Talk:Rasberry crazy ant

Copyright issues
This article is pretty darn close the article I came across on Netscape News []. It must be an AP article that's made the news all over everywhere...I won't mention the P word, but we need to do something about this!

Hires an editor (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The article has no verbatim-copyright issues with respect to the particular channels.isp.netscape.com link you provided. As far as ideas being copied, that may be plagiarism in the academic sense, and it might qualify if this were a fictional work, but facts in news stories are not a WP:COPYVIO.  If it were, Wikipedia would be relegated to using only public-domain or freely-licensed sources, which would make it basically useless.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  16:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Our article spells the genus name correctly. Otherwise it is paraphased, true. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, so that is the P word is. my bad. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  20:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This ant is the same ant as the Caribbean crazy ant:http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in560. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.1.59 (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this the same as Solenopsis invicta?
I strongly suspect it is the case and that the odd latin name (no species has such name, it's always Genus species) is some silly joke that mislead the journalist or some other silly error. Solenopsis invicta, aka red imported fire ant is also well known for meddling with electronic equipment (they like warmth and resist microwaves perfectly), having several queens and are frequent in Texas (and all the southern USA) but were introduced in 1930 and are not described as particularly small.

If it's another new invasory species, then it should have a more scientific name. --Sugaar (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Forget it. I already found in the external links that it is a different genus and that the name is because it is not well defined as species. Maybe Crazy Rasberry ants would be a better title anyhow. And the first external link provides a lot more info on this plague. --Sugaar (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * what does it mean/translate - 'near pubens'?? --85.141.91.178 (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the "species near" isn't Latin but rather Plain English. It means "This is in the genus Paratrechina.  We aren't sure what species or subspecies it is, but if this is a different species or subspecies, it's genetically very close to pubens or a subspecies of it."  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * thx! Surely, you are right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.91.178 (talk) 07:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Latin name
UNL reffers to this species as "Paratrechina longicornis": http://lancaster.unl.edu/pest/ants/Crazyants.shtml

/rmariboe 213.185.8.131 (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a different species, probably one that deserves its own article. See Paratrechina.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  19:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed you are correct, Paratrechina longicornis is in fact a different species entirely from this raspberry ant. I agree that Paratrechina longicornis should have a separate page as it is a common pest ant throughout America and many other continents as well. Additionally, today there was a press release from the USDA announcing that the specimens of Paratrechina near pubens (and yes that is common terminology for an unknown species) discovered recently in Texas and surrounding areas are now officially recognized as Paratrechina fulva. I know this because I am a student worker in a myrmecology lab that was contacted via e-mail by the USDA with this information. I have yet to find an article source however. I'd be very much appreciative if someone could find something. Anyway, if you look at the difference between P. vulva and P.longicornis you can see that mistaking the two is quite laughable. They look nothing alike. Do your homework guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.39.127.57 (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest changing the name of the article to Paratrechina fulva once there is a verifiable source found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.39.127.57 (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur but ONLY after a very reliable source is found. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  01:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The article says that this is the same species as the "Caribbean crazy ant", Nylanderia (=Paratrechina) pubens, but this is not a given. University of Florida entomologists proposed the common name of "Caribbean crazy ant" as this ant is native to several Caribbean islands. See http://entomology.ifas.ufl.edu/creatures/urban/ants/caribbean_crazy_ant.htm. Apparently, in Texas the ant is being called "Raspberry crazy ant" or some other variant as it was, according to one of the Florida scientists, initially "discovered" by a pest control operator by that name, and the press started calling it after him. There is no "official" common name for this species as yet. Plus, as stated above, the Texas and Caribbean Islands/Florida species may not even be the same. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just over at the Tom Rasberry WP page. If this ant is the same species as Nylanderia (=Paratrechina) pubens, then I would like to point out that Paratrechina pubens was discovered and named as a species in 1893 by Forel. In 2010, it was moved to a new genus: Nylanderia. According to international entomological protocols, the news media doesn't get to name a species, whether it is an arthropod or not. While common names may vary in different areas, only a major entomological organization, in our case the Entomological Society of America, gets to select an "official" common name. The ESA's Common Name list does not include numerous arthropods that have generally accepted "common names" in different areas. I read the discussion from 2008 that argued, about whether Rasberry "discovered" these thing or not, and as to whether to delete the Tom Rasberry page. The vote was to keep it. Frankly, I'd be embarrassed to have a WP page on myself using the rationale that some people (and Rasberry?) say warrants it. We have entomologists at the University of Florida that are discovering numerous new species (ants, termites, others,) and none of them would be so crass as to name them after themselves. Every year we have new invasive arthropod pests discovered in the U.S. Many have no common names as they are of little significance in their areas of origin. Some actually have no scientific name either. But you don't see people from the USDA APHIS running around naming them after themselves. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What follows is a quote from the University of Florida/IFAS publication at http://entomology.ifas.ufl.edu/creatures/urban/ants/caribbean_crazy_ant.htm.


 * "In 2002, a significant infestation of an ant was found around Houston (Harris County), Texas, that is being referred to by the media and others as the 'Rasberry crazy ant' (Nylanderia nr. pubens) because it was discovered by a pest control operator named Tom Rasberry. In his 2008 dissertation, Dr. Jason M. Meyers (Texas A&M) performed morphometric and phylogenetic identifications on the Texas ant and found that 'Despite a previous, inadequate species description for the original concept of N. pubens (Forel 1893), morphological evidence alone does not suggest that a new species classification is warranted for the Texas populations' (Meyers 2008). It is therefore likely that the 'Rasberry crazy ant' is the same as the 'Caribbean crazy ant' being only an 'intraspecific variation of N. pubens, frequently observed in insect species.'

Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This is from http://urbanentomology.tamu.edu/ants/rasberry.html, published by the Texas A&M Agrilife Research Extension, Center for Urban and Structural Entomology: "A new exotic invasive pest ant species to Texas was found around Houston (Harris County), in 2002, and has begun to spread largely through human assistance. The ant has recently been identified as Nylanderia fulva (formerly Nylanderia sp. nr. pubens) and the new proposed common name is the tawny crazy ant (formerly Rasberry crazy ant)." (Citing http://urbanentomology.tamu.edu/pdf/Gotzek%202012.pdf) So it seems like the argument is settled. This is not the same as N. pubens, the Caribbean crazy ant. Also, they are proposing the name "tawny crazy ant." Kchwe (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Electrical current and other things
0. excuse my English.

1. I've read an article which states that the ants were confined to 5 counties around Houston ('five Houstons districts', to be precise. I believe it to be incorrect:))... but now are transported into other parts of Texas, probably by the ships passing by the port of Houston. The ref. here ref.7 insists that they are moving towards Houston: And now they're moving into Houston, the fourth-largest city in the country. "Fifty miles might not seem like a lot until you realise they're moving into Houston," said Gold. "It could really affect a lot of people's lives."  Which is correct? Well, are they confined to the 5 aforementioned counties? Whether the article i read is incorrect or wiki is behind the news?

2."The ants, attracted by electrical current" (wiki)

''"Computers, burglar alarm systems, gas and electricity meters, iPods, telephone exchanges – all are considered food by the flea-sized ants, for reasons that have left scientists baffled." '' ref.1. ???????????????? The question is obvious, that's why i came here. Are they really have a weakness for electrical current? Do there exist scientists who consider it to be true and are baffled?

3. "The rate of coverage of the ant itself is about 800 meters (equivalent of half a US mile) per year. However, being carried by people, animals or vehicles, the ants coverage over five counties in Texas from 2002 to 2007 gives a rate of 8 kilometers per (equivalent of 5 US miles) year. At this rate, it would still take 70 years for them to reach New Orleans (563 kilometers, equivalent of 350 US miles)."

The rate of coverage of the ant itself requires a pretty complicated procedure to calculate for a species which may be carried by. I wish to know the source:) And alas... being carried by ppl-animals-or_vehicles_... they... they can be here in Moscow, Russia tomorrow:( --85.141.91.178 (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Damage estimate
Citation #4 "Destructive ants marching on San Antonio" is no longer available on the web, so I deleted it. The estimation of damage "in the millions" now needs a reference. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 01:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

ID'd
I suppose that someone more familiar with this subject will soon edit this article with this info

''In a paper published Sept. 19 in the open access journal PLOS ONE, a research team led by John LaPolla from Towson University in Maryland identifies the species as Nylanderia fulva. Identifying the species should help control this emerging pest, the authors write.'' Gandydancer (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This article needs some work
This article focuses primarily on the specie's invasiveness in the Southern United States. It should be expanded to a more general discussion about its biology and ecology.--68.40.190.237 (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems rather ridiculous as is. It would be like an article on human beings that only focused on the Apollo Missions. --217.42.218.238 (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

NYT article
May be useful. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Invasive?
Are they really an invasive species? Or just a newly discovered species. I can't find anything about where they are native to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.115.100 (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a matter of debate so the article is not clear. Check the NYT Magazine piece and feel free to develop this Wikipedia article to make it more clear.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   14:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

To answer the question "are they really invasive?" Yes, the Tawny crazy ant is an invasive species. The Tawny crazy ant is native to South America, and thus is an invasive species in the United States as this country is not it's native range. Bentleypkt (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Bentleypkt

"Significance in impeding the spread of the red imported fire ant"
The article claims that "therefore it has been introduced into certain regions to act at least as a check on [fire ant] spread. Although Nylanderia fulva is not welcome in its own right, it is generally regarded as a far lesser evil than Solenopsis invicta [i.e., fire ants]. However, so far its range is narrower than that of the Solenopsis, as it occurs mainly in humid areas."

The article cited to support this claim, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140213142233.htm does NOT say that anybody is intentionally introducing the rasberry crazy ant anywhere, whether to fight off fire ants or not. Nor does the article say the rasberry crazy ant is regarded as a lesser evil than fire ants.

I can't imagine why anybody would distort the ScienceDaily article that way, to make rasberry crazy ants sound as if they have any positive aspects whatsoever. They may actually have some positive aspects, but the article doesn't say that. I am changing the Wikipedia article.

Kchwe (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I conducted research on the RCA/TCA a couple years ago for university. I don't have the specific references handy that mentioned it, but the research I found showed that most people who now were dealing with Crazy Ants would rather have the fire ants back instead. I'm currently going through my old research, so if I happen across that specific reference, I'll add it here.Avanent (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's one of the articles: First Coast News Article Avanent (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

photo request
Currently the only image of an ant in this article is, according to the description at File:Nylanderia pubens worker.png, actually a Nylanderia pubens.

I wish this article had a photo or diagram of a tawny crazy ant (Rasberry crazy ant), Nylanderia fulva. --DavidCary (talk) 03:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The original article itself describes trouble that scientists have in distinguishing the two. I still have no fulva picture, though.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  09:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Title
The title should be changed to Tawny crazy ant. The former name given to this ant (Rasberry crazy ant) was an unofficial listing of common name and is no longer accurate. The common name "Tawny crazy ant" was officially instated as the common name for this species by the Entomology Society of America (the official governing body on common names of insects). Continuing to list this ant as any other name only perpetuates misinformation. Bentleypkt (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Bentleypkt
 * Sounds reasonable. I think this swapping of titles (Rasberry crazy ant <==> Tawny crazy ant) may best be done by an admin, to keep all the pointers correct. Reify-tech (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Fipronil restricted to 27 countries?
The provided references only support the idea that fipronil was used by the EPA in controlling the Raspberry crazy ant. The statement that it's restricted to 27 countries seems otherwise unsupported. I've added a citation needed to the article but was unable to substantiate that claim in some cursory searching. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.59.234 (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Information to add to article
Some information to add to this article:

If the spread of crazy ants continues north, the calcium-rich limestone bedrock of the lower U.S. Midwest may provide ideal conditions for populations to explode. Farmlands may be at risk because calcium is found in many fertilizers. Additionally, cities often have more calcium than surrounding areas, thanks to heavy cement use, limestone quarrying and destruction of buildings.

173.88.246.138 (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this seems to be the source for that -
 * I note that while the academic paper has restrictive copyright, the images in the journalism by the same author have images with Wikimedia compatible copyright licenses. We might be able to pull images as well as the fact. I do not have time to follow up with this just now. Hey original poster, if you have more to say then continue the conversation and consider making a wiki account. Thanks for sharing.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  21:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I note that while the academic paper has restrictive copyright, the images in the journalism by the same author have images with Wikimedia compatible copyright licenses. We might be able to pull images as well as the fact. I do not have time to follow up with this just now. Hey original poster, if you have more to say then continue the conversation and consider making a wiki account. Thanks for sharing.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  21:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I note that while the academic paper has restrictive copyright, the images in the journalism by the same author have images with Wikimedia compatible copyright licenses. We might be able to pull images as well as the fact. I do not have time to follow up with this just now. Hey original poster, if you have more to say then continue the conversation and consider making a wiki account. Thanks for sharing.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  21:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)