Talk:European paper wasp

Add Geographic Range section

Anyone who knows enough about wasps or has a field guide book should add a geographic range section for this article. --Ice Ardor 05:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Polistes dominulus vs Polistes gallicus

From what I knew recently, Polistes gallicus and Polistes dominulus are not the same species. Please check this comment from an European specialist. I think the page should be corrected -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Aggression

The assertions of aggression in this species are overblown and consist only of anecdotal (and probably apochryphal) evidence. Ditto the speculation the wasps in the U.S. feed mainly on caterpillars. I would like to see any evidence supporting same; the diatribe at Penn State website http://www.ento.psu.edu/extension/factsheets/dominulus.htm does not count; that article offers no evidence, either, only hyperbole.Nickrz (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect regional bias

This article seems to be strongly biased towards the invasive status of this species in the USA. However, of course it is a native species in Europe.

I suggest that the elements in the introduction concerning its status in the USA should be replaced by text about its status in its native lands, and that its status as an invasive species in the USA be removed to a specific section.

I am afraid I am not an expert on wasps, so I cannot do this. But as it stands, the article exhibits a regional bias that is inappropriate for an international encyclopedia.

Wikipedia is not just for the USA!--APRCooper (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• The introductory text was re-organized -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I came here to say the same thing. The reorganisation clearly didn't work! You can't say 'it's invasive' in the general introduction without specifying to where - ie you are assuming that the readers are all American!! This article as it stands has a huge US bias. I'm sure that's because that's because you're writing what you know about, but information on it in Europe should surely be given? Also you compare it to a yellowjacket (wasp where I come from) as if yellowjacket is one species, yet when I click on yellowjacket it covers lots of species of wasps, not just one. 86.150.102.220 (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Have re-ordered, and put the invasive species information after the biological details, as this makes more sense. 86.150.102.220 (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that reads much better now. --APRCooper (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Basics?

Hello entymologists. This article needs more info! Is this wasp carnivorous? Does it eat nectar? Why is it called paper wasp? 63.70.91.229 (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hierarchy system

This article says that any female member of the colony can lay eggs. The question is: how can they lay eggs of female wasps without being fertilized by a drone first? Also, does the hierarchy system of Polistes Dominula apply to other species of paper wasp, for example Polistes Fuscatus? 72.209.40.27 (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Regurgitation image

An image's caption on this page asserts a wasp is "heating up regurgitated liquid to aid digestion." This is erroneous. Hymenoptera sometimes regurgitate liquids to cool themselves via evaporation, just like we use sweat. I propose changing or eliminating this caption.

Also, once again I draw attention to the phrase "more aggressive" in the section on the U.S. invasive aspects. AFAIK, there is no support for this slur and I will remove it pending objections.Nickrz (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional Sections/subsections

I added information to the Dominance Hierarchy Section. I also added to it the subsections Male Dominance and Foundress Behavior. I added the sections Queen Loss, Nest Adoption, Mating, and Parasitoidism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibbyWard (talk • contribs) 05:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I added an additional 10 references and over 1000 words. I organized the dominance hierarchy section and behavior section into subsections. I added to the lead and nomenclature sections. I added to the caste system, female dominance, relatedness, and mating subsections. I created the abdominal behavior, comb arrangement, and cooperation subsections.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LibbyWard (talk • contribs) 11:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The article states that these wasps have a more generalist diet than other Polistes species, but there are no details about how this hunting is done (i.e. group or solo outings) or how information about food sources is shared (a competition for resources category could be added). Another category that is lacking is discussion of the stinger (how the wasps fight and defend the nest). This discussion could shed light on who its competitors are and its role within its environment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DianaHe (talk • contribs) 7:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

-Changed a few sentences in the Dominance Hierarchy System section to make them a little bit more clear, because they were wordy and slightly confusing. There were the sentences starting with 1) "Morphologically, foundress and subordinate..."; 2) "Some studies seem to indivdate the domiant female...";

-A few British style spellings were used and they were changed to the US convention (ie. behaviour to behavior).

-This is a really good section! There are a few words/concepts that can be explained if this article is going to be expanded: trophallaxis; ovariectomised; maybe a little more of gynes;

-The male dominance section is very short and would be an area to add more information to, although the information currently there is clear and concise.

-Changed the sentence beginning with "Strassmann et al. found that among queenless...." Just made it more concise because the meaning was unclear before.

-I thought the nest adoption section was very thorough and made a lot of sense. It was also very easy to understand and clear.

-I thought the Mating section was clear but it might be helpful to give more information about what a lek is or to link that work so that readers will be more easily about the find it and understand that section.

-Overall I think this is a very good article and very informative! There are areas to add more information especially Parasitoidism and Nest-mate recognition. Hansika.n (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review Round Two

-I think this article has a lot of good information and it is pretty concise. I think it is definitely close to being a Good Article. It would need some non-behavior section expansion but that seems to be reasonable based on the amount of research you have found so far. -I made a few small changes. -The parenthetical citations of page numbers can be removed since you linked to the articles. -Wikipedia generally does not like quotations but that is something you can talk to your groups expert about. I did not want to remove them without consulting someone who knows exactly what the rules are. -I changed P. dominula to Polistes dominula because Wikipedia prefers that there is consistency throughout the article. -I added a link to "Oviparity" in one of your sections because I really did not know what that meant. I think it will help make that section more clear. --Overall good job!Kaijones5245 (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Try to expand the intro beyond just behavior.
• Use the active voice. "Nests are begun" (in life cycle section) is very awkward.
• Should relatedness really go in the section on dominance hierarchy?
• I reworded some awkward sentences
• The paragraph in caste system beginning "Evidently, the interactions of females..." should have at least one citation. Also, get rid of the world "evidently."
• Wikipedia appears to prefer that you not use the name of the researcher when writing the entry. Get rid of these where you already have the in-text citation.
• You have a parenthetical reference for Davies et al. Change this to an in text citation (female dominance, 2nd paragraph)
• Otherwise, seems solid. Clean up the occasional grammatical error, and you should be fine.

Gharris7 (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Gharris7

Peer review and article status

I think This article is very well done, and could be nominated for good article. The recent edits have given this article body and addressed almost any question one would have about this organism. The sections are concise yet detailed, and very well laid out. Small changes include changing the "abdominal behavior" section to something more along the lines of what the behavior does, not its physical action. Also perhaps a small section on the haplodiploidy of the organism or its similarity/differences to other eusocial species could be useful, or perhaps expanded in the "relatedness" section. JSDavis2 (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Description Section

The article need a "Description" section which includes the size. The reason I came to this article was specifically to find out how long the European paper wasp was. I first looked for a "Description" section, and there wasn't one. Then I searched the entire article and could not find any where that it mentioned the size. Quite frustrating! DrHenley (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

General categories in the outline that could be included to improve this article

Three general categories in the outline that could be included to improve this article are predation and prey (beyond the discussion of parasitism), communication, and a more in-depth analysis of diet. Predation and prey would serve to place the species in relation to others in the ecosystem and how that determines or affects their behavior. Communication would establish a framework by which the various interactions between European paper wasps take place. Lastly, although a diet heading does nominally exist, the section fails to address the means of obtaining food or the actual types of food that the wasps eat, an essential part of the species’ behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marecto (talk • contribs) 20:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The article would benefit from a section regarding sex allocation. Differences in relatedness within the Polistes Dominula nest could have very interesting implications on sex allocation and altruism within the species. Tgalosher (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Recommendations

(1) need to link more terms to other wiki pages especially in the overview sections (words that could be linked: hierarchy, lek based,

• a. especially under the section, ‘Displacement of native species by Polistes dominula invasion

(2) include more information on phylogeny - who are its relatives, family tree, etc

(3) Variations amongst individual Polistes dominula- fix wording make to Variation in Polistes dominula (shorter and more simple)

• a. maybe also change the heading of ‘Genetic Variations within Polistes dominula population’ to ‘Genetic Variations within Polistes dominula’
• b. ‘Displacement of native species by Polistes dominula invasion’- you don’t need invasion

(4) A lot of sentences start off in the same way. Vary the way you start of sentences so it engages readers.

• a. ex. under Spread Within North America "Polistes dominula was also compared to and found to be more productive than Polistes fuscatus, which is indigenous to the United States. Polistes dominula produces workers about a week earlier and forage earlier in the day than Polistes fuscatus."

(5) Verb tenses are not consistent. In some paragraphs, some are in the present tense while other are in the past.

• a. Under ‘Spread Within North America’ section- “Much of North America has a very similar ecology and habitat to that of Europe, and this has allowed a faster and more successful colonization, Polistes dominula was also compared to and found to be more productive than Polistes fuscatus…”

(6) Awkward wording

• a. Under short development time- “For instance, there was a laboratory evidence that Polistes dominula…”
• b. Under generalist diet- Some other theories however, suggested that it is not that individual Polistes dominula have a more general dietary…”

(7) Italicize genus

• a. under ‘Relatedness'- “…as are other Polistes species including…”

Elee715 (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Condense overview, avoid repeating, & more

I definitely agree with the A ranking for this article because the authors have provided a lot of information about Polistes dominula. I have a few suggestions to further improve this article. The overview is rather lengthy and more detailed that necessary. Consider condensing this section by excluding the 3 sentences about female dominance since there is an entire section explaining the same ideas.

Under the “Colony Founding” section, I suggest making more of an explicit connection to how it relates to genetic diversity since it is under the subheading “Behaviors influenced by genetic diversity”. Since most wasps have a single foundress, how does this specifically contribute to or is influenced by genetic diversity?

Some parts of the article are repetitive. You describe the coloration of the males in relation to a dominance hierarchy in three different sections: Male dominance, Mating, and Visual signals of status and rival assessments. I suggest omitting some of the details presented in the later sections (i.e. Mating) since the information was already presented in one of the earlier sections.

Although most invertebrate have limited parental care, I would be curious to know how care is affected by parasitoidism and shortened brood developmental time. If there is any relevant research, I suggest including how these two factors in the nests influence care of the brood. Jazdeb (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Small grammatical changes

There are a few grammatical corrections that I made to improve the readability of the article:

1. Under the “Biological Superiority” section, I changed the last sentence by making it into two sentences for an easier read: There are a couple of possible factors that contribute to the superiority of Polistes dominula over Polistes fuscatus, specifically in settling into a territory. Some of the factors include productive colony cycle, short developmental time, aposematic coloration, a generalist diet, and the ability to colonize new environment.

2. In the second sentence under the subsection “Colony Cycle” I took out the “and there are” to replace it with “including” because the previous statement was confusing. Jazdeb (talk) 08:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Edits for clarity & suggestions for expansion

This is the most extensive article I've come across for Polistes, and its breadth is impressive. Great work!

I made the following edits:

1. Added links for terms and concepts that could be confusing to non-biologists

2. Fixed several broken links

Although this article is very informative, there are still some areas for improvement. Below are some recommendations:

1. As previous editors have mentioned on this talk page, this article is very specific to North America and does not cover the interactions and impacts of P. dominula in other places in the world - especially in Europe (around the Mediterranean basin in particular), where their populations are quite dense.

2. Recent data has shown that one of the main functions of abdomen stroking may be the absorption and application of hydrocarbons. By stroking their abdomen on the comb, the wasp can match the chemical signature of its nest and therefore be accepted as a member of the colony. This could be interesting to include.

3. One major parasite of this species is Polistes semenowi, which is not mentioned in this article at all. There's quite a lot of data about the relationship between P. semenowi and P. dominula, which I think would add a lot to this article. Feel free to reference the articles linked in the P. semenowi article! Ruaha (talk) 04:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Evaluation

This Wikipedia article actually was the first article to peak my interest; it was one of the only species that I came across for Polistes that had such an in-depth range of knowledge and information about the specific species. Immediately introducing the species with the better known name European paper wasp, the article does a great job of also presenting the information that keeps the reader interested; it does not seem as if facts were just listed in sentences like some other articles within Wikipedia that need work. The article also did not just stop at simply describing the beeś behavior but surpassed it by bringing in valuable information about certain parasitoid characteristics of the bees. The most bizarre piece of information was found here about how this species gets duped into accepting other female bees not belonging to the species P. dominula. It also gave unaccepted insights into the industrial uses of specific salivary proteins harvested from this specific species. Although the article is rated as B-Class (Mid-Important) on Wikipedia’s quality scale, I believe the article to be rather astounding based on how specific the topic itself is. To perhaps get the article to A-Class, more on their geographic range would be deeply appreciated, as well as addressing the couple of dubious comments about the article under the Talk section of the page. It mentions that anecdotal evidence is used to describe the aggression of this bee species; knowing more about that, either to correct the article or to disprove the comment, would effectively make the article better. Moreover, I think more information about the etymology would make the article an A-Class; knowing explicitly why the bee is commonly called the European paper wasp, instead of having to infer it from reading the entire article, would give the article a better footing on the quality scale. AddyShak (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Polistes dominula. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090710131558/http://www.ipc.ibaraki.ac.jp/~jkrte/wasp/polistes/Polistes.htm to http://www.ipc.ibaraki.ac.jp/~jkrte/wasp/polistes/Polistes.htm

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) 21:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)