Talk:Hemiptera/Archive 1

Archive 1

comment

Every source I find seems to differ on these. Some give Hemiptera and Homoptera as two orders. Some say the "true bugs" label is applied to Heteroptera, some to all of Hemiptera. We need an expert to clear this up! -- Tarquin 10:55 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

Almost two years on, and still confusion: Are Hemiptera Endopterigota or Hemipterodea? If the former, then the taxobox in insects is wrong. If the latter, the one in Scale insect is wrong. In any case, there should probably be an entry for the superorder in the taxobox here. Sebastian 09:10, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

So, you'd like it cleared up?

If that sentiment is sincere, I'll go ahead and try to get this all straightened out (I'm a taxonomist, working on Fulgoroidea at the moment), but be aware that the use of the name "Heteroptera" only persists among non-Linnaean classifications (i.e., classifications where clades are given names, but there are no ranks). The reason it can't be used should be clear from the conflict on the present incarnation of the Hemiptera article: you can't have a Suborder that ends in "-ptera", as that is the accepted ending for the Linnaean rank of Order. So, while you'll still see some resources using "Heteroptera", you'll note that they are generally in rankless schemes, such as the Tree of Life website (TOL Heteroptera). The traditional ending for Suborder names within the hemipteroids is "-rrhyncha", and the one used by many Hemipterists lately is "Prosorrhyncha" (proposed in 1995). You can Google it to see that has been accepted and it is still in use (e.g., Auchenorrhyncha website). I'll make a note of this on the page that the link "Heteroptera" takes you to, as well. It isn't going to be popular, but it is authoritative.Dyanega 00:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made nearly all the necessary changes aside from swapping "Prosorrhyncha" for "Heteroptera" on all the lower-ranked pages. I'll note that whoever did the original species tallies for the suuborders, the numbers don't add up: 25,000 + 33,000 + 12,500 = 70,500, which is 3,000 more than the total of 67,500 given. I'll see if I can track down the real numbers, and move those figures to the respective suborder pages. Dyanega 22:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC) these bugs are scary

What's the scientific basis (or just convention) for restricting the term "bug" to this order? Basically, who declared it that way, when, and why? It would be nice to have such an explanation in the article.--4.236.30.238 18:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Do Not Move. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

hemiptera to bug. Then move bug to bug (disambiguation). Arthropod is at arthropod, not arthropoda, animal is at animal, not animalia. This article should similarly be at bug, not hemiptera as these animals are the true bugs. Gossy45 23:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support per reasons I have stated above. Gossy45 00:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Voortle 10:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article would have to be at true bug, not just bug. When most people talk about "bugs", they are not restricting it to the Order Hemiptera (e.g. A Bug's Life). Hemiptera is much the best title, because it is entirely unambiguous. --Stemonitis 10:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Stemonitis. Most people's understanding of the category insects called "bugs" is polyphyletic. (See also: Moreton Bay bug...) True bug would be acceptable, but I prefer the current name. -- Eugène van der Pijll 11:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. While true bug could be used, a better precedent is set with Orthoptera, which like this order covers a variety of common names. Mangoe 12:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Stemonitis. Duja 09:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

possible rewrite

i am just an amateur entomologist and arachnologist, still a student, and therefore feel uneqipped to take on the challenge of rewriting this article myself. however, i do agree with the proposed changes and the need for a different structure to the article, and if there are folks who feel capable of heading a rewrite, i would be glad to contribute my limited knowledge and help out whenever possible. asibikaashi 22:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Rampant inconsistency and error

Look at all the inconsistency within this article:

First paragraph reads:

"Hemiptera is a large, cosmopolitan order of insects, comprising some 67,500 known species in THREE suborders. Traditionally these taxa were treated as two separate orders, Homoptera (Auchenorrhyncha and Sternorrhyncha) and Heteroptera; the former name is now obsolete (the group was paraphyletic), and the latter name is falling into disuse, often replaced by Prosorrhyncha. In the latest investigations the name Auchenorrhyncha should also be replaced by Archaeorrhyncha and Clypeorrhyncha."

Sidebar reads:

Suborders
Archaeorrhyncha
Clypeorrhyncha
Prosorrhyncha
Sternorrhyncha

Chart reads:

	Sternorrhyncha Archaeorrhyncha + Clypeorrhyncha Coleorrhyncha Heteroptera

Can we get any more confusing and less consistent?

Please, we need an entomologist to fix this article and have all of its parts match the information in all other parts. Softlavender 23:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"True bugs"

We need an entomologist to make consistent the inconsistent X-refs, links, and definitions in Wikipedia about "true bugs." Start by looking up the word "bug" in Wikipedia and go from there. You'll see that nothing matches; the info in the articles contradicts what the hyperlinked pages say; and all of the information basically tends to contradict the information/definition of "true bugs" in the page for "bug." (See bug (disambiguation), Hemiptera, Heteroptera.) Please make all three of these pages consistent, and link the "bug" article to the correct "true bug" classification — not the mistaken classification for "true bug." Softlavender 23:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am the primary editor of the pages in question, and an expert entomologist, and I have taken great pains to be explicit on each of the pages you make reference to, so people understand that entomologists generally are steering away from various historical names including Heteroptera, Homoptera, and Auchenorrhyncha. When I look up "bug" it takes me to Hemiptera, which is where it should take me, since it refers to the entire order. On the Hemiptera page it explains that "true bugs" is a name for ONLY the Heteroptera, and the Heteroptera page points out that this name is being phased out of use. The only thing I could find, in fact, that was not consistent, was that if you typed "true bug" and hit "go" it took you to Hemiptera instead of Hteroptera. I have fixed that now; you'll note that I never edited that redirect page, and I hadn't noticed the bad redirect. The tree was a recent addition, and not my idea - it's tricky to make it accurately reflect the present classification. Nonetheless, I have altered the taxobox and text slightly to clarify things. Dyanega 01:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Apologies for the rant. I made a small copyedit for clarity in the sentence regarding "true bugs" and Heteroptera/Hemiptera.

My one question remains: How many suborders are there to Hemiptera? The sidebar and the subsections at the end of the article show four, as (possibly) does the tree — yet the first paragraph still says "three." Can you fix that or clarify it for me? Thanks. :) Softlavender 03:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to fix the tree to reflect the rest. Let me know if there is any modification needed and you have trouble fixing it yourself. Shyamal 03:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We still have not determined how many suborders Hemiptera has, and what exactly those four or three are. Note the first sentence of the article still says THREE suborders. I feel we should determine how many suborders Hemiptera actually has, and list those in parentheses directly after the word "three" (or "four" or "five," if it may be) in the first sentence. Otherwise what constitutes an actual definitive suborder of Hemiptera remains confusing, constantly changing, and indeterminate. If that cannot be objectively determined, we should change the word "three" (in the first sentence) to "several" or something else nonspecific. Softlavender 06:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: True bugs: My original complaint of inconsistency remains, if the both the bug disambiguation (which defines true bugs as Hemipteras), and also a Wikipedia search for true bug, link to two completely different pages (orders/suborders) altogether. That's blatant inconsistency for the same term, "true bug," which should link to the exact same page every time someone searches it on Wikipedia [whether someone types in "bug" or "true bug", they are inquiring about "true bug"]. I don't care which it links to, Hemiptera or Heteroptera, but they should link to one and the same, or else Wikipedia is internally inconsistent. Thanks. Also, there's no indication in the Heteroptera article that the entire order of Hemiptera is sometimes called true bugs, so therein we have another omission of highly pertinent information.

Furthermore, if the term Heteroptera is being phased out even within Linnaean taxonomy, should not "Prosorrhyncha" also now be listed/linked in the "true bug" definition, since/if it is the 'new' Heteroptera, and includes another suborder which also seem to be bugs? No information is in the article on Prosorrhyncha about being true bugs, nor is that article linked in any of these discussions or searches or disambiguations.

Proposed solution to ALL of the above problems re: true bugs: Create a mini-article (or a disambiguation which captures searches for both "bug" and "true bug") on the term "true bug" [it needn't be very large at all -- only or one sentence/paragraph or two], which details all of these permutations and confusions (or at least mentions BOTH Hemiptera AND Heteroptera). That way, all bases are covered and there is no internal inconsistency within Wikipedia. Thanks! Softlavender 07:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The inconsistency you mention is due to usage rather than definition. By definition "true bug" is a Heteropteran, because that's what the common name was originally applied to. That's all. However, by usage, the term "true bug" USED to be used by almost everyone to refer to the order Hemiptera, because the only group that people were familiar with that USED to be in the Hemiptera was the Heteroptera! In other words, up until recently, Heteroptera and Hemiptera were treated as interchangeable by laypeople (the only reason they were not genuinely synonymous, technically, is that scientists placed Peloridiidae in the Hemiptera, and peloridiids are not heteropteran). Since everyone got accustomed to thinking of Heteroptera and Hemiptera as interchangeable, they both were called by the same common name. Now that Hemiptera includes other taxa besides Heteroptera, the common name "true bug" is even LESS appropriate for the order, but the problem is that (1) there are lots of old textbooks and outdated websites, so plenty of people are still going to find places where the name "true bug" is used for "Hemiptera", and (2) some scientists, rather than fight the old associations and connotations, simply go along with the historical use of "true bug" as applying to "Hemiptera" as a whole (in other words, e.g., cicadas are now true bugs, even though they never were before), so sometimes it depends on who you are talking to. There is no consensus, but this is only in the non-technical sense. In the technical sense, true bug MUST redirect to Heteroptera, even though many people do not care about technicalities. Ultimately, that's why I had things set the way they are; "bug" is certainly applicable to all Hemiptera, in both the historical and present usage, both technical and non-; however, "true bug" IS a more restricted term, because it was coined that way, and so should point to a different page than "bug" - after all, one of the goals of WP is to educate people, so it should make a difference what the technical application is. Cicadas and aphids are "bugs" because they are Hemipterans - but they are not normally considered "true bugs". I have tried to let the text of the pages point out the ambiguity, but set the page structure and arrangements so they follow the technical applications of the names. Dyanega 18:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

But the question mostly asked is are box elder bugs a "true bug" I for one came here looking for answers and got few.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.118.250 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Box elder bug is in Hemiptera and, more specifically, Heteroptera, and so a "true bug" by all accounts. --Stemonitis 19:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

A really weird insect whose article could use attention from an expert

I created this article, but I'm not an expert. If anyone here is interested, please add to the article. Afrocimex constrictus Grundle2600 (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Economic Significance

Aren't there a number of hemiptera species that eat insect larvae such as caterpillars, and that would thus have positive economic significance? I think this should be mentioned if anyone can find a good cite. Cazort (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Dyanega (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Entomology

Please include a notice that "entomology" is the word for the study of bugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.241.10 (talk) 05:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Naive question

Why "true bug"? Does that imply that there is a "false bug", or insect-like creatures that are not "true"? Do they have a classification? — Nahum Reduta [talk|contribs] 04:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe this qualification with "true" is because of the usage of "bug" as meaning any insect. But it could also in part have to do with the earlier classification of hemiptera vs homoptera (which is now defunct). Shyamal (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

True Bug is never defined here

I have to echo the question, "What is a true bug"!!! There is a redirect from that word to here. But why? Its not acceptable to have the half hearted or ambiguous definitions given just above this only on the bottom of the discussion page. This article needs to have a section that defines the word "true bug"and if it doesn't fit because it isn't biological or scientific enough then a seperate article should be created. Most people use the term "bug" improperly. Or maybe then the majority should rule and we should redefine the word. Or if not, some expert should say why they think bug doesn't mean any insect or spider. This is a major major omission. I cam here to find out what makes a bug or a true bug and I've got no answer. Hemiptera seems to be unrealated to the issue. If there is a relationship it isn't defined anywhere. Actually this seems like too big an omission. Maybe I'm missing something obvious. Could someone please correct me? Why would we have an article that says "true bug" only at the top and then also when describing wings but has no definition. If someone doesn't want to fix this I might just add an empty definition of true bug section so that somebody reading wikipedia notices that it should be filled in. I want to know but it seems taxonomical purity is prohibiting basic understanding. ! ;-) Cheers. Rusl (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused. The article begins "Hemiptera (pronounced /hɛˈmɪptərə/) is an order of insects most often known as the true bugs". Thus, Hemiptera = true bugs; true bug = Hemiptera. I cannot see how you can think Hemiptera unrelated to the concept of true bugs: they are identical! Could you explain the problem? I have taken out the second instance of "true bug" because it was slightly contradictory, and added a link to bug, which lists all sorts of possible meaning. Does that clarify it for you? --Stemonitis (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick update! I think the link to bug is a good idea but I didn't know how to put it in in a way that would be helpful. You've done it well. I'm exaggerating about it being unrelated. But as one very ignorant on the subject, I need a better definition than A=A therefore A=A. Why is A not B? True? I guess I also want a better definition of "bug." I can understand that a spider isn't actually an insect though people commonly misuse the term. That's something you learn as a kid: Insect means 6 legs. But "Bug" is not just a technical biological term. Even when it is talking about these Hemiptera. To add "true" to the mixture implies an argument that it isn't false. I want to know that argument. I've thought that bugs are spiders and insects together. But apparently some people think it is a more specific term than even insect? I guess the problem is that the article is too expert for my general use, but it claims to be an entry for a term that is a very non-expert word. Sorry for being so difficult, but I think that a lot of people know even less than me, my Mom is a Biology teacher. I'm just wanting to know a "Why?" for the term. Rusl (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a mistake! Hemiptera=bugs and Heteroptera=True bugs. see for example here http://www.biolib.cz/en/taxontree/id16819/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.115.235.2 (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously folk classifications are folk classifications. But I agree that the term "true bug" in older textbooks referred to the old concept of "Hemiptera" which did not include the Auchenorrhyncha and Sternorrhyncha (the old "Homoptera") - so under the new treatment "true bug" would indeed apply specifically to the "Heteroptera". "Bug" of course is a highly misused term. Here is what Resh and Carde (second edition) has on p. 839 - "The classification of the order Hemiptera is confused, ... and always arouses controversy. That there is an order Hemiptera, few doubt; moreover, that the group of true bugs, Heteroptera, is a phylogenetically valid taxon, no one doubts. Questions arise, however, concerning what had been considered the other suborder, Homoptera, a group that some (mostly homopterists) elevate to ordinal rank; indeed, some homopterists elevate groups within Homoptera to ordinal rank. However, recent work has shown that Homoptera and some of its subordinate groups are paraphyletic and may not even be monophyletic). As a result, confusion reigns. ... The Heteroptera differ from the majority of other hemipterans. In these other insects (mostly homopterans), the forewings are usually opaque (hence, “ Homoptera ” ), but they are half opaque and half membranous in Heteroptera (again, hence the name). The two groups differ also in the apparent location of the mouthparts, which arise from the ventral surface of the head in both groups but, in Homoptera, arise from the back of the head sometimes appear to arise from the thorax) and, in Heteroptera, arise from the front of the head." - My edits have been removed so someone with better sources can do the needful to indicate the problems in terminology arising from changing circumscriptions. Shyamal (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is what the venerable B-T-J Study of Insects 6th edition has in its introduction to the "old" Hemiptera (p 284): "The term bug is used by the general public for a great many different animals and by entomologists for occasional insects in other orders (for example mealybugs, lightningbugs). When used for an insect in the order Hemiptera, the bug of the name is written as a separate word. The Hemiptera are sometimes called the "true" bugs to distinguish them from occasional insects in other orders to which the term bug is applied." That is Chapter 24 and Chapter 25 is on the Order Homoptera. Shyamal (talk) 11:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Cladogram request

This article would benefit from a cladogram, or more than one given the large changes over the years, to illustrate the group's relationships and classification. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Rather than add one to the article, I added a link to one, in teh External Links section. Hopefully that will work? Dyanega (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Why does "Rhynchota" redirect here?

Not mentioned in article. 109.157.79.50 (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Traveler460.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Malpigian tubules: anatomical terminology

The article says, "However, in larval Cercopoidea and Membracoidea, the far ends of the tubules secrete proteins, while the near ends produce both proteins and glycosaminoglycans for the cocoon." Far and near to what? Does this refer to ventral/distal? Coelomic/exterior?

OK, checking [www.omicsonline.org/open-access/review-malpighian-tubule-an-essential-organ-for-insects-2161-0983.1000122.php?aid=25337 the reference], the authors say "distal" and "proximal". May I suggest that "far" and "near" are not good ways to simplify that technical terminology? If someone else doesn't fix this, I will (try to remember to) replace with distal/proximal and make those links to the Anatomical terms of location article. IAmNitpicking (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. Great username, btw. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Challenged source

An item in the article is from a publisher whose integrity is questioned. This seems to me to be (possibly) a reason for seeking a better source, and for tagging the source as unreliable, but not at all a reason for deleting text which can very likely be sourced elsewhere. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

While OMICS publications are a controverisal topic right now, I'm not seeing a major issue with it's usage in this particular case. For non-controversial non-medical topics like Hemiptera, primary sources are ok (though not preferred) as long as the information is not original results or conclusions from the study (thrice so if it's from OMICS). Pulling non-controversial information from the introduction should be ok even if it's an OMICS publication with the understanding that the source is not as comprehensive as a true literature review. I'd have a preference for just not using OMICS publications though, so we maybe could find a better source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, basically all we need to do is to take care as always, and perhaps replace the sources. If people are really twitchy and want dodgy sources removed rapidly, then we can use a CN tag but even that seems over the top to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Could editors please hold off from deleting text before the appropriate action has been agreed. There is an ongoing discussion both here and on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard so it is both irresponsible and disruptive to try to force a point of view on the matter through. It is already clear from the Noticeboard that "a number of" editors do not agree with deletion of either citations or text. I take a middle position here but am opposed to removal of text, especially (as has already been stated on this talk page, yesterday) when consensus has not been reached. I will however look for other sources today to close the matter peacefully. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that predatory journals need to be flagged and removed but it would help if the text is retained with appropriate tagging. In this case several bits can be substantiated by other sources. Shyamal (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I did some online digging and have not found any source the defines the Malpighian tubules as something inherently important to the order as a whole. Most articles are just species specific, which would seem to indicate we mention their cases in lower taxonomic articles. As it stands right now, we are technically engaging in WP:SYNTH to make some of these comparisons, especially dealing in Hemiptera vs Orthoptera. Aphids also don't have Malpighian tubules, so we'd want a more authoritative source giving a broad overview as we right now just have single studies saying species X has Y tubules, etc.

That all being said, this kind of information is usually covered more in textbooks rather than research articles and reviews. I've got a few of the big name insect anatomy books on my shelf at work, so I'll browse through those on Monday before I start working on new potential edits. That's largely why I'd hold off on deletion just for now, but I'm potentially leaning that way now that I've had time to dig a bit. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This kind of discussion, analysis, reading, editing and referencing is infinitely preferable to blanket deletion. I had already found that some claims were purely primary, and should probably not have been used without caveats however reliable the journal, so I was happy to remove those; the others are basically non-contentious and could be cited from many places. Many thanks everyone for their efforts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the section. Looking through books I have, they either say insect species can vary from 2 to more than 250 tubules, or go on to give examples of specific species while mentioning groups like Collembola and aphids that have none. To me, it's more a matter than that sources don't specifically address Hemiptera for us, so we should either mention the tubules in insect broadly as we do, or leave mention of the specific number for more specific groupings such as aphids that are specifically mentioned in sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Things have become rather overheated. I have restored the one indisputably Hemipteran claim, that spittlebugs use their glands to make the froth that defends them: this fits perfectly into the Antipredator defences section. Perhaps the moral of the story is that looking for the cosmic one-rule-to-rule-them-all kind of approach to sources works incredibly badly; looking at each case on its merits works a whole lot better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hemiptera. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/rcen/v34n1/v34n1a01.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hemiptera/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

I think that this article could do with a complete rewrite. It is very messy and unclear for non-specialists, and the structure isn't appropriate. Here is what I propose: The sections should be something like "morphology", "feeding behaviour", "diversity", "taxonomy", etc., not just a list of suborders, that can be done (and is done) just as well in the taxobox. In accordance with this, the emphasis should be less on the taxonomy (of very little interest to most readers), and more on the critters themselves (what do they look like? what is their behaviour and ecology like? What is their economical importance?) The article also needs REFERENCES, as always. IronChris | (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Well, I've re-written it from scratch. I hope I have answered all the points you raised. I still think the economic importance is too short, but I'm not a specialist in agricultural pest control by any means, so I didn't want to say too much on that. --Stemonitis 14:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Numbers

As usually numbers are totally throw up (and with comas, instead of space, as reading facilitator. Comas are, as points, decimal separators)... 50 000 to 80 000. Total bullshit.

I estimate about 7000 species. And I dare anyone to prove me wrong. I always knew this. Never took those bullshit invented numbers serious. Finally some one else thinks the same: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3106107/Number-animal-species-worldwide-greatly-exaggerated-scientists-new-method-counting.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.80.22.126 (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please be civil on talk pages. It is entirely acceptable to use commas as separators: there are different varieties of English (e.g. British vs American usages) on Wikipedia. The Daily Mail is often an unreliable source on scientific matters - see Ben Goldacre's Bad Science for examples. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"true bugs"

True bugs redirects here, but there is inadequate description of that phrase. I am no entomologist, but my guess is that something like this should be added to the article:

   The term true bugs is neither scientific nomenclature nor is it from common usage. Rather, it reflects that "bugs" has become a term of art among entomologists who understand it to mean specifically the genus Hemiptera.

Of course, a true entomologist should write that up and add it as I am not qualified. Ben (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

True bugs are actually a common name for the order, or at least the suborder Heteroptera as mentioned in the lead already. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Not really so "common". In American general usage at least, a "bug" is any insect. Therefore, to an American ear, "true bug" is saying that the subgroup is more truly an insect than all the other insects, which is a circular nonsense statement. So the "term of art" (WP:jargon), when used without explanation becomes ridiculous fallacy, non-communicative, and unencyclopedic. Also, yeah you don't need to be an expert to add in that explanatory text, you just need a reliable source. 2604:6000:1115:585:803D:D785:C36D:96B3 (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Source number 3

Source number 3 doesn't appear to load for me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumbleton (talk • contribs) 22:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Reason Hemipterans came to be known as bugs

I recently read something interesting about the origin of the term 'bug'. In a general field guide by the name of Insects and Other arthropods of Tropical America the beginning of the section on heteroptera states:

The word 'bug' derives from the Middle English 'bugge,' meaning spirit or ghost. Back then, waking up in the morning with itching red welts meant a visit from a 'bugge' or factually, a bed bug.

I'd like to insert this backstory in an etymology section of this article. I suspect many who look up true bugs--not being terribly knowledgeable about insects--are curious as to what makes them the truest of all the bugs. But I'm unable to find many sources to back up this claim, though none seem to offer an alternative explanation for how the term fell into such usage. From what I can tell, bugge did once mean evil spirit, but I can't confirm that the correlation is that straightforward. Does anyone know if that anecdote is true?

~~~~ Ackqwattikk Phfisch (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not this straightforward at all, especially as the term evidently was derived from the word for beetle and then later used for hemipterans. See here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bug#English Dyanega (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, yeah, I was worried it might be wishful thinking on the part of the author.

Ackqwattikk Phfisch (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Massive essay on the word "bug"

An IP added a lengthy and chatty discourse on the word "bug" to the article. That is at best only tangentially relevant here, as the word has multiple senses Inc insect, arthropod, leggy pest, small vehicle, and possibly hemipteran or some subset of that.

The other obvious point is that a word is the subject of a dictionary not an encyclopedia, see WP:DICDEF.

I've therefore removed the additions as a WP:COATRACK, if not simply as off-topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)