Talk:Polistes carnifex

Untitled
Although the information in this article was well written, there was much information that this article did not include. Originally the colony cycle section was empty and the current behavior section was titled biology. In the biology section, there were a few sentences that pertained to the colony cycle; thus, I moved that information to fill the colony cycle section. The rest of the information in the previously titled behavior section was relevant to foraging behavior, and, therefore, I added a subsection titled foraging. In the talk page, I added the course banner as well. To add additional information, the author may consider using the article “Description and biological notes of the first species of Xenos (Strepsiptera: Stylopidae) parasitic in Polistes carnifex F. (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) in Mexico”; it includes more descriptive information to add to the description and identification section and information that pertains to interactions to other organisms, as well as the “Polymorphic Mimicry of Polistine Wasps by a Neotropical Neuropteran” article, which may hold information on mimicry. Yangjennyh (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Jenny (Yangjennyh) for your edits and suggested comments. I had made the switch from biology to colony cycle a long time ago, but perhaps due to some technical glitch it was not showing. I actually used the article "Description and biological notes of the first species of Xenos (Strepsiptera: Stylopidae) parasitic in Polistes carnifex F. (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) in Mexico” extensively, but did not come across as much beneficial material as I had hoped. Perhaps the article was beyond my level of understanding, and another contributor can add more from it. I went through the article “Polymorphic Mimicry of Polistine Wasps by a Neotropical Neuropteran” several time, but unfortunately I have not had extensive experience with this topic, thus found the article inaccessible.Alison Gozlan (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review
Thank you for your comments Amgoldberg. I looked back at the items that I had quoted and I don't know of another way to state them since they are technical, so in order to maintain the integrity of the original author I must keep the quote, but I would be open to other contributor's edits. Another Wikipedia contributor was able to address the duplicate sources and fix it, so thanks for pointing it out. The correct "pedicel" link is "Pedicel (antenna)," but when I tried to link it, it said that the page didn't exist. Alison Gozlan (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems as though you have added a lot more information since first creating the page. In this article I made some grammar edits, such as fixing the spelling of something or syntax issues. I added hyperlinks also. There were a few confusing sentences that seemed to be confusing as a result of the paraphrasing from the original article, and closer attention to the paraphrasing would help. In the sentence: “The nests are hanging and open-faced, supported by a single pedicel in the centre which is strengthened by a tough gelatinous material”, I tried to hyperlink pedicel but I was unclear what it is referring to, when given suggestions of what pedicel can mean. Also, you have a few citations at the end that are repeated. It is relatively easy to fix this using the edit source beta option. When creating a citation, click "re-use" and it will allow you to chose from previously listed sources. Overall, this is a good article. Amgoldberg15 (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Mostly, I went through and removed citations that were repeated throughout the article. I especially focused on the sections “Parasites” and “Colony Cycle” because it’s convention to simply cite at the end of the paragraph if the source is all the same for all the sentences within the paragraph. Under the “Taxonomy and Phylogeny” section, I edited some of the sentences so that the information was made clearer. I also removed any links that led to pages that don’t exist yet. Overall, the article did cover a lot of information, was extremely well written, and was well organized. I still feel like it could benefit from a few added pictures, particularly in the “Parasites” section so that the reader knows what type of insect parasitizes Polistes carnifex, but overall great job. Samontenegro (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Samontenegro for your suggestions and for your help in improving the article. I actually think that it would not contribute much to add picture of the parasites since this page is about Polistes carnifex specially, it may be misleading to add pictures of another species. Alison Gozlan (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Peer review
There is a lot of really good information presented in this article. Not only is it well-rounded information, but it also is specific where it needs to be. I changed a few sentences in the Taxonomy and phylogeny section in order to fix an issue with syntax and a few typos. I also fixed a typo in the Description section. I felt like it was a little bit awkward to start the Colony cycle section off with a quote; instead, I think it would make more sense to paraphrase it and then cite that. Also I was unclear about the information of the colony cycle: did you have a source that specifically talks about this species’ colony cycle or was it inferred information based on what is known about Polistes in general? Lastly, the tone of the feeding section is inconsistent with the rest of the article – it would make more sense to explain that some observed behaviors include eating caterpillars and returning to the same place where the rest of the body lay instead of telling a story about this behavior. Overall, this is a good article and with a few tweaks should be easily improved! Rey_ks (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2014

Thank you for your comments and edits. I do not understand what you mean by "returning to the rest of where the body lay." The information about the colony cycle was mostly inferred as little information was available on this species. Alison Gozlan (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional Comments
What is the source for the last few sentences of your descriptive overview? I would like to see more elaboration on the mandibles and teeth as evolutionary adaptations, since you mention this like it’s important to know. I’m unsure how this adds to the overview of the species as a whole. Your article is very detailed in the sections that matter. Great job! It would be nice to see a section on human impacts and interactions, if the information is available. Kellykries (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I did not come across information on the mandibles and teeth's importance. I had looked for the human impact information, but unfortunately this information was not available.Alison Gozlan (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional Comments
Previously, a sentence in the overview read, “solitary queens found colonies, and exhibiting winter aggression, wait until environmental conditions are suitable to building a colony.” This sentence did not make sense to me. After further exploration, I realized that throughout the article, instead of stating “winter aggregations”, the nesting behavior was cited as “winter aggressions” especially throughout the overview and colony cycle sections. I went ahead and changed all of these mistakes. In addition, I modified the confusing sentence in the overview section to read “The colonies are often founded by solitary queens, many times in the form of winter aggregations to wait until environmental conditions are more suitable for building a colony”. Also, the reference made about the “winter aggregations” fact in the overview was to the source titled “Description and biological notes of the first species of Xenos (Strepsiptera: Stylopidae) parasitic in Polistes carnifex F. (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) in Mexico” but the winter aggregations fact is not found within this source, but rather, is found in the reference titled “Winter aggregations, colony cycle, and seasonal phenotypic change in the paper wasp Polistes versicolor in subtropical Brazil”. Therefore, I fixed this improper in-line citation. There were many sources listed in the reference list that did not have Polistes carnifex italicized, so I fixed all of these in the reference list. Diana He819 (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for these edits! They are great improvements!Alison Gozlan (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional Comments
Nice job! I added a few additional links to further help your article gain more traffic. I did this the most in the Taxonomy and Phylogeny section. Also I would suggest adding more information about the description of the physical characteristics of your wasp. Also I changed a few things formatting wise throughout the article in order to make it more succinct and easier to read. Also in the distribution and habitat part of the article I would suggest expanding on the meaning of an ephemeral swamp. In the colony cycle section I would suggest paraphrasing the first sentence instead of having it be a quotation. Also you could probably break this section up into multiple sections as it is pretty long. Overall you did a very nice job on this article and your wasp is very interesting. Amy Krause

Additional Comments
Your article has a lot of great information! However, I changed a few things to improve it a bit. For example, under the worker policing section, you state that the queen's relatedness to her own offspring is r=0.25, but it should really be r=0.5, so I changed that so that correct information is supplied and so that readers understand why the queen would prefer to rear her own sons. Also, there were a couple of places were the name of your species was not italicized, so I fixed that as well. In addition, you mention that the nest is often founded by a single queen, which is usually referred to as "independent-founding." I think it would be good to include this terminology so that you provide a good contrast with other species that are swarm-founding. Lastly, if you can add external links to your article, that would be awesome! Overall, Great job! Three is me (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Potential misapplication of a so-called 'common name'
The name 'executioner wasp' has suddenly appeared on this page, based solely on a fleeting glimpse of an unidentified hymenopteran at the end of a video by a TV personality and adventurer broadcast in autumn 2017. No link was made to explicitly to P. carnifex - nor indeed to any of the 300 similar species in the genus Polistes. This is not a reliable source, and the name could easily have been made up for the TV show. Of course, a citation to a serious publication linking common name to P.carnifex would be fine. However, I have been unable to find any online sources associating to this particular species with that name. As a result, the link to a YouTube video has been removed, as has a link to an unnamed photo obtained on reddit. I recognise these have been good faith additions, but the accidental insertion of misinformation like this, unsupported by proper sources is not conducive to creating a reliable encyclopaedia. Editors should discuss the reapplication of any common name here (with proper references, of course) before inserting into the article. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Someone has re-added it. People watch too many stupid film clips. I will add a new section on common names and remove it there. I note that English is only spoken in a few areas where this species likely occurs: Belize, Guyana, perhaps Trinidad & Tobago... "Excecutioner wasp" looks like sensationalist nonsense. If it were in any way accurate, it would likely be a calque from a local language. If this species has a common name, it is most likely in Spanish or Portuguese, so I searched in those languages and found common names in the Guaraní -which has nothing to do with this. Leo Breman (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "Looks like sensationalist nonsense" is no less subjective opinion in itself. Executioner is a perfectly appropriate translation of the specific Latin name carnifex; moreover, it doesn't refer to the severity of the sting at all, it refers to the wasp's habit of visibly decapitating its prey. It only "looks like sensationalist nonsense" by coincidence. I'm shifting the term back to the lede as the most common English vernacular name on the basis of its use not only in the sources already cited, but in print literature as well, notably the 2016 first edition of Insects of Latin America: A Photographic Guide by Stephen Cresswell (p.132). And although the wide recognition of the term as a result of Coyote Peterson's video has admittedly has been reflected mostly in popular vernacular, it also includes inter alia usage in a biometry course at Vanier College, Québec. The association of the name "executioner wasp" specifically with Polistes carnifex has basically been secured; it's time that was recognised. Thefamouseccles (talk) 08:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

That sting...
Its certainly memorable, causing necrosis around the site and being possibly the most painful out of all insects. I feel that would be a good detail to add to the “memorable” sting that it causes LucasIsNotAToy (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that since Nathaniel "Coyote" Peterson subjected himself to the plethora of stings on the Schmidt Index, and following his sting with this creature called it the 'king' - There should really be a mentioning in the article, perhaps a sting section, suggesting that it could be considered the/one of the strongest stings discovered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.127.19.48 (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Specific size
I have read through coyote petersons “king of sting” book that the body length of the Executioner is 1.5 - 2 inches. If we could find a wingspan maybe add this info? LucasIsNotAToy (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Polistes carnifex is not territorial
No citation. Contradictory with.


 * Going through the older versions in the history of this article it appear this is a misreading of Mary Corn's statement that most of the 6 nests she saw were built very near to the nests of other species of Hymenoptera. I removed it. I also removed Corn's other assertion in the second part of the same sentence in the lede yesterday regarding her statement that this species is free of parasites. Better/newer research showed she was wrong in this -she only looked at a very small sample size, hardly statistically significant, no wonder she was wrong. Leo Breman (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

[Better Source Needed]
So I'm reading this "...has been noted as having the most painful sting out of all discovered insect species.[2][better source needed]"

My question to the person tagging is this: what would you consider a better source? There's only ONE person who's documented being stung by the most powerful stings among all insects. Who is a better source than Coyote Peterson? Not asking this as a Coyote fan (which I'm not). Just in general. What would pass your threshold? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C891:10C0:81:93A4:EBC3:2FA (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Heh, and I (the one who added the better source needed) actually am a Coyote fan. Well, as far as Coyote Peterson being the only person documented to have compared the pain of these different insects, you do a disservice to Justin O. Schmidt, even though his  Schmidt sting pain index didn't include the executioner wasp.


 * You'll note that I didn't do any tagging in the "Sting" section aside from the unsourced and non-Coyote-specific "Although not a particularly aggressive species, it has garnered a chilling reputation in many Latin American countries for its memorable sting." The stuff regarding Coyote's opinion of the sting is phrased perfectly acceptably.


 * I tagged the first sentence in the lead ("Polistes carnifex, also known as the executioner wasp, is a neotropical vespid wasp in the cosmopolitan genus Polistes and has been noted as having the most painful sting out of all discovered insect species.") because it implies there's consensus on this, rather than just being a single man's opinion.  The "noted as" could be rewritten to "noted by animal commentator Coyote Peterson" and then the tag could be removed.  --Dan Harkless (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Unlike Schmidt or Starr, both of whom are noted entomologists, Coyote Peterson is not an expert in this (or any related) field; simply being stung on camera and then reporting the results to an audience is not reliable evidence. And the format of his program (Youtube clickbait) gives ample incentive for him to sensationalize the outcome; were he to get stung and report that it felt like a honeybee, it would be bad for business.  Academic publishing has far fewer such perverse incentives.  Unfortunately, there are few documented field reports of P. carnifex stings.  However, Coyote's exploits should be confined to the article on him, and not included as a source on pages covering actual wasp species. 165.225.50.178 (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a youtuber with no background in the subject is a questionable source at best. I also find very dubious to have a description of his words about it when they carry little to no weight on the subject. Imo the passage about Peterson should either be confined to one short sentence, or be deleted altogether. Harpoonman (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Trying to remove references to Coyote Peterson videos from Wikipedia is a truly Sisyphean task; if you delete a reference, it WILL be re-added, sooner or later. I've given up trying. Dyanega (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Picture
Are there any good pictures? Anyone know how to do that? Thanks, 63.248.183.82 (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Parasitized?
I noticed several statements here on whether or not the species is parasitized that are directly contradictory, and also found another wiki page describing the parasitism and linking to this page.

'Strepsipteran insects in the genus Xenos parasitize Polistes carnifex, a species of social wasps.[23] These obligate parasites infect the developing wasp larvae in the nest and are present within the abdomens of female wasps when they hatch out. Here they remain until they thrust through the cuticle and pupate (males) or release infective first-instar larvae onto flowers (females). These larvae are transported back to their nests by foraging wasps.[24]' Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strepsiptera

Also, two adjoining paragraphs in the 'Parasites' section from this entry show the disagreement with comical directness: 'In a study of the nests of Polistes carnifex, there was no conclusive evidence in any of the nests that suggested parasitism. Although in three cells there was an additional egg that may appear to come from another species, these eggs were of the Polistes carnifex species. Moreover, when 10 larvae were dissected at random, they did not suggest parasitism.[2]

Polistes carnifex wasps are parasitized by strepsipteran insects in the genus Xenos.[10] These obligate parasites infect the developing wasp larvae in the nest and are present within the abdomens of female wasps when they hatch out. Here they remain until they thrust through the cuticle and pupate (males) or release infective first-instar larvae onto flowers (females). These larvae are transported back to their nests by foraging wasps.[16]'

The first paragraph says 'no'. The second 'yes'.

Not being an entomologist, I hesitate to make edits. Perhaps someone more qualified can pick up the ball. RobotBoy66 (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)