Talk:Locust/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Locust swarm merge

the locusts are in the bible check in exodus 10:1-20

I support the merging of Locust swarm into this page. In fact, the text of the former can just be replaced by a redirect, because it does not contain info that is not found on this page. Dogo 16:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough to me.--み使い Mitsukai 16:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely this data about a plague in the USA in 1875 could have good use here somewhere.12.185.23.6 (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)dkemper http://www.hearthstonelegacy.com/when-the-skies-turned-to-black-the_locust-plague-of-1875.htm

Thugs

Locust is also another term for thugs. This is because thugs move into one area, destroy it, and move to another area.

- I disagree with this completely. Thugs are actually bullies. People careless enough to just hit and mock others. Locusts are more like swatters. They live in a place without permission, suck the place dry without any beneficial effects, then move on, leaving the place in ruins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.92.1.33 (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

-- "Squatters" you mean? 24.21.10.30 (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that (surely that's a comment for the disambiguation page?), but there's an interesting article on EurekaAlert today http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-12/uot-ats122105.php suggesting that the New World locusts are descended from Old world desert locusts that actually managed to cross the Atlantic a few (3~5) million years ago. There's food for a lot of thought there.

French page interwiki link

The interwiki link to the french page links to a non existant page.

Locust Swarm

But the Locust Swarm is a group of insects, not a species.

Incorrect. A "swarm" is a group of insects. A "Locust swarm" is a group of locusts.--み使い Mitsukai 16:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

LOCUST - an alternate meaning

According to my Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary there is an additional definition identified with the word "locust". It can refer to any of various leguminous trees - such as the carob, black locust or honey locust. The carob tree is indigenous to the Mediterranean area and produces a pod containing a sweet pulp quite similar to that of chocolate. The other two grow in North America.208.38.89.193 19:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

So? 24.21.10.30 (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Why are everyone such twats on suggestions and factual information... Like this fellow here. ^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.182.214.191 (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Because people of society in general are twats towards facts nowadays, unfortunately. Think of all the things people "learn" from reading (the title of) articles on Facebook. Awful times, these are. 205.156.136.229 (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Section Title Change?

The title "Swarming behaviour and extinctions" makes it sound as though those two items are supposed to be related, which they don't seem to be. A better title might be something along the lines of "Scientific significance"? I'm not feeling creative right now. Kith 23:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

For how long ...?

Someone should write for how long locusts have existed. Were there huge locusts during the Carboniferous, like there were huge dragonflies?

Life Cycle

There needs to be some clarification on the life cycle of the locust. There are brief references to underground eggs and "transformation" into a swarming variety, but no definitive explanation of the life cycle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.161.245 (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

--68.57.252.196 (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)== microscopy image == locust are not grass hoppers. I added an image of the locust leg muscle that I took today in the lab. I'm pretty pleased with it, hope everyone likes it.--Dylan2106 (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Dylan but I've had to remove it. I can't tell what it shows, it doesn't add anything to the article, it's just a bit of white something. What can the reader learn or discover from that pic? Sorry again, I don't like removing pics but had to in this case - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

er, ok. If I annotate the picture will it be more informative. personnally I think it is very informative, it shows the interlocking muscle fibres in the locust leg (the muscle that gives the locust the amazing power it needs to jump large distances, it produces about 1Kg of force!!!). These are verydifferent from the muscle fibres in mammalian volentary muscle. I don't think it is too technical, but agree that it needs a better description/annotation. what do you think? --Dylan2106 (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but, with all respect to you, it isn't what you think that matters, it's what the reader thinks (someone like me) :-) I see only a white blob and no matter how much description you provide it still shows nothing. I can't see the interlocking muscle fibres you mention and the picture doesn't seem to be in focus. I appreciate that this picture has a wealth of meaning to you but you have to look at it from a reader's point of view. This is only one person's opinion, what do others think? - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Valid points I'd say but I must disagree. Call me crazy but I use wikipedia to find things out that I don't know, If you could conceive of no one else finding this picture informative then I agree that it has no place. However I believe that it does hold value and add useful content to a page that has only pictures of different locust species. Seeing as though there is a paragraph devoted to locusts in scientific research it has relevence to the article. As a compromise what would your opinion be about this? It is more relevant although the picture is not as sharp. With regards to the focus, the microscope I was using had a very narrow depth of field, the actual muscle fibers are in focus.--Dylan2106 (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we'll have to disagree and leave it at that! The problem I'm finding in all your replies here is that you never tell me what exactly I'm looking at in the picture, and you don't tell me what value it adds. It remains a blob of white flesh to a non-specialist and I can learn nothing from looking at it. I suggest a compromise - put it back on the article, I promise I'll not remove it and we'll see what happens to it. (the other pic is much clearer so if that one illustrates whatever you are illustrating then I would use that one). Best Wishes and signing out on this topic - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Taxobox

It has been rather long since I visited this page for the last time, so it was only today that I saw that a taxobox had been added. I am not sure that this box is appropriate in an article about the term locust, which is not a taxon as such. I am tempted to remove it but would first like to read some other opinions about this. Even if we agree to leave the taxobox, I strongly object to the picture. It is a nice one, but is Oxya yezoensis really a locust? Even if it is called a locust in Japan, I have never come across this species in the locust literature. Many grasshopper species are inappropriately called locusts, especially large species or those that occasionally occur in large numbers and cause damage to crops. Unless I see strong protests with good arguments, I am going to replace the picture if the taxobox stays. Dogo (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Layout messed up, too many edits under text

Can we fix this?

Thanks,

DarkestMoonlight (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Main picture

There appears to be some disagreement over the main picture. As I announced under "Taxobox", I replaced the one of Oxya yezoensis, a grasshopper, with one of Schistocerca gregaria, which is recognized by everyone as a locust. The former may well be a better picture than the latter, but I do not think that is the point here. I suggest that one of those who like to see that picture in an article, write something on the rice grasshopper. There is lots to be told about it, including that it is often caught and canned in Japan. However, it cannot justifiably be called a locust, because as far as I know it does not change physiology, colour and behaviour at high densities (please correct me if I am wrong, including some literature references). Dogo (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Schistocerca

Seems these are "Bird Grasshoppers". I am learning about 'Schistocerca americana' which some call the "American Desert Locust" and some (more) call the "American Bird Grasshopper". I can not find an article on Wikipedia about "Bird Grasshoppers" but this seems the more common description of this classification (bugguide.com, Audubon Field Guide to Insects & Spiders). All this started when I was trying to find a good place for my picture. Tomfriedel (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Techniques for repelling

In the film, Nowhere in Africa, villagers successfully drive away locusts by entering fields, rattling plants and setting small fires. Is this a commonly successful method for driving them away? Are there other methods for accomplishing them?Dogru144 (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Physical robustness

It mentioned in the article their use as an experimental model due to their physical robustness, but I'm curious if a short line or two from someone with the knowledge might be worth adding as to why they're so resiliant.

I don't know personally, but I have observed from encountering them in the wild they're extremely resilient to injury, and seem to shrug off massive damage while remaining mobile (Dismemberment, evisceration, etc) that'd easily kill a more complex organism, I'm wondering what's so unusual about they biology that allows them to do that - obviously besides the direct intrest, it also relates to their use as a research specimen so it does have a purpose in the existing article. --85.62.18.8 (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Co operation among insects

Dear reders,it came to my knowldge the story of co operation among insects exeist and in particular the Locust when trying to cross long strech of water.Few of these insects in groups of (four to five) the Locust fly in a the stacking formation(one on top of another)and the one in the bottom of the stack carries the others (three or four) until it get tired.Then swap places to continue their jorney across the water.Please can anyone confirm or dimiss this idea and appreciate any feed back.Many thanks Javad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.211.23 (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

priority problem on serotonin?

P.A. Stevenson published in Science on Jan 30, but BBC announce some Oxford people's result the day before. Had the Oxford people published a paper earlier? There may be no dispute or there might be. BBC makes no mentoion of Stevenson, of course they might not have known.199.33.32.40 (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Replace mating picture?

Do we really have to use a picture of locusts mating as the main article picture? That's kind of gross to be the first thing you see in this article, and I'm sure there's children looking at these articles. 69.119.180.163 (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess you didn't ask nicely enough. Now the little darlings are "copulating". EEng (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Protein claim

Two kg of fodder easily could produce a pound of body weight, and for cattle the same is true for 10 kg of hay or grass, or 6 kg of finishing feed. To produce a kg of protein from fodder at 10% crude protein, at least 10 kg would be needed, plus what is lost due to inefficiency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.117.33.135 (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There are several sources stating a two to one conversion ratio, (Be it protein or body weight) yet I think they're wrong. Many articles mention that locusts eat their own weight in food per day, which seems mutually exclusive to me. --EliasOenal (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I admit that I agree with you here. Enthusiasts for insects as sources of food or fodder, however meritorious the concept may be, strike me as being prone to making exaggerated claims. I am not sure what to do about it at present. JonRichfield (talk) 08:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I recently got some locusts and they surely don't double in weight every other day. I would suggest removing those claims.--EliasOenal (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

CO2 Emmissions Chart

Seriously? A Green House gases chart? For an article of this length, I'm pretty sure that that qualifies very nearly as the exact definition of superfluous. Deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.78.191.236 (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Locust

Are locust and cicada the same ? I hear of seven year locust and seventeen year locust, is this true. I can't remember any year not hearing the sounds of the locust in the trees. 162.225.36.65 (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Cicadas are different types of insect than locusts. Deli nk (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation due to multiple common usages of the word

I'm moving this page to Locust (insect), since there are multiple usages of this word (see Locust (disambiguation)), as another user mentioned years earlier on this talk page. Therefore, the main title Locust should be a redirect to the disambiguation. Then the existing links should be updated so that they point to the insect page or the correct plant, depending on context. - Anonimski (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is the WP:PRIMARY topic for "locust". This type of move should go through WP:RM. I'm going to ask for this to be reverted so that discussion can take place. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 21:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 15 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Locust → Locust (insect) – There are two distinct groups of insects (Cicadas and Magicicadas when swarming) as well as multiple plants (for example honey locust, black locust) that are called "locust", depending on the context. I'm requesting a move of this article, so that Locust can be redirected to Locust (disambiguation). The impression that I've got is that there is not a clear enough WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and that Locust should lead to the disambiguation, so that a search leads to a page where both the plants and the insects are linked. --Relisted. DrKiernan (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Anonimski (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, this is a double move:

Locust → Locust (insect)
Locust (disambiguation) → Locust

Locust is not allowed to redirect to Locust (disambiguation) per WP:MALPLACED. This should be clear so that if the move is successful the closer makes both moves. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 23:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Question @Niceguyedc: did you have any preference regarding the move, support or oppose? - Anonimski (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose I would regard the insects as the primary meaning, I have barely heard of the other meanings. PatGallacher (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess it depends on where you live? One reason behind this move proposal was to make the search term more representative from a global perspective. - Anonimski (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose the insects are the primary topic -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisting comment. It's usual in these discussions to provide evidence for whether or not there is a primary topic, such as page view statistics or google hits. In this case, there are about 16,000 page views per month for "Locust" (the insect) and about 1,400 for "Robinia" (the plant). When I do a google search for Locust, of the first 10 hits, 9 are for the insect and 1 is for an open source load testing tool. DrKiernan (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose but can we WP:CONCEPTDAB it? Red Slash 22:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - the usage for trees is about the only local usage where I live, but to most people it is the insect. The precise group of insects is not important to the common word. Imc (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - Locust as the insect is the primary topic. The reader will most likely be searching for the insect if they were looking for locust. Disambiguation is not necessary. Mbcap (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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) 14:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree entirely. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

I am currently in the process of editing the Locust wiki page. It is outdated, and makes generalizations about all locusts that we know to apply only to individual species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darroncullen (talk • contribs) 11:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hallo, and thank you for bringing this to the talk page. The article has been written from reliable sources, and has been independently reviewed. No doubt it can be improved, but that will mean identifying reliable sources, discussing a plan for the improvements here on the talk page, and editing the body of the article (not the lead, which is intended as a summary of the body (the rest of the article), citing those sources. It therefore makes no sense to update the lead first, as then it fails to reflect what is in the rest of the article, and worse, it is uncited (we generally try not to put citations in the lead, nor to introduce any new ideas there). We should therefore revert your changes to the lead until such time as the changes to the body have been planned and discussed here, made and cited. Then it will be clear what the lead should say.

For these reasons, I reverted your immediate changes. You have put them back, and I would be very grateful if you would undo them for the time being, please, rather than trying to edit-war them into place. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello back - I'm not interested in an edit-war, and sorry if I gave that impression. This is the first time I've edited anything on Wikipedia, and am not fully appraised of the protocol. I'm a researcher with 10 years experience working with locusts, including my PhD. Many of the references on this page are indeed reliable, and come from the primary scientific literature. Others, however, are from outdated or uninformed blogs and pages where I know the authors to be non-expert in the field. The main issue with the article (though there are several) is the opening line, which states that 'locusts are the swarming phase' of Acridid grasshoppers - this is incorrect, regardless of the source. A locust is a locust, irrespective of whether or not it ever swarms in its lifetime, but all locusts are indeed grasshoppers. They don't turn from a grasshopper into a locust; rather, they have the ability to change (reversibly) between solitarious and gregarious phases of locust. They are still swarming grasshoppers, if you prefer a loose terminology and, confusingly, not all outbreaking grasshoppers are known as locusts. I have changed the page back and am happy to discuss things here, or over email if you prefer to write it yourself - I don't mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darroncullen (talk • contribs) 12:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. Best would be to update whatever you think fit in the body of the article, cited to review papers or textbooks (secondary sources) if possible. I can then summarize the material to update the lead, which should be written in simpler language (many people only read that, so it shouldn't be too technical). I agree the first sentence could be misconstrued, and will tweak it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

OK thanks - I will make some small edits to the main body over the next day or two (currently about to travel), and will only include major books and reviews that are also accepted by all the locust researchers I know (i.e. most of them).Darroncullen (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

As food

The section "Locust#As food" has excessive citations, and too much explanation regarding its history with Arabs, and in Islam. It goes into too much details about who said what! I'm gonna delete much of it, because it's unnecessary, and goes beyond the scope of this article. —Hexafluoride ^{Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk} 14:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Cannabilism

Should this proposed explanation of why Locusts enter the 'gregarious' phase be included? I noticed it wasn't mentioned but I'm not entirely sure of its validity. It does seem to contrast the notion of a sociality, if the behavior is driven by fear of other members of their species. icouzin.princeton.edu/wp-content/uploads/file/PDFs/Bazazi%20et%20al,%202008.pdf icouzin.princeton.edu/wp-content/uploads/file/PDFs/Bazazi%20et%20al,%202010.pdf 207.161.213.187 (talk) 01:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

That URL does not work for me. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Locust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

British or American English?

I noticed that the article contains a mixture of the two chief spelling conventions, which looks odd. Back in 2007, it looks like it only had British spelling. Per MOS:RETAIN it should have been allowed to continue like that, unless there was a good reason to change it. Was there? --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

What naturally stops/halts a locust swarm - make the locusts go back to their non-gregarious states? No more food? Reaching climates they can't survive?

I can't really find it. Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation missing?

Hi, I think there should be a disambiguation or reference to locust tree (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinia) when it's already printed in bold in the intro of the referenced article. 2003:ED:F718:7F72:1D43:4867:2190:9B3A (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)