Talk:Powderpost beetle

Woodworkers sometimes like powderpost beetle damage
If the board still has structual intregrity, the damage lends a very unique figure that can be quite desireable. Will (Talk - contribs) 13:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

inappropriate image
Why is there a larval-stage image included with the caption clearly identifying it as not of the family the powderpost beetle belongs to? It appears that this is to contrast and compare the larval-stages of the different beetles but this comparison does not happen in the body of the content, just in the captions of the images in the sidebar. Even this compare-and-contrast seems to belong in a topic higher in the heirarchy that both beetles belong to, rather than in the powderpost beetle topic to say ‘by the way, thos one isn’t it’ Fivey (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, the lead mentions that cerambycid damage can look similar to Lyctinae damage, so I can see why we might discuss their larval forms in this article, and there is a sentence doing so at the end of the lead. I suppose if we only have a larval image of a different Bostrichoidea, it's OK for a comparison with Cerambycidae. At any rate, the images were added in this edit by JonRichfield – Jon, any thoughts on this? —&#8239; The Earwig (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up, folks.  The Earwig is quite right. In biology it often is NOT sufficient to show what a species looks like; you need to see a contrasting subject to know what it does NOT look like. Woodborers are a particularly confusing group of families for people in other fields, because the larvae generally are invisible until problems show up. Then you see a larva and don't even know the family because you are not familiar with the field. Cerambycidae are not usually present in the same context as the Bostrychoidea, and of all the commonest wood borers, their larvae are most dramatically different. The Bostrychid larva illustrated in the article is reasonably like most other Bostrychid larvae, so those illustrations are about as helpful as we can get in WP unless we could find better and more specific pics in Wikimedia. I did look, and if someone can find more useful illustrations, I wouldn't have the slightest objection to anyone replacing the current ones, and I would even be willing to go out looking for shots myself, but my circumstances do not often bring me in contact with them.
 * So in summary, I reckon that the pictures in question earn their place in serving readers till better ones show up, but that better ones will be welcome when we get some. Cheers JonRichfield (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)