Talk:Vespula germanica

Distribution map: wrong in South America
In South America, the distribution map shows the German Wasp as introduced to the Pampas region of Argentina, on the Atlantic. That is not true. I do not have a complete map, but the distribution involves some portion of Chile and enters Argentina through the west. In Argentina, it is common in Northwestern Patagonia, near the Andes, but it already spread to several provinces. See http://www.bariloche.com.ar/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=2385. (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Distribution map: Iceland
This species is common in Iceland, at least the most densely populated areas (Reykjavik, Akureyri, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.111.111.118 (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Distribution map: Citations Please
While I think it's great that you created the map on your own, some citations are really needed. Where did you get the distribution data that is exhibited on that map? From the commentors above it seems like it isn't accurate, and it's hard to discern if they are correct, or if your map is without citations. Atkarp (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a German wasp
I'm pretty sure the previous image used for this article was NOT a german wasp (yellowjacket) but rather a hornet. I'm using an image I found on Wikicommons until I can capture and take a good picture of a real german wasp. I should have no problems because they invade my apartment nearly everyday here in Stuttgart. :) - Cheers, Victor Trac 13:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Pests section.
Another interesting, though odd way of tracking these yellow jackets comes from a Ralph Moody book and how you do it is you hold a wiggling yellow jacket and attack a piece of cotton to it with glue and watch where it flies to. do this with another yellow jacket and you create a V shape. Go to the v point and you've found their nest! Warning, they may sting you!

This comes across as a third grade substitue teacher. Surely it could be worded better than this? I'll give it a shot if someone will approve. It also requires a citation.

Another interesting, perhaps unorthodox method of tracking German Wasps was patented by Ralph Moody in a book. You first have to safely capture two wasps, then attach a piece of cotton string to each with glue. Then you can follow the trail of string back to the nest. If released seperatly you should find a V shape is formed with the string. Madslocodemente 02:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

sting?
Anything on their sting? I've heard they can be quite dangerous, although i admit i don't know if this is the case. 192.43.227.18 (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Nesting Habits
From the article, "Yellowjacket,"

"The German yellow jacket builds its nests in cavities (not necessarily underground) with the peak worker population in temperate areas between 1,000 and 3,000 individuals between May to August, each colony producing several thousand new reproductives after this point, through November. The eastern yellowjacket builds its nests underground, also with the peak worker population between 1,000 and 3,000 individuals similar to the German yellowjacket."

This passage seems to contradict this article's section on nesting. Which one is right? Does the German yellow jacket nest in cavities, or do they build their nests out of plant fibers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.207.225 (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

씨발놈이개새끼야 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.148.95.186 (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

hello, my name is eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.148.95.186 (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

What's up with English language?
This is clearly Germanic Wasp and not German Wasp. I know the not so intelligent English language have two very similar words for German and Germanic but this is not a reason to confuse these two things that are totally different (it's like confusing Spanish and Latin....).

Some recommendations on restructuring the article/ adding more information
I believe that this entry could very much be improved with the addition of a number of different categories. For instance, since the author clumps all the important information on the category ‘Nests,’ I would divide that section into three separate sections. First of all, the author mentions that there are queen and worker wasps, but not much further information is given other than that. Therefore, I would include one section on ‘Development and Reproduction’ and discuss how queen and worker characteristics are developed and determined, and the other on ‘Behavior and Ecology’ and include information such as worker mortality and the queen’s role since none of these types of information are elaborated in the article. And then maybe the author could have a separate section on 'Nests' and present the information that the current section provides. Lastly, I would add a category on ‘Interactions with Other Species’ and provide information on numerous subtopics such as diet, predation, defense mechanism, and altruism (if applicable). — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackieOh0223 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

A few suggestions
I would argue that the strongest section of the Nest could be separated into more succinct and more specific categories. Categories that must be added for this to become an exemplary article include: sexual reproduction, behavior and predation. Without restating previous statements, sexual reproduction is clearly important but the author of this article skips straight to larvae-Queen interaction without stating how the larvae were had in the first place. Furthermore, the cycle for queens dying once a year and replacements are had was only briefly mentioned. Though there is some sparse information about how the Queen and workers interact, there is no information on how they function individually. What functions do the workers fulfill? Though it was mentioned that a chemical is secreted to repel ants, there is no mention about interactions when the wasp is outside the nest or if the chemical does not successfully repel the ants. SpencerTong (talk) 04:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)SpencerTong

Peer Review
I went through and edited a few things in this article. I changed the section headings to sentence capitalization as well as made it so if the same reference was used multiple times in a row it was just cited once at the end. I also reworded a few sentences, changed a couple of links, and fixed some grammatical mistakes. I also had a few suggestions on improvements that could be made. First, it might be good if references were added to the introduction and the distribution map. Also, since others have commented that the distribution map is somewhat inaccurate perhaps it should be removed unless citations can be found. I would also suggest in the section on Pest status that the “concern over control measures” from source 13 be explained instead of having (e.g.[13]) written in the article. Lastly, also in the Pest status section I was unclear on what it meant when it said “payment of 1 d was made” so perhaps this could be explained. Overall, I thought the article was really good. It was interesting, flowed well, and covered a wide range of topics on this species. Ashleyearley (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review
I have reviewed your article and have a few suggestions. Overall, I thought your entry was great! It was very thorough and you did a great job using images. With that being said, however, the lack of clarity and conciseness in certain parts of the entry detract from the quality of the entry. For example the following sentence under the “Pests” section is definitely too long: “This species is considered a pest in most areas outside its native range, though its long residency in North America is such that it is not treated with any level of urgency there, in contrast to areas such as South America, where the introduction is more recent, and the impacts far more dramatic, prompting a greater degree of concern over control measures (e.g.[13]).” Another sentence in that same section reads, “An unusual attempt at wasp control is related from Abercairney in Scotland, where until the 1950s, children were encouraged to compete in the Wasp Cup, awarded to the competitor who handed in the most queen wasps. The wasps were stuck to card and a payment of 1 d was made for each; totals of 40 were not uncommon.[18]” The lack of clarity in this section in particular made understanding some of the content difficult. In addition, the genetic relatedness is important, as you discuss with worker policing, and expanding on the genetic relatedness specifically would strengthen the article.

I made some grammatical corrections throughout the entry. For example, I capitalized the ‘n’ in “Northern Africa.” Northern Africa is a proper noun and both words should be capitalized. MadisonPomerantz (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Katie's Comments
Hi Talia! Great job! This is a thorough, well-thought article, and I was very impressed with the level of detail you used. In terms of my edits, I focused mainly on minor grammatical errors and capitalizing headings of sections. I also changed the "Interactions with Other Species" heading with "Diet" subheading to just one main heading of "Diet". This organizationally makes more sense. From here, there are a few things that I think you can do to make this article stronger. First, I would suggest adding more information about the differences in female, male, and queen appearances in your identification section. In addition, I would suggest adding more links to other articles. Also, I would have appreciated a definition of polyphagous in your article, or at least link that to another wiki article. In your colony cycle section, I would also recommend making the second paragraph a second section on Nests. It seems like there is a lot of information on their nests and this would be an interesting section do add information to. Finally, I would advise you to further explore the sometimes polygynous nature of this species. Overall, great work! Kaykup (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review
This article has a good overview on the behavior of the species, discussing worker specialization, mating behavior, foraging behavior, and cognitive plasticity of V. germanica. They have a good variety of sources to back up the information. What was interesting to learn about was the concept of temporal polyethism, a way in which workers specialize in tasks in a sequential order rather than performing only one task their entire lives. According to the article, some hypothesize this is likely due to the fact that Vespula workers may not live long enough to benefit from worker specialization like some other Hymenoptera. There are 3 general categories that are missing. Unlike Polistes exclamans, there is no section devoted to the queen and her role and development. Because the queen is such an important figure in a colony, there chould be more information regarding queen development and determination and the queen’s role. There is also missing information regarding Vespula germanica’s development and reproduction overall. How is sex determined, and what more can we say about the sex ratio? How are the wasps sexually attracted to each other? It would also be valuable to add information on how these wasps interact with other species – how do these wasps defend themselves from predators? What does the queen do in this scenario? Interactions with other species are always an important perspective to have when looking at behavior within species and also among other species. If there is more recent information out there, the article could benefit from new sources and organization of sections. Chtsai016 (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

misidentified photo
The insect on the photo "Vespula germanica pollinating a Echinopsis oxygona flower" is clearly a hover fly and not a wasp. I do not know how to change this ins wikimedia commons, so is post it here. 77.1.70.170 (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I tried to fix it, but someone should check, please! 77.1.70.170 (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Done. Dyanega (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)