Talk:Lorryia formosa

Asexual Reproduction

The females of the species use an asexual form of reproduction where the growth and development of embryos occurs without fertilization by a male, a process called thelytoky.

The article states that the female can give birth to developed embryos and calls the process thelytoky. The actual general process is known as parthenogenesis (literally virgin birth). The process is differentiated as thelytoky where it is only the females of the species who are born via parthenogenesis. Is that the case here? Are the males born diploid or haploid? We should be more specific here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.214.160 (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sex ratio

one study found that on citrus, 30% of the population were males, compared to 62% males when reared on grapefruit

The last time I checked, grapefruit is a citrus fruit. howcheng {chat} 17:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Yellow mite (Tydeidae), Lorryia formosa.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Yellow mite (Tydeidae), Lorryia formosa.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 26, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-11-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 18:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A digitally colorized scanning electron micrograph of a yellow mite (Lorryia formosa), a common agricultural pest of citrus trees around the world. The magnification in this image is approximately 200x, as specimens are generally less than 250 µm long.Image: Eric Erbe/Chris Pooley, ARS

Naming

Pardon, my previous moving summary was intended to be WP:COMMONNAME. We don't call cat Felis catus or refer to the Peregrine Falcon as Falco peregrinus. Twilightchill t 19:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

From WP:COMMONNAME: "Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." In the scientific literature, from which nearly all of the information in this article is derived, the species is known by the scientific name. Sasata (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

That guideline has similar example of Guinea pig. Accessibility is generally more welcomed than moot language. Twilightchill t 19:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

According to the very first two sentences of the policy you cite, this article should be at the scientific name. The later examples given on that page are of species that are better-known by their common names, and have a greater representation in the literature under the common name; that does not apply here. Sasata (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If policy itself weren't enough, here's another compelling reason to name this species per the scientific name: reduce confusion with other "yellow mites": Sasata (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• sugarcane yellow mite = Oligonychus saccharin
• yellow mite = Polyphagotarsonemus latus and here
• vine yellow mite = Eotetranichus carpini

Polyphagotarsonemus latus is the broad mite, not yellow (so, as far as I see, Lorryia formosa is the only species to bear pure Yellow Mite name). The question is do reliable sources use Lorryia formosa instead of Yellow Mite? If yes - I'm gonna retract. Twilightchill t 20:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Polyphagotarsonemus latus is also known as the yellow mite, and the jute yellow mite, see for example

Title: The yellow mite, Polyphagotarsonemus latus (banks) - a serious pest of mulberry under nilgiris hill conditions.

Author(s): Rajalakshmi, E.; Sankaranarayanan, P.; Pandya, R. K.

Source: Indian Journal of Sericulture Volume: 48 Issue: 2 Pages: 187-190 Published: DEC 2009

Title: Preliminary screening of jute germplasm against yellow mite, Polyphagotarsonemus latus banks.

Author(s): Sarma, K. K.; Borah, B. K.

Source: Insect Environment Volume: 14 Issue: 4 Pages: 152-153 Published: 2009

Title: Management of yellow mite, Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Banks) (Acari: Tarsonemidae) infesting chilli (Capsicum annum L.) in gangetic alluvial plains of West Bengal.

Author(s): Sarkar, H.; Surajit Mahato; Somchoudhury, A. K., et al.

Source: Journal of Entomological Research Volume: 32 Issue: 2 Pages: 127-130 Published: 2008

Title: Efficacy of new acaricides, botanicals and bioagents against yellow mite Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Banks) on chilli.

Author(s): Ismitha, M. S.; Giraddi, R. S.

Source: Indian Journal of Entomology Volume: 68 Issue: 1 Pages: 31-35 Published: 2006

I could go on. A search of "yellow mite" in the ISI Web of Knowledge pulls up 143 hits, most of which aren't Lorryia formosa; the majority refer to Polyphagotarsonemus latus. So the use of yellow mite is this case is confusing (not to mention contrary to policy). Sasata (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

... and to specifically answer your question, the sources used for this article may mention the common name, but generally use the scientific name throughout. Sasata (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Sasata. As he has shown, not only could "Yellow Mite" refer to several species, not just this one (meaning, if/when the others have articles, yellow mite would perhaps be best as a dab page) but this species is known by multiple common names (though, of course, most commonly referred to by its specific name.) J Milburn (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I too agree. Yellow mite should either lead to P. latus or be a dab page, since it mostly refers to that species and rarely to this one. Ucucha 00:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)