Talk:Hymenoptera

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Hymenoptera task force (assessed as Top-importance).

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): Jwaase.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

The temptation to hit "bug reports" was almost overwhelming! Anyway, did my PhD on Scelionids with Masner, and wanted to drop by and say "yeah" for whoever is doing this - so "Yeah!"

User: Greenfyre (not logged in)

Symphyta groups

Though considered paraphyletic with the Apocrita in some taxonomies, this should not preclude their mention among the Hymenoptera. Superfamilies listed, not Wikified, until some work can be done for at least some of these groups.azwaldo

I don't see how it follows from your argument that because some taxonomies consider termites paraphyletic with Aprocrita that termites should be listed as Hymenopterans, nor does your mention of superfamilies. I see that the Vespoidea entry suggests--based on the Zoologica Scripta article--a phylogenetic restructuring, but at the family and subfamily levels, and does not appear to call for integration of termites. I found no sources or even mention of termites' belonging to this order in related articles (e.g. Apocrita, Termite).

Further investigations elsewhere point to the fray residing in the superorder (and sometimes order) Dictyoptera and evidence for termites being related more closely to the order Blattaria (via Blattoptera). The Termite article itself contains a comprehensive list of articles discussing this evidence. As such, I believe it best to remove termites from this article until their more proper classification as Hymenopterans has been clarified. Seijihyouronka (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What to mention

Why would you list some families for the Vespoidea and not for the others? Unless you have a good reason, would it not be better to be consistent and leave them out?Dave 04:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of superfamilies

The order looks as though it is in some sort of evolutionary progression. If that is not so, if there really is no logical basis for the order, would it not be better to arrange them alphabetically?Dave 05:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

one small addition?

while the ancient Greek translation is a very impressive find. The name Hymenoptera actually is derived from hymeno, god of marriage and ptera wing. which refers to the joining of the wings by a hamuli. the hamulus are a minute series of hooks on the wings of Hymenoptera that allow the wings to join and beat in unison while in flight.

I just wanted to see if this is a worthy addition to this article. As pretty much every insect has membranous wings and apart from the hamuli like structures in some Lepidoptera the hamulus are one of the defining factors of Hymenoptera.

just wanted to get some opinions before making any changes.

(Entoman09 05:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I'm silly Hamuli are mentioned in the article, but is it ok if the information about the first half of the name Hymenoptera is added? (Entoman09 06:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I don't know if the name actually does derive from Hymeno. Now, I'm not sure about this, but, according to the OED, it appears that Linnaeus was going off of some Latin word (perhaps hymenoptera) which comes from a Greek word ὑμενόπτερα which comes from ὑμήν. Sadly, my Latin dictionary doesn't have hymenoptera, nor does my LSJ have ὑμενόπτερα, so I can't look up the origins of these words. In any case, the OED mentions ὑμήν as the apical prefix of the word, and so I think that we should stick with that, unless you have some other compelling evidence. If you have access to Linnaeus' writings or something, I think that would rather definitely settle it. Cerealkiller13 07:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't have access to Linnaeus' writings I'm just referring to my 2005 edition of Borror and Delong's introduction to the study of insects. However, that text may be just Defining Hymeno with it's Greek mythological meaning. Hymen was the Greek god of marriage but it still refers to any kind of membrane. So both meanings are correct. I guess its open to interpretation and relative to whom is talking about it. eh?

Entoman09 07:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think this is the case. Either Linnaeus sort of made up the word (as biologists often do), and then the correct definition is born from his intent, or else he was taking from some premade word, and then there is probably a definitive etymology for that word. Although I will certainly admit I don't know which one is the case, and so I will heartily admit my etymology could be wrong. Cerealkiller13 17:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sex determination

This article implicitly states that 50% of the offspring in a Hymenopteran colony are males by its suggestion that the male gender is determined by a gene. Deeming from what I've read about sex ratio in ant, wasp and bee colonies, this is obviously not the case; all of the workers are sisters at least in the literature. If gender is genetical in Hymenopterans, surely the male-gene locus must be homozygous in 50% of the cases - if both the mother (who usually is the mother of the father and thus must carry all of his genes) and the father (who obviously is a male) carries the allele?--Gunnar Mikalsen Kvifte (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe you misunderstand haplodiploidy. Gender is determined by whether an egg is fertilized or not, which is under complete control of the egg-laying female, since fertilization occurs at the time the egg is laid; she either releases stored sperm from the spermatheca, or she does not. If a female fertilizes all of her eggs, they will all be female. If she fertilizes none of them, they will all be male. This article directs you to the one explaining haplodiploidy, which you may wish to read more closely. The comment about sex being affected by a locus is a special case which is exceedingly rare, since the sex locus referred to has many different alleles, and will almost never be homozygous unless there is substantial inbreeding. Dyanega (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

popular culture?

I'm not really sure that this section deserves to exist. More substantial "popular culture" sections have been deleted from the pages of other taxa. Is anyone going to mind if I remove it? Aderksen (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the "References in fiction" section? That's all uncited and pretty trivial, so I don't see why it shouldn't be removed. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

That was what I meant. Thanks for the delete. Aderksen (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How large are the Hymenoptera Order

According to my reading and what we learned in class Hymenoptera ranks third in terms number of described species with Coleoptera and Lepidoptera coming in first and second respectively. Tookoolforcupid (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Find a citation for that and add it. Aderksen (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather technical section on "Thelytokous reproduction"

Thelytoky is probably worth a brief mention in the article, but the mention needs to be no more technical than the rest of the article really. In the Thelytoky article, it may be appropriate to be a little more technical given that the topic focus is narrow. I suggest that we have a brief "Thelytoky" section - why don't we group it with "Sex determination" in a new section called "Reproduction"? In fact, I think I shall boldly do that now. I'll cut down the description to what I think might be an appropriate amount of detail, with a "main" link to the main existing article on the topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ecological Roles

Hi I am a student in Radford University. One of my assignments this semester is to provide information to this wikipedia page. I was thinking about adding a page about ecological roles this order has. Given the information I have found, this order provides a crucial role in many aspects. Some examples are pollination, decomposition, nutrient cycling, pest control, disease control, food web stability, seed dispersal, among other things. Please let me know your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwaase (talk • contribs) 19:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that since ecological roles vary over such a broad range, it is best to incorporate such info into specific articles for the different sub-groups OR to work in reverse; that is, for example, if only bees are important pollinators, you could check the page for bees and make sure the information there regarding pollination is accurate and complete, and then ALSO check the article for pollination, and make sure it links back to the bee article. The more generalized the article, the less detailed the content, so the Hymenoptera article is a better place for things that apply to all Hymenoptera, rather than specific lineages within the group.Dyanega (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jwaase: - Welcome to Wikipedia! I agree with Dyanega. Being one of the "big five" orders, with hundreds of thousands of species, there isn't a lot you can say about the ecological roles of Hymenoptera in general--they occupy a lot of different niches. I would give a look at the following articles to add ecological information: wasp, parasitoid wasp, Ichneumonidae, bee, sawfly, or ant.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hymenoptera. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.hymis.eu/fotos/topical/topical.php?nav1=topical
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fossilinsects.net/index.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060924070018/http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/selhome/sphecos/sph30ttl.htm to http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/selhome/sphecos/sph30ttl.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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hymenoptera. 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/20160305012733/http://www.esc-sec.ca/aafcmonographs/hymenoptera_of_the_world.pdf to http://www.esc-sec.ca/aafcmonographs/hymenoptera_of_the_world.pdf

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

There is a pair of sentences presently in this section that have no source: "Thus, another plausible etymology involves Hymen, the Ancient Greek god of marriage, as these insects have married wings in flight. Another suggestion for the inclusion of Hymen is the myth of Melissa, a nymph with a prominent role at the wedding of Zeus." This looks to be a possible violation of the "no original research" policy, and if sources aren't provided, I suggest these should be deleted entirely. Dyanega (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that these sentences come from two different editors; the first dates to this edit in 2015, the other was added in this edit in 2022. Neither was sourced when added, and have not been sourced subsequently. Dyanega (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]