Talk:Trogidae

Larvae: Pictures
I found some larvae which seem to be hide beetles, but I'm not sure. Are these pictures good enough to place them in the family? Unfortunately the camera I have access to doesn't have a good macro function. --Slashme 07:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)





You guys need to cite your sources according to the wiki conventions. I can see you have the references listed, but I can't find where this information is in the article. If you need help ask me, I figured it out the other day and it isn't that difficult one you get the hang of it. PinDr4gon (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You should also link to other Wikipedia pages that are relevant to forensic entomology. Like when you mention their setae, you should link to the Wikipedia page about setae so readers can learn more about that certain subject if they wanted to. --Angelina5288 (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all of your feedback and thank you for looking over our page! We will definitely make the corrections in order to make our page more wiki-friendly! Brokenice928 (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikispecies
Hey guys! I just wanted to let you all know about the Wikispecies project []. Your article fits in with their project, so look into it. ABrundage, Texas A&amp;M University (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What's being done?
Hey guys! I notice you've got some warning banners on your page--what is being done to take care of these? Make sure you document your changes and discuss things here on the talk page. ABrundage, Texas A&amp;M University (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for the feedback, we are meeting tonight to edit the page and take into account all the critique we have gotten. Sorry it has taken so long we have all just been really busy. But we are ready to improve it!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cal101387 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion
If you could find any cases or real examples in which hide beetles were used forensically that would be really interesting and add a new dimension to the article. -Lauren —Preceding unsigned comment added by Runwild2006 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey this page looks very thorough! It must have taken alot of time. One quick comment, I think renaming the heading "Description" to something like "Anatomy" or something similar may be a little more specific and better for the article. Other than that, this page is very well composed.--Amandamartinez06 (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the page and the chosen topic here. You guys/gals should link more of the words in the article like Trox, Omorgus, Polynoncus, and even things like larvae and Burmeister to makes things in the article more clear if people dont understand that word. Also it would be good if you can get that picture of the larvae up and maybe talk about some specific species within this family Mikearq (talk) 24:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

One suggestion is that you may want to add a medical importance if you can find anything on that. That is always my favorite part to read on articles like these.Hold323 (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Great topic. I feel that some of the information contradicts itself. The introduction says that this family is comprised of scavengers, while in the section under diet it says they are predominatly predacious. If this is refering to larva only, you may want to clear that up. 74.192.203.65 (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Jessica Moore

peer review
Good. Only one suggestion on wording. It may sound better in the intro if you say "Trogidae or Hide beetles..." because the intro you have now seems to just jump into it and sounds mildly informal.Txshinerblonde (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a ton! Will do!!! --Cal101387 (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a few suggestions that could improve your article: Weilingz (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The genera that you list all need to be italicized throughout your article.
 * Your article includes a lot of repetitive information, e.g. "eating feathers, fur, skin" or a very similar variant is mentioned four times in this article! Try to avoid needless repetition.
 * Why is there a cross symbol next to Protrox? Explain this symbol somewhere or remove it if it's unnecessary.

Good ya’ll, not a whole lot I can say here, but I will say that it is repetitive when talking about feeding on dead remains. Watch it in your intro, and diet and habitat sections. Other than that its really good, think you got yourself an A here. -tallfoo2006


 * Thanks so much for the reminder to italicize all the genera in the article! That is something VERY important that we almost completely forgot about! Thanks for the feedback! --Cal101387 (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This article looks great but your references could use a little help. It is really neat how you listed all of the species. Also, I think it would be a good idea for you to add something in your article talking about how Trogidae could be the first in succession if a body is burned and charred enough. Then after the burned skin is decomposed by the Trogids it would open up the body "goo" for the Blow Flies to infest. Phodges09 (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is a good general and broad overview of the hide beetles, but I think you could seriously improve this article and add to its importance by taking the time to create a section on its effects in industry -- especially in the hide industry, things like leather jackets, and seats as well as fur coats. I think this is a very important part of the hide beetle that has been overlooked, its economical importance. Another suggestion that I would have for you guys is to find a picture of an actual hide beetle to include in the article. The sketch is good -- but I think an actual picture would be even better. And, especially if you decide to include an economic effects section, consider putting up pictures of what hide beetle damage looks like.


 * Thats a great idea we will definetly try to squeeze that in! I guess they aren't called Hide Beetles for no reason!
 * Thanks again for all the input! --Cal101387 (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I really like the layout and organization of this page, it is logical and easy to find information. The wiki-ness of this article is a little lacking. There are very few citations and links, internal and external. As far as making this a viable article, I think that this is the most important issue. I'm also a little confused as to why you guys included that insanely long list of species at the end. If that was recommended to you by a wikipedian editor, then go for it, otherwise I think it detracts from the actual research you guys are trying to present. If you are going to keep the listing, consider writing little paragraphs about them so that it is more clear to the reader what they are and how they might be useful to them.


 * Our article was actually merged into a pre-existing article that was already on wikipedia and the list of species was already on there we just elaborated into it. We didn't feel the need to delete it if it was already good enough to exist on its own, but if it is truely a distraction from the rest of the article let us know!! Thanks so much for your feedback! --Cal101387 (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The species list could probably be moved to the Genus they are in. For example Omorgus already mirrors the list here. You could do that for the other Genus as well. --Dodo bird (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that list was actually taken from our wikipage. Someone has entered our page and deleted it and moved it to its own page which is absolutely fine, but for the sake of completeness on our article I would like it to remain there as well for now to show that we did have it there. Thank you for your observations and feedback! --Cal101387 (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Overall, good job. It looks like you guys are getting some good feedback, I would just definitely suggest that you link this page up to others about forensic entomology so that it is more complete. Good luck! Kayla foster (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I definetly agree the wiki-ness of our article was not quite up to par. It took us a little while to figure out exactly how wikipedia wanted formatting, refrencing, etc done, but I think we almost got it down. If you see anything else we need to work on to make it more wikipedia friendly please let us know!!! --Cal101387 (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

After reading your article I noticed that the forensic importance of the Trogidae (Hide Beetle) is somewhat sparse. I would recommended researching more on this section because it is so pertinent to the sub-category of this article, which is Forensic Entomology. I feel that if you elaborate on the forensic importance, you will have more validity for your case of why it should be included under Forensic Entomology. Answer questions such as how are these insects used to determine post mortem interval, when do they show up on the body, what stage do they prefer during decomposition, etc. Just some thoughts! Keep up the good work. (Lamanda14 (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

Great article, but one of the things that jumped out at me was how some of the sentences are worded awkwardly. My advice is to read the paragraphs out loud. Once you do that, you will find senetences that need to be reworded. Ngjon87 (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some of the others in asking, "what does this have to do with forensics?" Ya'll did a good job of describing of trogidae, but stated that there is no forenisc importance associated with them known at this time. There needs to be some correlation between the trogidae and forensic entomology.Bigjbang79 (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)bigjbang79

Its not that trogidae doesn't have forensic importance it is just that not a lot is known about it yet. As stated in the article one believed major role is that trogids come in the later stages of decay when used in the PMI estimation. Also it is important to note that they are attracted to the dry stages, which would help in uncovering if a body was burned but only a few hours old with infestation. There is definetly a relation between Trogidae and forensic entomology, it is just still being researched more in depth. I understand where you are coming from though it doesn't appear to be vitally important but with all the new research going on it could be!!! Thanks for your input! --Cal101387 (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments
--Dodo bird (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead and main text says three Genera but the Infobox and species list says five.
 * Is "Checklist of the Scarabaeoidea of the Nearctic Realm, 2003" a misplaced reference?
 * I wikilinked Burmeister and Fabricius. Please check to make sure they are pointing to the correct people? Is Erichson Wilhelm Ferdinand Erichson? If so, you can link that as well.
 * "Ethopian area" could change to "Afrotropic ecozone" if they are the same thing. Same for South America and Neotropic ecozone. Is there a more specific area when you refer to "Southern" in the previous sentence?
 * "beetles are found within the pellets of various animals". I suppose you are referring to Pellet (ornithology).
 * Some prose and grammar issues. E.g. "Most common predator since they tend to invade nests as well are birds." and "Their head is bent down and covered by the pronotum"
 * "Body 'goo'" needs clarification.
 * Could use some pics of real hide beetles. Showing the described anatomy, differences between varieties, different life stages, maybe one in their natural habitat. You could look on Commons or flicker by-2.0 and by-sa-2.0.

I found this article to be informative. It gave basic information about this family of beetles. I think a better picture of Trogidae needs to be added for the wikipedia page. (Orb80cool (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

This article is not really suffiecient, it does not really contain the in depth information that one is looking for in wiki. the article can be improved by adding topics like history of entomology, dna/blood use, and some case studies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dansha4521f (talk • contribs) 18:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input, we realize that this is just one small part of forensic entomology but we believe that it is strong enough to stand on its own. There are other entomology pages that exist that include some of the things that you pointed out, such as the History of forensic entomology Thanks for taking the time to read our article! --Cal101387 (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * First and foremost, I would like to applaud Cal101387 for all of the work you've done to improve your article; you have responded to each and every comment made by your peers and, from what I can tell, are working very hard to correct your article. Secondly, a point of clarification I ask is in the sentence, "One major reason for the dispute between classifications is the possible evolution of the ommatidium in the eyes". What evolution of the ommatidium causes this dispute, exactly? I think the sentence after that statement vaguely addresses this, yet, it is a very important matter as to why they are commonly misclassified. Also, as I'm sure you are aware, your "[7][not in citation given]" is a pretty important flag to deal with as soon as possible. The link provided in citation [7] does not provide the information regarding the hide beetle eating away the sheep carcass. Keep updating your article with everyone's comments; this page has improved a great deal! JRechy (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Under the mating section I would define polygamy. Also, while reading about the mating behaviors, you said that the eggs hatch after an unknown amount of time, maybe address why it is unknown. Is it because there hasn't been any studies? Or is it because the time it takes to hatch varies considerably? I liked that you had the drawing of the beetle and the box outlining it's classification.--Raebeam (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

a fellow ENTO classmate...
The only thing I would suggest maybe elaborating on is your "Forensic Importance" section. I realize that your focus is on the insect itself, but aside from this, the forensic aspect should also be considered. I know you mentioned that the Trogids are the 1st to arrive on a charred body, but maybe you could add some actual real-life cases where this specifc insect played a role in the forensics...

Also, may I suggest the following correction for that "goo" part... Instead of (After the burned skin is decomposed by the Trogidae it will open up the body "goo" for the Blow Flies and other forensically important insects to infest.), you could have::

"After the burned skin is eaten away by the Trogids, the corpse (with now-exposed, "fresher" surfaces) allows for viable colonization by other forensically important insects that help determine accurate PMI estimates." (you could link "PMI" to another page...)

I applaud your attempt at being thorough, but the ginourmous list of species seems a bit much... Any way you can condense it??? Cvela (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that the list is quite huge but believe it or not we have actually trimmed it down. There was actually a prior existing wiki page over Trogidae that included this list. We were given the ok to elaborate since the page practically contained that list of species and thats it. We did not feel it was our place to delete the work done before us, but if it becomes to much of a problem then it is definetly something that can be dealt with. Thanks for calling us thorough though! --Cal101387 (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This article was well structured and had nice pictures. The pictures really show the sclerotized texture of the beetle. I can tell if they get smashed you would hear a crunch sound. This beetle has a wide range of measurements. So they are one of the last insects of succession that you would find on carrion, interesting. Under forensic importance you mention how useful these beetles can be which can be beneficial to themselves and museums.Ms.mitch (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Ms.Mitch

Thanks so much for your positive feedback, it is much appreciated!!! --Cal101387 (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This article, while well written, was a little drab and dull to me. You basically outlined all the essentials; origin, habitat, mating, and life cycle. While these sections are necessary, they are not what the focus of your article should have been on. I think you could have turned this decent article into a great one if you would have expanded on the forensic importance section. It is only seven short sentences long and contains relatively no detail. This is the section where you can catch the readers' attention and explore some interesting research and info. Also I think you should try and find some more cool pics to brighten up your page. Cawinkler (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a bit confusing where you talk about how the evolution of ommatidia separates Trogidae from Scarabidae. Do both families have the advanced photoreceptors or just Trogidae? Wudntulyk2no (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Great job on the article. You may want to consider listing measurements (2.5 to 20.0 mm) in inches as well. I also added an internal wikipedia link to "exoskeleton" under the life cycle paragraph so that readers can learn more about that topic if they are unfamiliar with it. Motoliyat (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!!! --Cal101387 (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that including the pictures of larvae that were posted on the discussion page would really help this article. Having a whole list of all the species of Trogidae added length, but not much depth to the article. The main part of the artcle was very informative, though, and I liked how you included the part about Trogidae differing from Scarabidae. Labright (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually... I will be perfectly honest here... I have been trying to upload photos for 3 days and I can't seem to get the hang of it, so any help would be greatly appreciated!!! I am scared I am going to do something illegal and steal someones photo or something.--Cal101387 (talk) 04:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't use the bugnet photos as most are copyrighted, unless you ask them to relicense the photos with an appropriate license. If it is a self taken photograph, go here click the first link and follow the instructions accordingly. Have a look here and here first to see if there are any photos you can use. If you click through the species name, there may be some more photos. Wikimedia Commons photos are all free. To add a photo from Commons, put them in an image tag like this:
 * [[Image:Trox variolatus sjh.cropped.jpg|thumb|right|An adult Trox variolatus]]
 * The result would be what is shown on the right.--Dodo bird (talk) 09:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I liked this article! It was well organized and I felt like everything was very well explained in detail. I would agree with the improvement that a picture would make, but that is my only complaint. Well done. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcarriker5 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I enjoyed the article.. to enhance more indetal there could have been more info added to some of the species and how they are related in our daily life. (Lice2008 (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

You can probably reword this. Because we don't know the reason that trogids (lowercase t) evolved with different ommatidia, you can probably just mention that ommatidia evolved differently from related species. "The different environments, predators, etc. probably led to the adaptation of ommatidium structures within this family. For example the more advanced and numerous the ommatidium the more present the larger the ability of the insect to escape and elude predators." Good job though, pretty well-written and informative. Antarcticgecko (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

references to Dermestidae not Trogidae, ommatidia
I removed several parts that referenced another family of beetles. Additional references may actually be about Dermestidae, for instance the 'bones stripped bare' one about museums cleaning bones. I shortened the sentences about ommatidia but they could be removed if no citation is inserted. I don't understand what ommatidia have to do with the placement of Trogidae as its own family or as subfamily of Scarabaeidae. The expansion of this article appears to be part of a class project from 2008, so I hope the contributors can return to clarify these points and add more necessary citations. Nucleotide (talk) 09:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Reassessment
This article is borderline C-class; the only reason I've labeled it as start is the citation missing tags. However, it's clearly no longer a stub given both its length and depth of content. Gug01 (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)