Talk:Sawfly

Taxonomy
The 1st paragraph desperately needs rewrite. Is the taxonomy of this suborder that controversial or unclear? Needs an expert, which I'm not. I just photograph them. Thanks. Nickrz (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Are any of the saw flies venomous?
I did a word search in the article and did not find "venom" mentioned. However, since their wasp, bee, and ant cousins are well known for being dangerous, if they are indeed benign, then this needs to be positively confirmed. Linstrum (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I see this comment is from 2014, but no sawfly is venomous. The stinger is a derived character first seen in wasps because it evolved from the ovipositor seen in sawflies. Burklemore1 (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Sixteen months late, thanks for the confirmation! Linstrum (talk) 07:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Expansion
I am going to expand this article so it can meet GA criteria. Once promoted, all insects of the order Hymenoptera will be at GA or higher. Burklemore1 (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I should further note I will commence this expansion once I am done with Termite in my sandbox . Burklemore1 (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'll work on this one instead. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure what happened there. And was it all subgroups rather than all insects? I don't even see a GA for Hymenoptera --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have made some improvements but it is far from being GA --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Michael Goodyear, yeah, I mean the subgroups within Hymenoptera. Bee is GA, Wasp is GA and Ant is FA. Thank you for the improvements. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It will be good to see more insect groups up to a good standard. I'll lend a hand here. (All the insects might take a bit of time...) Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the contributions! I'll have to start expanding the description section and add some information about its life cycle and reproduction. Burklemore1 (talk) 12:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Am putting together a cladogram. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Great addition, I'll start doing some fixes and expansion. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking good now. What do you think still needs doing? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the statements I have said on my talk page, but I will go through them quickly. I will try and get the parasites section complete now. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sawfly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924092616/http://www.royensoc.co.uk/sites/default/files/Vol06_Part02b.pdf to http://www.royensoc.co.uk/sites/default/files/Vol06_Part02b.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

woodwasp page
"Woodwasp" redirects to Horntail. "Wood wasp" and "wood_wasp" redirect to here. They should all redirect to "horntail". 03:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Bit more detail needed here...
The sentence " ... The larvae of some species have anti-predator adaptations such as regurgitating irritating liquid and clustering together for safety in numbers ... " needs something added to the end something similar to : "leading to a common name, 'spitfires' ". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E448:D401:8D0A:BEC2:3FCB:6135 (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Parasitism
"Parasitism" was just added to the taxonomic diagram, but are there not parasitic/parasitoid lineages outside that branch? IAmNitpicking (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The other groups eat leaves or wood. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Parasitism was not recently added, it has been there for many years. In my recent edit, I thought about removing it as its not in the source and not all descendants are parasitic (e.g. Aculeata). However, more recent studies and reviews do label that branch. Peters et al (2017) call it "parasitoidism".
 * On the subject of recent edits, I added the labels (Vespina and Unicalcarida) because they are in the source (Schulmeister's 2003 paper and her website). Moreover more recent work like Peters et al (2017) also use those labels, so they have passed the test of time. So I think they should be restored. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 09:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt that scientists widely call the clade parasitic, though "parasitoidal" would in modern but ORish terms be more accurate. The two recent clade name labels (as I already remarked) make no sense without a complete set, which aren't available in the source; further (as I already also remarked), the labels (let alone a putative complete set) make the tree inconveniently wide to read on many devices. If we did have a source for a complete set and decided to use such labels, then we could use "U" for Unicalcarida and "V" for Vespina, etc etc, with a key beneath the tree; but I frankly don't think a set of obscure, unlinked clade names (whose meaning is no more than "this is the name given to this node in this tree") will help any readers; the few who know the names already don't need our help. Chiswick Chap (talk)
 * If adding two labels, only one of which widens the cladogram, is a problem for display on some devices, I don't see how a complete set would be an improvement. I think we should follow sources on what labels are important, which is why those two are appropriate. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 11:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well at least we agree on not needing even more labels, thank you. I can't for the life of me see any point in drawing attention to one of the nodes in the tree at the expense of a lot of similar, equally interesting nodes. The usual name for that is WP:UNDUE, if not WP:NPOV if some author has an axe to grind about some particular label. On one point we can be quite clear: the article must be neutral and even-handed. Schulmeister 2003 does not give any reason why she and we should be specially interested in Unicalcarida. If there is such a reason, in other sources, then that reason should be plainly stated in the article text, and cited, at which point it would make sense to put it in the tree: but not until. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)