Talk:Trichogramma

Broken link
The second link is broken (the Trichogramma Article one) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.93.210 (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Improper article linking
The symbiotic use of Wollbachia is more important to this article than the article on Wollbachia. I suggest that the section about this wasp be moved here and expanded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.15.228 (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Chorion
The word "chorion" is defined in the online Merriam-Webster dictionary, and the American Heritage dictionary, does not include the sense of "a membrane on the outside of some insect eggs." It is defined as such in the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd Edition, but it is labeled as a technical term used in biology. Thus using it here is not appropriate. The Wikipedia style sheet instructs authors to avoid technical terms. Nick Beeson (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

classmate edit question
Hello BlueBioBill!

I found your section under the Trichogramma wasps page under Wolbachia to be very informative and well written. One topic that I didn't understand quite well was the following sentence

By transmitting the bacterium to the wasp’s offspring, Wolbachia has given the infected females reproductive advantage over the uninfected females.

Could you elaborate on what advantages this bacterium actually transmits to offspring of the wasps? I'm curious as to whether the reproductive advantage is allowing the wasps to reproduce more successfully because of some mechanistic advantage or a genetic alteration?

I particularly liked your section on parthenogenesis. Perhaps some of the information i'm looking for could be found in that section.

Honey4bees (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I made extremely minor edits to your section on Wolbachia, mostly grammar. Your section is incredibly informative. The portion on Parthenogenesis may benefit from more of an explanation as to what exactly parthenogenesis is, and more importantly, how it benefits your species. Furthermore, is it possible that Wolbachia also may be slightly detrimental to your species, in that it may make it too difficult to reproduce? This idea was central to one of our group member's (Gern Blanston) species, Phytoseiidae. Maybe you can find a study to expand on parthenogenesis and its evolutionary implications. Overall, your section is interesting and written well. Great work!

NeverStopEvolving (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Honey4bees: I took out the sentence about infected females having a reproductive advantage as I didn't think it was relevant to the evolutionary implications I expanded on (speciation due to parthenogenesis and horizontal transfer). What I was trying to say with that was that the infected females provided an advantage to Wolbachia as they transmitted the bacterium to their offspring. Thanks for pointing out where I didn't make sense - hopefully it flows better now.

NeverStopEvolving: Thanks for the grammar edits. Do you think I should add more about the benefits of parthenogenesis? I focused on the evolutionary implications of it and provided the link to the parthenogenesis page if readers want to learn more. Please let me know for the final draft. I will talk to Gern Blanston as well. BlueBioBill (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I received other suggestions, and this is how I responded to them: explain the effect of Wolbachia earlier on - I added a couple sentences about this being a symbiont system and how through manipulations to the host's reproductive system the bacterium spreads. I defined parthenogenesis and provided a link for it, also added some clarification on the implications of the manipulation. I made it clear that Wolbachia does occur in nature in this wasp. I cut down a lot on the repetitive information and made the evolutionary implications more concise. I explained what I meant about the monophyletic group that Wolbachia-Trichogramma formed. BlueBioBill (talk)

The article covers many different aspects of the Trichogramma and for class, I know BlueBioBill worked especially on the section involving Wolbachia. MY only edit was to switch the order to better introduce the "Wolbachia in Trichogramma and to italicize the species names. Great discussion on how asexual reproduction due to the Wolbachia could result in a speciation event, as well as tying in how the abundance of females could cause a reversal in sexual selection. One thing that may be helpful for readers would be to link certain topics in the section to other Wikipedia articles such as 'oogenesis', 'horizontal transfer'. and 'parthenogenesis' to aid the reader's understanding. In addition, I think you could maybe give a very brief explanation of things such as why there may be cytoplasmic incompatibility between the host and parasite organisms. Really interesting and well written! Salenrs (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi BluBioBill,

Your article is really interesting and you did a great job of condensing down the important information.

I removed two sentences from your first paragraph which seemed to stand out and disrupt its flow. Specifically, I absorbed the "Horizontal transfer has been observed..." sentence into the previous one and removed the sentence introducing parthenogenesis. I understand why you included it but it seems unnecessary for this niche a subject, particularly because it has its own page. That said, horizontal transfer does not have its own page and I think your section could benefit from clarifying what exactly that is.

I have a few suggestions for future revisions. First, could you clarify why altering reproductive success forms a symbiont relationship, or specifically why Trichogramma benefits? Additionally, in the second paragraph, you mentioned that horizontal transfer is limited in vitro. Does that apply only to interspecific transfer, as the last sentence of that paragraph suggests, or does that also apply to intraspecific transfer? Finally, I am not too sure what it means for the Trichogramma-Wolbachia to form a monophyletic group, but you summarized the implications well.

I also made some minor grammar revisions in your article. Good stuff so far!

R-NH2 (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Next smallest insect?
The article reads:

These wasps have less than 10,000 neurons, which is 1/100th that of the next smallest insect.

This seems incorrect to me: perhaps it should "... which is 1/100th that of the next largest insect."

My reasoning is that the next smallest insect will have fewer neurons than Trichogramma, whereas the next largest insect will have more. But perhaps this is incorrect (I am not an entomologist). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl gregory jones (talk • contribs) 20:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You're right to be suspicious; there was never a credible citation for this factoid. Dyanega (talk)