial edit wars about songs that is. Probably the largest problem is the blatant lack of content. We might be able to get one from the wikiproject. I hope. The other problem is the massive list of Mosquito genera and species which probably should be split off into another article. --Stinkypie (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been working on the systematics of Anopheles. I am inclined to agree with the parent note above that these issues because of their size might be better dealt within its own article. These issues while of some importance are not I feel of general interest and distract from the main article. That having been said these matters should be included in an encyclopedia of this nature. DrMicro (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Mosquito control
I noticed there's a cleanup tag on this section; also that a lot of the detail is about Malaria control, which is at Malaria and on simply repelling them, which is at Insect repellent. Would there be any objection if I trimmed this section down a bit, and put in some main article links? Swanny18 (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do! --Stemonitis (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, done. I've left an audit trail at Insect repellent and Mosquito control, if anybody is bothered about how I've done it. Swanny18 (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Evolution vandalism?
The addition of the seemingly random "is a false theory" is not only suspect in terms of its relevance to this article but, also, in regard to grammar. Maybe someone far more competent than me could have a look at it. AlexTartu (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Too much anthropocentrism and not enough biology
Just looking again through this mess called "Mosquito" - it seems the whole entry is very lopsided. Most of the information about mosquitoes focuses on a handful of species ie the ones that carry human woes. (I guess because that's what is highlighted by the bulk of easily-accessible research.) I would like to see this whole article rewritten; looking at mosquito biology - taxonomic relationships with other insects, life cycles (not just for Aedes!), evolution, development and ecology. I would like to see all the information about diseases shifted into a separate entry; Diseases borne by mosquitoes or something similar. Anyone with me on this? BoundaryRider (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * support - good idea.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Also, I notice that there are TWO Reference sections, and a strange [1] floating at the top of the External Links section, but I'm not confident enough with my editing to fix these problems. BoundaryRider (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Male mosquito role in reproduction?
Nowhere in the article does it tell us where the male mosquitoes get involved. I assume there are males for a reason, rather than simply have a unisex (female) species.

So, on the assumption that males are required for the females to produce offspring, at what point do the males inseminate the eggs made by the female? Does:
 * the male mate and inseminate before she goes for blood feeding and make eggs, thus storing the sperm until the eggs are ready, or
 * does she blood feed, make the eggs, take the sperm, then lay them, or
 * does she blood feed, make the eggs, lay them, then a male inseminates them? GBC (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Males bite humans?
Article says: "In some species of mosquito, the females feed on humans, and are therefore vectors for a number of infectious diseases affecting millions of people per year".

Do males bite sometimes? Are they not capable? Or they just simply do not bite humans? Even in situation when they don't have other food but find humans around? - manya (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I found on some sites that males do not have proboscis and therefore cannot bite humans. And couple of other sites stating that male proboscis do not have inner stylets that are used to pierce human skin and inject anticoagulant - manya (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Breeding in water
I think we should have a section about mosquito breeding - fresh/salt water, how to minimise breeding, etc. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC) mosquitos are blue or black. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.44.52 (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The relationship between mosquito, diet and natural repellent....
--58.38.45.18 (talk) 07:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A%20mosquito%20diet&oq=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws

--58.38.45.18 (talk) 07:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A%20mosquito%20natural%20repellent&oq=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws

--58.38.45.18 (talk) 07:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+mosquito+vegetable&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--58.38.45.18 (talk) 07:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A%20mosquito%20meat&sa=N&tab=sw


 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+mosquito+attractant&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--58.38.45.18 (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A%20mosquito%20bait&oq=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws


 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+mosquito+baits&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--222.64.29.138 (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+mosquito+attractants&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

It seems to me that mosquitos are the proxies of baby cowes--222.64.29.138 (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Catnip Oil...
The article mentions catnip oil (nepetalactone) as being both safer and more effective than DEET. However, this is contradicted by followup research, and catnip has generally not been taken up as a DEET alternative. Linalool and Geraniol have been supported by more research, but have associated side-effects. 24.76.178.14 (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed this section. I think there are SYNTH/OR/editorializing issues and this article isn't supposed to be about repellents.


 * However, with increasing reports of the harmful effects DEET has on humans (including a small number of fatalities, psychological effects, and birth defects ), there has been a move to rely on alternative, safer repellents, repellents that are organic and otherwise of the kind that have had traditional household purposes prior to their becoming used now more often as mosquito repellents.


 * For example, the much safer compound nepetalactone (found in catnip essential oil) has been found by Iowa State University researchers to be about 10 times more effective than DEET in repelling mosquitoes. 

 Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The reference provided by 24.76.178.14 is a follow up and clearly shows that nepetalactone is NOT as effective as DEET if used on humans against Aedes aegypti. Also, neither does the report you cite allow ANY conclusions about harmful effects of DEET (actually quite the opposite!) nor are essential oils safe. Have you read any of the links and references? Cacycle (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did read the links and that is why I removed the material from the article and put it here on the talk page (now in italics for clarity). As for the harmful effects of DEET, unless it's about the harmful effects of DEET on mosquitos it's not relevant to this article which is neither about repellents or their effects on humans. Also, next time, try not using caps for emphasis per the guidelines.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Only humans?
Do mosquitoes only bite humans, or other animals with not much hair as well (e.g. horses pigs, cows)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.102.188 (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC) (zslevi) --80.99.102.188 (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, females bite all sorts of mammals and birds and even amphibians. Some mosquito species appear to prefer to get their blood meal from certain species (e.g. Aedes aegypti seem to like us a lot) but I think it's fair to say that it's not clear whether these are genuine preferences or whether they are caused by other factors. They certainly don't need us to get a blood meal. Here's some recent work on the subject in Frontiers in Zoology if you are interested 'Blood feeding patterns of mosquitoes: random or structured?'  Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Do both sexes make the same noise?
(I hope this is the right place to ask ...) I'm curious about the noise that a mosquito makes; in particular, do both the male and female mosquito make the same (or nearly the same) high-pitch noise? The article mentions that "the antennae of the males in comparison to the females are noticeably bushier and contain auditory receptors to detect the characteristic whine of the female." This opens the possibility that the female mosquito makes the well-known high-pitched noise and the male doesn't (if it did, then why doesn't the female contain similarly bushy antennae). I tried to search for this information, but it seems that pages consider this information either "obvious" or uninteresting. (It seems that there's been some research on how a pair of mosquitoes use this noise to identify a suitable mate. This is also quite interesting)  Is anyone interested in updating the page with this information? 188.201.222.233 (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is an interesting topic and an old tradition in Wikipedia (that I have just made up) says that the person who raises an interesting issue automatically volunteers to hunt for sources and add the material to the article. So, thanks for volunteering. :) I think the article is possibly a bit misleading in the sense that both males and females have Johnston's organs for detecting sound and use them although according to this paper the female's seems to be less sensitive but is still "among the most complex and acoustically sensitive mechanosensory organs in insects". This article about Toxorhynchites brevipalpis is quite interesting in that it shows that the both male and female "alters its wing-beat frequency in response to the flight tone of the other, so that within seconds their flighttone frequencies are closely matched" and it's apparently "the first example of interactions between individual insects that is based on acoustically controlled feedback between sound input and motor output of flight muscles, which are otherwise also engaged in flight.".  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

main image
the main image seems to be unavailable, should be placed another one. 186.104.116.152 (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Gonzalo Martinez.


 * Someone vandalized the article & changed the filename for the image. I fixed it. Thanks -- Versa geek  21:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

mouth part of a mosquito
Mosquito mouth part has two short sticks, which look similar to antenna. Also, it has two long sticks with short hairs on it. The longest and thickest stick seems to be used to suck blood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Villalba (talk • contribs) 03:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hot water
Can anyone tell me why was this removed:

Another treatment is the direct application of a cloth soaked in very hot water - steaming, but not boiling.[28] The purpose is to trigger the release of all the histamine in the area at once, thus removing the source of the itching sensation until more histamine can be reproduced, about 8 to 10 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.255.241.35 (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

DIY Mosquito Control Link
Would it be pertinent to add an external link to a page like this one? Or are you looking for external links to larger institutions? I've done my research and I'm pretty happy with the page. Sorry, I should have created an account first. Done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.191.208.36 (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Linguistics snob?
"The word derives from Sanskrit maksh (fly) via the Latin word musca (fly) and the Italian moschetta or Spanish mosquito (little fly). The French word is moustique."In my opinion, this should read:"The word derives from the Latin musca, cf. Sanskrit maksh (fly), via the Italian moschetta or Spanish mosquito (little fly). The French word is moustique."The last time I took a linguistics class, Italian and Spanish were derived from Latin, while Sanskrit developed in parallel thousands of miles away. Because they are both derived from Proto-Indo-European, the cf. does not need to be justified.-tomd (I'm pretty sure I have a username, I've just forgotten it.)Your reading is a possible one, but it's also possible that the Latin musca was borrowed from Sanskrit maksh (closely related languages do, after all, borrow words). I frankly don't know which solution is correct -- maybe someone else will chime in.Regardless of the relationship between musca and maksh, the Spanish, Italian, and French words were derived from Latin. The cf. implies some relationship between the Latin and Sanskrit without specifying any. The Italian and French are cognates of the Spanish, and the Latin and Sanskrit are cognates, but the Sanskrit is not a cognate of the Spanish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.191.245 (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why the Portuguese is so many times left out when talking about latin languages? Maybe if you read a bit of history about the relation of Portugal with the rest of Europe and the World, and the fact that due to the Portuguese discoveries, Portuguese was the most spoken language on the 16th century and that Portugal and England have the oldest aliance in Europe, it's not strange that mosquito should have been borrowed from the Portuguese mosquito. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.240.229.6 (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Attractants
I have read secondary articles suggesting that limburger cheese is an attractant, as well as smelly feet (with a theory that a common bacterium is responsible). Also that consumption of alcohol can increase your allure to mosquitos. If anyone had a primary source, I think it would make a good addition.

I heard that Mosquitos are lured to citronella. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.226.131 (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

mosquito bite
hi! musquito bites me seldom .. if a person did bite by musquito 25 times means, i'm only once. my blood group is O+ve.. can u tell me d reason.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puviyarasu.rajan (talk • contribs) 03:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I was laying in bed one night and was bitten by a mosquito on a provate part. It had just occured after I felt the bug, not the morning before, so i am positive it is a tiny mosquito bite. So do i use the same healing remedies posted above.Sorry i know this conten is a little strong.

File:Mosquito Tasmania crop.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Mosquito Tasmania crop.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 17, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-06-17. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 20:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

2500 or 3500? Changed page down to 2500 October 2011
Wow that felt good I just wiped off the face of the earth 1000 species of mosquito by changing the estimated number from 3500 down to 2500. Seems there is wide disagreement on the web over this question..and since Wiki has been showing the figure 3500 for probably many years..there will be tons and tons of places that quote the figure 3500. The problem is it doesnt' seem to be true. Other websites and authoritative sound articles including college professors say 2500. I found some copeout sites that are now saying between 2500-3500. i have no real problem if someone changes it back to over 3500. Technically over 2500 still includes numbers over 3500. However, please do some research into where the figur came from before changing back up. Pbmaise (talk) 11:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, given a choice between Nature's 3500 (probably the most respected scientific publication in the world), and The Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District's 2500, I'd go with the former. No offense to Alameda County, I'm sure they do fine work. :) Apparently 3,523 species of Culicidae are recognised at the moment. It was 3490 in 2007. A "valid species" list is available here from the Mosquito Taxonomic Inventory (MTI) at the Natural History Museum, London.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have checked a few sources spanning a few decades, including today's list that Sean mentions. It is not my field, so I won't update the figure, but my conclusions are: Earlier (not VERY much earlier!) figures from respected sources were of the order of 1000-2000 spp. then 2500. This was partly because of the fact that new spp do get discovered, and partly because it was not always easy to just hop onto the web and get full lists. That new inventory, by my count, and ignoring the fact that I don't follow the conventions on which it is based, contains about 3524 line items (but I might have missed a folded line). I vote for changing the figure back to 3500 and counting. Sorry about your good feeling, but frankly, to me it feels good to think that there are more species of some very interesting animals. JonRichfield (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Since then I have had occasion to do more editing (that article REALLY needs it! I wish I had time...) I'll update the figure while I am at it. JonRichfield (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Could I please have some comments on: "While ridding mosquitoes from the planet may sound extreme, a few believe that eradicating would not have serious consequences for the ecosystem". This is a very unsatisfactory statement as it stands. It lacks context and balance. I am torn between deleting it and inserting a section discussing the matter. But it is a very difficult thing to discuss coherently at all, let alone without POV issues. JonRichfield (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Diseases that kill Mosquitoes
I think a section on diseases that kill mosquitoes will be a good addition to mosquito article. Much in the same way that the honey bee article has the diseases that kill honey bees. I would like to volunteer to write, but there are very few academic papers available. Can anyone suggest a good resource for me to get started? --Dchem (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If there's very little written about it, writing a section would be very hard. If you can only find one or two reliable sources, then the question must be asked if a section on it would be undue weight. SamBC(talk) 22:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Tidying up the article
"Such blood-sucking by females is not limited to ectoparasitic flies; it is also found in other families such as the Tabanidae." I've clarified this because the horse flies (Tabanidae) are also flies (Diptera) so the original sentence didn't make complete sense.

"Adult flying mosquitoes frequently rest in a tunnel that they build right below the roots of the grass." This is listed as requiring a citation, but is it even correct? I've never heard this claim anywhere else. It's also hard to imagine something as delicate as a mosquito digging a hole in the turf.

I've removed some mosquito bite remedies which had poor citations. Papain was subject to an FDA enforcement action after it was marketed as a drug without authorisation. There is no useful citation suggesting that ammonia is useful, and really it is hard to imagine why it would have an effect other than placebo. In particular, mosquito bites are not painful because of an acidic sting, which might be neutralised by ammonia. There is no reason to think that sucking the bite with a drinking straw or covering it with tape would work, and the citation does not refer to a peer-reviewed journal.

The reality is that there are no good treatments for insect bites. The UK National Health Service recommends washing the bite and applying a cold compress, because there is nothing else that can usefully be done in most cases. 

Pchown (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I heartily agree with most of what you say. For eg I was the one who asked for the citation, and for the same reason that you removed it, but proving a negative is not easy. Was someone thinking of Tipulidae perhaps? "Good" treatments??? Wellll... how good is good? I agree with the idea that there are no specifics that I know, which is hardly surprising for such a varied and idiopathic field, and I certainly have no serious citations to hand, but sometimes anti-histamines can help, and counter-irritants such as hot water compresses and immersion (about 50C) certainly can for a while (they certainly help for sea wasps and stonefish stings, so why not mozzies!) Traditional antipruritic aids such as slapping instead of scratching, mental distraction etc can help a lot. The most important measure I apply is NOT SCRATCHING! I don't have any citations of course, but in the discussion page that isn't so important :) For a specific, I have no better suggestion than bottled placebo... JonRichfield (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't actually remove the "tunnel below the grass" claim yesterday because I didn't feel confident enough! I thought I would post here and get a second opinion first.  However, since you seem to agree that it's unlikely (rather than being a true fact that would nevertheless benefit from a citation) I have now removed it.  I think you're probably right that someone got confused with the Tipulidae.


 * I see what you mean about bite treatments. "How good is good," as you say.


 * Pchown (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Adapting ability of mosquito's
Nowadays people are starting to use a tennis bat like equipment to electrify mosquito's in our place, but by time i came to realize that the size of the mosquito's has been starting decrease, so that they could escape from the electrified net of the bat.... please share your thoughts on this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.4.146.155 (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Mosquitoes do vary in size a lot, both within species and between species. You might also be seeing culicoides midges which are much smaller, but still bite.  I doubt the electrified bats create much evolutionary pressure when you consider that a single mosquito may lay hundreds of eggs. Pchown (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed on both counts. People attacked by almost any sort of midge are likely to assume that they are mosquitoes. In fact, they are inclined to blame mossies even if they see a Chironomid or Peychodid. If the correspondent enjoys using the paddle, good luck, but short of evry person on the planet buying one and going out on a simultaneous and sustained mosquito hunt, I cannot see it affecting the ecological situation seriously.  JonRichfield (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Knowledgeable taxonomist
I have looked in on him and left a note pointing out the responsibility of posting nonsense (such as just 3 spp. of disease vectoring mosquitoes!) on an encyclopedia used by billions, and requesting that in future he try to get a firm citation before posting material. Don't yet know what effect that will have, if any. JonRichfield (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Most dangerous animal on earth
Mosquitoes are the most dangerous animal on earth in the sense that they kill more people as a species. By speaking of "disease bearing mosquitoes" we transform that into a claim (for example) that a mosquito that carries malaria is more dangerous than a dog that carries rabies. That is an entirely different matter altogether. Better to stick to what the source says. --Lo2u (T • C) 21:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Questions
This article is too sophisticated for being "bold," so I will be content with merely asking.

An article in a local paper filtered an interview from Mosquito Control through a relatively unknowlegeable reporter. It seemed to say that in our area (Florida), that fresh water mosquitoes were "less aggressive" but "more deadly" than salt water ones. Deadly because they (apparently) had access to animals that are inland which carried West Nile, Malaria, etc. Salt-water ones near the coast had less access (in populated areas?) to roving animals. Article not online. Sorry.

Anyway, how does any of this sound? The article does not seem to differentiate much between salt-water and fresh-water species. Student7 (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well done, both in restraint and your questions. I am no expert either in mosquito matters, or in Floridan ecology, and from the wording it does seem that your assessment of the competence of your journalist is accurate. Never mind the article not being on line; if I am to check up, it would be better to check independent sources. However, there is nothing intrinsically ridiculous about the general theme.
 * There are however several questions concerning the local situation. For a start, how many of the local fresh- and salt-water mossies are the same species. Some species are not very fussy about salt, some will only breed in fresh water, and so on. However, it is conceivable that salt-water mossies are more aggressive because they are more short of mammalian food, so they don't let strangers pass without exacting duty. It also is quite believable that mosquitoes that have contact with a wide range of hosts might more frequently transmit viruses, protozoal diseases, or both. However, as far as it goes this is all hand-waving, in spite of being reasonable. What I will do is to ramp up some background education on the theme and supplement the article accordingly. It is a perfectly desirable topic to include. Wish me luck! JonRichfield (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The fresh water versus salt water issue sounds like a bit of a red herring to me. It may well be true in Florida but I'm not sure it would work as a general rule.  What is true is that mosquitoes in different areas are more or less problematic depending on the diseases they are exposed to.  Where I live (East Anglia, UK) we have anopheline mosquitoes that are capable of transmitting malaria.  Historically malaria transmission took place, but it no longer occurs, mainly because of habitat change and anti-malarial drugs.  Because of this, our anophelines aren't as dangerous as other people's anophelines, even though they might be the same species.


 * Another issue is that in some parts of the world, mosquitoes act as a bridge from animals to humans. Yellow fever occurs in non-human primates as well as people, for example.  If someone travels to an area where this has occurred, they can be bitten by Aedes africanus and become infected.  They then travel back to human areas where they start the usual cycle involving Aedes aegypti.


 * Well done (Jon) for offering to do the research. :) Pchown (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello again both.
 * Firstly, St, I agree with PC pretty well in detail. I am convinced that the SW/FW distinction is simply a function of salt marshes being uncongenial places for most humans to live, no matter how attractive they may be to biologists. The question of mossies vectoring imported pathogens is more complex; mosquito internal ecology is about as complex as the external ecology. Some pathogens kill or weaken the vector too abruptly (baaaad strategy! The holiest cow in the vectored pathogen's world view is: thou shalt honour thy vector, that thy days and thy family's years might be long in the land!) and such parasites don't last. Some apparently prime vector candidates turn out to be immune to the parasite for one reason or another (Eg not all Anopheles, not even all Anopheles of established vector spp. pass on all or any strains and spp. of Plasmodium. Interestingly, however, all the major genera of bloodsucking Culicidae seem to pass on filariasis, though I should not be surprised to find that there are a lot of ifs and buts.)
 * Secondly, I see that I had vaguely mentioned salt marshes before (or someone had; can't remember). I did a bit of filling in and rewording, but what bothers me now is that I have lost the thread a bit. If either of you would like to run an eye over the article and shout at me for messing it up so that I can have another go, please feel welcome. If I am not careful it becomes terribly easy to lose the thread as the article gets longer. And St, what I particularly would like to know is whether I have decreased or failed to improve the comprehensibility. (Damn! Meant to fill in some gaps in the graphics! I'll go and have another dekko.)
 * Cheers, Jon JonRichfield (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've just had a look through it, and it looks pretty good to me. There is a lot of information in there now.  I've been wondering about the to-do list at the top because most of the items seem to be done now:


 * Morphology/sexual dimorphism: we've got information on the mosquito-specific things, including the sexual dimorphism in the mouthparts and the antennae. There doesn't seem much point in including generic features that are shared by all Diptera.


 * Behaviour: we describe the behaviour of larvae, pupae and adults. Not sure if more is needed?


 * We don't say much about the evolution of mosquitoes, though I'm not sure how much is actually known. Not much is known by me, anyway, so I can't help much with this one. :)


 * Global distribution: I've added some information about this.


 * Lasting effects (of bites, presumably): We've got a reasonable discussion of this, but I've added a few details about the time it might take for the swelling to subside.


 * The article cited supports the claim about the evolutionary lineage (divergence of culicines and anophelines etc.). Do we need any more than that?


 * Pchown (talk) 11:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair comment. I have just added a couple of points concerning behaviour and feeding. You know as well as I do that there is no end to all the worthwhile stuff we could add if desired, but I reckon that we may be pretty close to the stage where we could await reasonable requests or inspired contributions, neither torturing ourselves with self-doubt, trying to cover all topics to indefinite depth. nor being small-minded about anyone wanting to add encyclopedic content. There are plenty of other articles waiting... JonRichfield (talk) 15:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

English comprehension detail
I came to this statement in the section "Control":

'Not all mosquitoes travel more than a few hundred metres if the wind is unfavorable.'

and I do not understand what it means. I am a native English speaker (from England), in my seventies, with a strong knowledge of the language. The fact that I find the sentence incomprehensible convinces me that it should be re-worded, but I hesitate to re-word it as the subject matter is outside my scope. Is there a mosquito-knowledgeable grammarian about who can make the statement comprehensible? --JHB (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite right. I have changed it and if anyone can improve on the new version, feel welcome. JonRichfield (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's another one which I, a native English speaker from England, am having trouble with:
 * Furthermore, even among mosquitoes that do carry important diseases, neither all species of mosquito, nor or all strains of a given species transmit the same kinds of diseases, nor do they all transmit the diseases under the same circumstances; their habits differ. For example, some species attack people in houses, and others prefer to attack people walking in forests. Accordingly, in managing public health it is important to know which species, even which strains, of mosquitoes one is dealing with.
 * Aside from "nor or", there's just too much exceptional language: "furthermore", "neither", "nor", "nor" again. When you're reading words like "even" and "that do" it sounds like a politician trying to convince you of something unreasonable. I want to rewrite it, but I'm afraid of changing the meaning, particularly around the end of the first sentence: "they" and "their", after "mosquitoes", "species of mosquito", and "all strains of a given species". Any ideas? --Rfsmit (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

POV & Citations vs invective
To justify removal of text one should have some basis better than an unsupported claim that it is POV. A statement given with the valid support of factual reasons is not POV. POV must be arguable. To demand citations sounds good, and if you really, really insist on citations to support some of the reasons given they would be possible, but don't you think it would be crazy to demand a citation to support "The roles of various species in different ecologies differ greatly..."? or "...many are active agents in recycling aquatic detritus..."? or "In practice, control measures focus on mosquito species that are vectors of human or livestock disease, or that are seriously irritant pests..."? or "Some, such as members of the genus Toxorhynchites, actually are beneficial predators of other mosquitoes"? You surely cannot be serious? The Toxorhynchites remark needs no citation because it is linked to the Toxorhynchites article, which has its own citations. Some of the other material is dealt with in this very article, but would be valid in terms of simple common sense. The only reason they even were mentioned were to justify what you called POV! As for POV, what point of view do you suggest is being pushed? JonRichfield (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Origin of the word
I have reverted the edit made by Lguipontes about the origin of the word because the text is conjectural, unreferenced and contradictory (Spanish or Portuguese origin?). I don't think this article is the right place for discussing the origin of the English word. Maybe the present text could be replaced by something like ''The word mosquito is from the Spanish or Portuguese for little fly: "mosca" (from the Latin musca) and diminutive "ito". Thoughts? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I wrote? This seems to be of unknown etymology actually, as a little fly in their language is mosquita and in ours is mosquinha. Furthermore, we Portuguese speakers don't use -ita or -ito for most diminutives for insects, including these, albeit there is a possibility that this loanword entered English by Portuguese and not by its obvious most probable origin, Spanish. About the correct place to write it, eh, I thought it'd be lame to insert my new paragraph about etymology between two texts talking about biology. Lguipontes (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have sympathies both ways in this matter, being fond of etymology as a field of discussion. Furthermore it seems reasonable to mention the broad topic of the English etymology of an English word in an English article when that word is the name of the subject of the article. A thoroughgoing historical analysis of that topic however certainly would be out of place. The reference given (Shorter OED) is about as authoritative as one could demand. It mentions the source as 16th century Sp & Pg and for all I know the Portuguese term may well have changed since then; certainly English has changed in the interval, and so have German, Dutch, Hungarian, Afrikaans (muskiet) and possibly even Tagalog. For my money it probably would be best simply to ascribe the root to 16th century Iberian, but I am willing to compromise on just plain Spanish. I appreciate Lguipontes' concern for comprehensive academic coherence, but I don't think this article is a suitable forum for the point at issue. Possibly a new article on Iberian etymology or even comparative Latin language etymology could be created, and I expect that it would prove as interesting as any other work on historical etymology, but this certainly is not the appropriate place, nor are the purer Anglophones among us the appropriate readership. As things stand at present, I see no need to delete the existing passing remark on the etymology, nor to expand on it. But I am open to cogent persuasion... JonRichfield (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I'll not make a point... Your reasons and those of Alvesgaspar are more than sufficiently good for explaining why it has no place here, and I'm not really knowledgeable about it perhaps except my native skills in West Iberian. Anyway a little fly wouldn't be a mosquito even if we go back centuries ago, though. It would not surprise me if it was a change caused by language evolution outside Iberia, but no, we use the same word in Spanish and Portuguese. It comes from Latin musca, then mosca, that is feminine. There must be a reason why this word is masculine. My first attempt was to correct the sentence that the origin of the word is from Spanish mosca + -ito, which bears no sense at all for the reason stated, for slightly obscure etymology (still from Spanish, though entering English by gosh-knows-whom), but everytime I start editing, I get inspired and try to put something more. Lguipontes (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, we still use diminutives the same way than in the 16th century. Galician diverged from Portuguese in the mid 12th century and they have the same diminutives. European Portuguese started to diverge from Brazilian and conservative African Portuguese in the mid-to-late 16th century and by the 19th century the language was no longer recognizable as a collective of dialects with gradual differences from region to region but as two main variants largely divergent on phonology, prosody and to some extent even grammar, still we use the same diminutives. All innovative traits of Brazilian Portuguese (most frowned upon depending on the context, deemed to be substandard) are shared with various other Romance languages, so the only thing that is likely to change a lot with time for us is spelling. We may absorb many loanwords (not sufficient to cause even about 2% in differences of lexicon between pt-PT and pt-BR), but português arcaico from the 16th century is still almost completely understandable for us (people sometimes try to reconstruct – something easy, or at least by and large possible, as dialects in both sides of the Atlantic preserve many old characteristics or it is documented – and do historical films with it). Even texts from the 13th century are mostly legible, ignoring tons of spelling reforms since and paying attention to etymology just as if it was Spanish. Lguipontes (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I can well understand your frustrations, but I also am a little confused. I did some checking with the intention of replacing the current etymology with something more linguistically correct in the light of your original edit (I am not maliciously obstructive, just stupid). However, when I went to online translators (I regrettably am no Hispanophone) the only translation of the diminutive of fly (I had to go to the Dutch "vliegje"; English is greatly impoverished in diminutives and Fliegechen didn't work!) what did I get? Mosquito!


 * So please be gentle with us...


 * It is extremely likely in every way that any distortion might have entered via the English orthography and ear of the day; Iberian tongues might have been surprisingly stable in the interval, but surprisingly few modern Anglophones can even read Shakespeare's English nowadays and even fewer can read it easily and comprehend it reliably.


 * What you say about the divergence of Portuguese colonial dialects is extremely interesting and sounds remarkably closely parallel to what has happened to various Dutch colonial dialects. For example, Afrikaans sounds archaic to most Dutch speakers, whereas Dutch sounds archaic to most Afrikaans speakers. There also are parallels even in "English". Some American modes of speech (use of participles like "gotten", for example) sound archaic to the literate English, whereas cases such as "whom" sound all but incomprehensible to all but the most literate Americans.


 * Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Stupid? LOL, no, you seem to be far more intelligent than me at best.
 * For me the etymology of mosquito is really Spanish. Why those particular species were thought to bear particularly "masculine" characteristics among flies, I don't know.
 * I think http://translate.google.com/#es/en/mosquita, http://translate.google.com/#pt/en/mosquinha and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mosqui%C3%B1a.jpg may answer your questions. Thank you for the consideration. Lguipontes (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. The source presented clearly states that Mosquito is a Portuguese word and a Spanish word. The word was borrowed to English from Portuguese or Spanish. People must have something against Portuguese language to keep discarding this fact. I would recommend people to read these 3 sources before deleting the well sourced information: Department of Agriculture of Maryland, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language  and American Mosquito Control Association. By reading some comments here, it seems some people know little about Portuguese language grammar. If anyone have doubts about -ito suffix usage in diminutive in the Portuguese language,including in the mosquito word, please read these (in portuguese) Tacv (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Request to add photos
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Siamaksabet (talk • contribs) 21:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Poor quality, there are better photos available. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I also came for a similar reason. the back photo here: Mosquito#Mosquito_bites_and_treatment is kind of bad. I don't want to upset anyone by just taking it off on my own call, but its low quality and not very instructive. its not an article about bite surface patterns or anything, and it might as well be (back)acne. Joeav (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree the back photo isn't very useful. I don't have any problem with it being removed. Pchown (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I too agree; if for example, someone has shots showing clinical detail that ties in with text, that would seem to earn its space far better. JonRichfield (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

how long do mosquitos live for?
Is was wondering how long mosquitos live for and was wondering if they can transmitted diseses to other people while they are full of others blood?

Thank you,

jessiemay301, email is cjessie234@aol.com

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessiemay301 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

According to the University of Sydney, females have a lifespan of 2-3 weeks while males live for shorter period. Don't know about the other part of your question. Chiefmartinez (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Current new News
Headline-1: The No. 1 Killer on This ‘Deadliest Animals’ Infographic Might Surprise You QUOTE: "More than 700,000 people — that’s how many lives are taken each year thanks to a bite from small and seemingly innocuous animal.Bill Gates released this powerful infographic on his blog late last week to highlight a campaign against the deadly and debilitating diseases that are carried by mosquitoes. “Personally I’ve had a thing about sharks since the first time I saw ‘Jaws,’” Gates wrote on his blog. “But if you’re judging by how many people are killed by an animal every year, then the answer isn’t any of the above. It’s mosquitoes.” Gates pointed out that malaria, which is a parasite spread by the mosquito, kills more than 600,000 people per year, but it also is debilitating for an additional 200 million. And that’s just one of many mosquito-borne illnesses." [Bill Gates brings attention to malaria.] -- AstroU (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
 * http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/29/the-no-1-killer-on-this-deadliest-animals-infographic-might-surprise-you/
 * Here's the Bill Gates 'blog' url: AstroU (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Honeydew is mentioned in the "Mouthparts" section as food for mosquitoes
The honeydew page on Wikipedia describes it as that sugary liquid that comes out of the back end of an aphid. Are we sure that mosquitoes consume this food? (I don't have access to reference 36)

Mosquito's piercing mouthparts seem unsuitable for licking an aphid and wouldn't the ants object to an interloper harvesting honeydew from their herd?

Becalmed (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't like to generalise, but I'd be surprised if a mosquito never sucked honeydew. They certainly suck nectar from some flowers. I'd be mildly surprised to see a mosquito licking an aphid, but honeydew comes out of a large number of sucking plant bugs (Hemiptera) apart from aphids (from mealy bugs and scale insects for a start) and many of them scatter large quantities of honeydew, enough to leave black fungus covering leaves, and syrup anointing cars parked beneath trees etc. They often leave visible large drops of the fluid on surfaces, and any mosquito encountering one without getting stuck, might well stop for a sip. JonRichfield (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Natural predators of mosquito
If any evidence (or speculation by a reputable authority) is available that the extinct Passenger pigeon had been a natural predator of the mosquito, I urge that it be mentioned in the natural predators section.2601:7:7700:1A6:3894:E88:C50D:1C3B (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That would be reasonable but I've never heard any such speculation. :-) Did you post this because you knew of some evidence yourself? Pchown (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Same here. I don't believe it anyway; Of several species of doves I never have seen any evidence of their deliberately eating any insects, though of course they must pick up some insects accidentally on occasion, while swallowing seeds etc. If someone is arguing that it must have been true because fevers have vanished from certain areas simultaneously with the extinction of the pigeon, that would be a very tenuous argument, because one of the main causes of the extinction of the pigeon was habitat loss, including in particular destruction of forests. That might well have wiped out a lot of mosquitoes, leaving the fevers without a vector. Just a thought. JonRichfield (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The lead
I see there has been considerable back and forth between adding a first section heading and merging it back into the lead. If the first section heading is again removed, can whoever does that please ensure that the lead is actually well-composed, rather than repeating the same information two or three times? Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Culex restuans larva diagram en.svg to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Culex restuans larva diagram en.svg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 19, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-07-19. 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! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Eradication
Looks like the eradication subsection is getting some attention

However, the piece cited is only a news article in Nature written by a journalist. Most discussions on eradicated mosquitoes revolve around eradicating a single disease vectoring species or two in an area, especially those that are not native to the area. Invasive species being eradicated wouldn't have strong negative environmental impacts by having them absent, and others have discussed eliminating only a single native species or two that carries human diseases wouldn't affect the rest of the food web since the other species would fill in food niche for other predators. That's the summary of what I've been hearing at meetings and in general as an entomologist in the past few years, but I'll admit I have not been indexing sources on this area. I'm going to do a little searching in the future to see if we can update this section, but I just wanted to give a heads up in case anyone else might be more handy with mosquito related sources than I am since I don't work on them. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Removing paragraph
Can we remove the final paragraph of the section "Egg development and blood digestion"? It seems to me that it adds no real understanding of the broader subject and is entirely too narrow. 37.29.106.215 (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * IMO that paragraph should be reworked to talk about digestion in mosquitoes generally. I feel it's useful information but I agree it's wrong to talk only about Anopheles stephensi.  Also at the moment it's close to a verbatim quote of the source cited at the end of the paragraph, probably close enough that it's a copyright infringement. Pchown (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with either rewording it to a very generalized one-sentence summary, or removing it altogether. I'm too lazy to check who added it, but a good bet would probably be someone associated with the source. It doesn't fit at all with the tone or flow of the rest of the article, and honestly doesn't really add any relevant information unless you happen to be interested in the kinetics of enzyme activity in the Anopheles midgut. DadOfBeanAndBug (talk) 03:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Distribution
In the Distribution section, there is no mention of places in the U.S. where there are few or no mosquitoes. I have a relative who lives in Orofino, Idaho. For many years, I have gone there to visit for a week in the summer. Although I spend a lot of time outdoors in Orofino, I have yet to see a mosquito, much less get bitten by one. I am curious as to why this is, but the Mosquito article has failed to enlighten me. Am I missing something? --72.87.182.14 (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If you can find a scientific or otherwise highly reliable source (state Department of Agriculture, Forestry, Natural Resources, Recreation, or equivalent, state or local university/college, etc., for example) documenting such phenomena, then by all means add it. However, one person's non-scientific observations for one week out of the year do not count. Mosquito levels are regulated by many factors, including altitude, climate, weather history, time of year, presence of predators and prey, and more, any of which could be involved. Interesting experience, but not suited for WP unless verified. DadOfBeanAndBug (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not just one person's observations. Many local people that I speak to in Orofino know that mosquitoes are scarce in that area and consider it a benefit of living there. Orofino is at an altitude of about 1100 feet, is located along the Clearwater River, and is surrounded by mountainous terrain and pine forests. There is a fair amount of rain and I see as much standing water there as I see anywhere else. It is a puzzle to me and I assumed that experts in mosquito habitat would know the reason.--72.87.182.67 (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:OR. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what this has to do with original research. I just thought it was a simple question that could be easily answered. In which case I thought it should be discussed in the Distribution section of the article. It's like going someplace and saying "my gosh, it has rained every day since I got here" and a local person replying "sure, it rains a lot around here." In Orofino, one might say "I've sat outside several evenings and have yet to get a mosquito bite" to which a local person would reply "that's because you hardly ever see any mosquitoes around here." It's an accepted local fact. I don't know how wide the mosquito-free area is. It may be most of North-central Idaho. In any case, whenever I'm puzzled by something I go to Wikipedia and get an answer. I guess this is the exception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.182.67 (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Constant vandalism
The amount of vandalism that keeps appearing on this article is ridiculous. I suggest that this article should be semi-protected to prevent IP users from vandalising. Burklemore1 (talk) 09:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable, but I don't know how to nominate an article for protection. Pchown (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I added a request Requests_for_page_protection. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Mosquito dimensions and weight
I updated the discussion of mosquito size using figures from Service, Medical Entomology for Students.

The old figure for mosquito weights was inaccurate I think, but I don't have a very good source. In Keith Snow, Mosquitoes, there is a graph showing weights of individuals from a population of Aedes punctor. The midpoint of the graph is about 5mg so I used that in the article, because it's likely to be more accurate than the old figure (up to 2.5mg, which is clearly contradicted by the graph). Does anyone have a better figure, though?

Pchown (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Heritability of attractiveness
The PlosONE article cited in support of the idea that attractiveness to mosquitoes has a heritable component is very weak evidence. It consists of poor statistical analysis supporting a correlation that appears to be rather weak even if true. Verytas (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, tweak the entry to say "provides weak support for" or something of that sort. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Verytas: I'd be interested to know what the concern is. Is it the small sample size?  I looked at the comments posted on the Plos One site, and none of them are critical of the study, which seems surprising if there is a significant weakness. Pchown (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I call this "shotgun science". The datapoints in the graphs look like the result of shotgun hit, not a true correlation.  Indeed, you can almost always get an apparent correlation on this type of graph from a random distribution.  Sample size is not the issue. Look at the central figure in this paper illustrating correlations - most values on one axis include most values on the other axis.  See also Anscombe's Quartet for an illustration of the weakness of this kind of data. Verytas (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Why not start by posting a comment on the Plos One site, and see what the authors have to say? It feels a bit like WP:Original_Research if we're negative about a paper here, when there don't seem to be negative comments in the scientific literature.  Unfortunately I also don't understand your reasoning about it not being a 'true' correlation.  There is a mathematical test for correlation which is met by the data the authors present.  Looking at the graph, to me it looks correlated; that's subjective of course but Anscombe seemed to be arguing for the need to take a subjective look at data. Pchown (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually I've just looked again and I see what you mean about the relative attraction graph. Visually the correlation doesn't look that strong.  Why not ask the authors about it?  I'd be interested to know what they say. Pchown (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Mosquitoes Are Deadly, So Why Not Kill Them All?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/mosquitoes-are-deadly-so-why-not-kill-them-all-1472827158

Basically, because we tried it with DDT and a lot of recoil was on the weapon regarding other species, including us. In another example, we could try draining all the swampland in this world. That would inevitably affect other species, starting with ducks, and ending with more desert. 174.3.179.14 (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)