Talk:Odontomachus bauri

Additional Sections
Hello, I am a student studying social wasps. To increase the scope of the page, I think that it would be interesting to add a few more sections. After the section on foraging behavior, it would be logical to include a section about “Offspring Care” to give information about how the larval ants are fed in the nests. Additionally, because this species is in the order Hymenoptera, it would also be interesting to include a section on “Haplodiploidy Sex Determination.” This is a fundamental phenomenon in Hymenoptera, and might give a more thorough understanding of the species. I learned a lot from this article, thank you! Kirinne (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments
Hi, I am a student from Washington University. I just wanted to give my thoughts on this article. I thought that this article provides a very thorough description of a very aggressive specie of ants. The article does a good job of clearly outlining each section and providing a concise and descriptive account of the specie within each section. I found the description of their mandibles to be most interesting. These ants have a spring-loaded jaw that allows them to have a powerful bite. However, there are also categories that are missing in the article. One of these important cateogories that the article misses is the taxonomy and phylogeny of the ants. By explaining the taxonomy of these ants, many things can be inferred about the ants by looking at the ants that are related to the species. Another omitted section is Kin Selection. Insects that function in colonies, such as ants, often have interesting method of producing the next generation. It would have been great for the article to talk about the sex ratios and gene distribution among the types of ants in the colony. Lastly, a category that the miss out on is the specific role that the specie plays in the ecosystem. The article could have mentioned how the behavior of the ants affect the habitat, influencing the different species in the area. The article was rated “B” in quality and “low” in importance. I agree that the article definitely is an improvement from some of the other articles I criticized, not just in quality of writing, but also in the level of detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.48.7 (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)