This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
A bit off-topic, although possibly interesting to some...These beetles are common in central Ohio where I went to college. They are commonly known on campus as "Evil Lady-Bugs" and most definitely swarm entire dormitories and quads and are seen as heavy nuisances. My roommate and I had a problem when the exhaust fan in the window, which was covered in duct tape to prevent their entry, would still let them in. They would travel around the edges of the screen, through the center of the fan (one could occasionally hear them smacking the blades), eventually to attempt to burrow under the duct-tape into the warm room. The adhesive, however, proved to strong for an individual beetle, however, due to the swarming nature of these insects, the next would usually try to burrow under the previous beetle. We then had trails of lady-beetles coming into the dorm-room through the fan under the legs of their comrades. They will do ANYTHING to get indoors (nice piece of evolution Miss Nature...) which gives them the pest status. If possible, as it's starting to get cold, I'll attempt to get a nice original picture of this swarming nature...do you think the community would like that?
I had these things in the Army barracks when I was in Alabama. I taped up the windows but they still found a way in. I used to spray the windows with raid and bang them. Piles of dead lady bugs would fall. People got mad at me for killing them but there were thousands of them. It was disgusting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.244.151 ( talk) 01:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
They would swarm the dorms on my campus too--so we called them manbugs cause they're pests and they stink! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.84.83 ( talk) 19:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a very nice image showing the wide variety of shell patterns that give this ladybird its name available at various places on the Web (same basic image, viz: http://www.wildlifetrust.org.uk/cheshire/news_ladybird.htm and http://web.apu.ac.uk/appsci/lifesci/lifestaff/harlequin_01.htm). I have included the first (the best link IMO) in the External Links section, but would like to use the image directly. I have no idea as to the provenance of this image (Googling wasn't very revealing as to the original source), but am attempting to find out. In the meantime, maybe someone who knows the rules for image linking better than I would like to decide if it is OK to attach this image to the article. Xpi6 11:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
It is pretty obvious that this basic article has been written from a US perspective. Ideally, I would think it best to start with information from the species' natural range (presumably Asia), but then also to balance the article out with more info from Europe and elsewhere. The species seems pretty well established in the south of England now (I collected my first 2 specimens last week near Cambridge)— GRM 20:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Given the diversity of "English" names, is this a good candidate for relocation to a page headed by the scientific name?— GRM 20:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
That was precisely the point I was making above; if the redirect page had not been there, I would've made the move myself earlier. Dyanega 17:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Does someone know when the first one was found in the Netherlands? Mweites ( talk) 10:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC) found it and put it in article. Mweites ( talk) 16:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I reverted deletion of a paragraph on identification of H. a. For all I know the objections stated (removed a paragraph with an erroneous method of telling the harlequin apart from other ladybirds, and an erroneous reference to a survey) might be valid and justified, but removal of something so important to the topic requires patently sound support. None such was proffered. Nor was any alternative text suggested nor citation provided. Such deletions or other edits require support just as badly as original text does, and in particular if unsigned. Please provide the necessary support and material, and your edit will be welcome. JonRichfield ( talk) 12:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The "survey" reference does not go specifically to the page that explains how to distinguish it from other species, the information is in a subpage that it links to. I have crated a more specific reference to that information.
The rule about the "M" on the pronotum is very commonly stated and I'm sure many references can be found to support it. As for it's accuracy, look at the images on this page and judge for yourself.
It may not be 100% reliable but as a rule of thumb it has an excellent track record. John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 15:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Harmonia axyridis/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.
Given that this species is a major invasive from points of introduction, and that by many it is considered a pest, does it not warrant high importance status?— GRM ( talk) 18:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC) |
Last edited at 18:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 19:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Harmonia axyridis. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
It appears this sentence has been moved or entered in a poor or illogical place. [There are others.] "This can cause visible and sensory contamination.[16] " Can someone find a better place for it, please? I see several other illogical sentence locations and poor syntax, and although I am capable of editing entries, it appears a bigger problem than I wish to take on for this entry.
I changed what was haemolymph to hemolymph. Later, I checked the revisions (which in hindsight I should have done first), and saw that another user made the same edit I did, but it was reverted. Considering how the rest of the article seems to be in American English, I believe MOS:RETAIN would apply here, but I'm new here so I'm happy to discuss :p 57LeafChlover ( talk) 17:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
A 2014 paper by in BMC Evolutionary Biology describes cannibalism in H. axyridis and it found for the first time a greater propensity in invasive populations than in native ones in this specific species. The paper describes how cannibalism can be beneficial during colonialism and in new environments, which can add context to H. axyridis being an invasive species. This may be a helpful detail to add to this article. Source: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-14-15 128.252.154.3 MichelleLi455 ( talk) 00:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
A bit off-topic, although possibly interesting to some...These beetles are common in central Ohio where I went to college. They are commonly known on campus as "Evil Lady-Bugs" and most definitely swarm entire dormitories and quads and are seen as heavy nuisances. My roommate and I had a problem when the exhaust fan in the window, which was covered in duct tape to prevent their entry, would still let them in. They would travel around the edges of the screen, through the center of the fan (one could occasionally hear them smacking the blades), eventually to attempt to burrow under the duct-tape into the warm room. The adhesive, however, proved to strong for an individual beetle, however, due to the swarming nature of these insects, the next would usually try to burrow under the previous beetle. We then had trails of lady-beetles coming into the dorm-room through the fan under the legs of their comrades. They will do ANYTHING to get indoors (nice piece of evolution Miss Nature...) which gives them the pest status. If possible, as it's starting to get cold, I'll attempt to get a nice original picture of this swarming nature...do you think the community would like that?
I had these things in the Army barracks when I was in Alabama. I taped up the windows but they still found a way in. I used to spray the windows with raid and bang them. Piles of dead lady bugs would fall. People got mad at me for killing them but there were thousands of them. It was disgusting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.244.151 ( talk) 01:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
They would swarm the dorms on my campus too--so we called them manbugs cause they're pests and they stink! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.84.83 ( talk) 19:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a very nice image showing the wide variety of shell patterns that give this ladybird its name available at various places on the Web (same basic image, viz: http://www.wildlifetrust.org.uk/cheshire/news_ladybird.htm and http://web.apu.ac.uk/appsci/lifesci/lifestaff/harlequin_01.htm). I have included the first (the best link IMO) in the External Links section, but would like to use the image directly. I have no idea as to the provenance of this image (Googling wasn't very revealing as to the original source), but am attempting to find out. In the meantime, maybe someone who knows the rules for image linking better than I would like to decide if it is OK to attach this image to the article. Xpi6 11:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
It is pretty obvious that this basic article has been written from a US perspective. Ideally, I would think it best to start with information from the species' natural range (presumably Asia), but then also to balance the article out with more info from Europe and elsewhere. The species seems pretty well established in the south of England now (I collected my first 2 specimens last week near Cambridge)— GRM 20:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Given the diversity of "English" names, is this a good candidate for relocation to a page headed by the scientific name?— GRM 20:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
That was precisely the point I was making above; if the redirect page had not been there, I would've made the move myself earlier. Dyanega 17:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Does someone know when the first one was found in the Netherlands? Mweites ( talk) 10:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC) found it and put it in article. Mweites ( talk) 16:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I reverted deletion of a paragraph on identification of H. a. For all I know the objections stated (removed a paragraph with an erroneous method of telling the harlequin apart from other ladybirds, and an erroneous reference to a survey) might be valid and justified, but removal of something so important to the topic requires patently sound support. None such was proffered. Nor was any alternative text suggested nor citation provided. Such deletions or other edits require support just as badly as original text does, and in particular if unsigned. Please provide the necessary support and material, and your edit will be welcome. JonRichfield ( talk) 12:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The "survey" reference does not go specifically to the page that explains how to distinguish it from other species, the information is in a subpage that it links to. I have crated a more specific reference to that information.
The rule about the "M" on the pronotum is very commonly stated and I'm sure many references can be found to support it. As for it's accuracy, look at the images on this page and judge for yourself.
It may not be 100% reliable but as a rule of thumb it has an excellent track record. John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 15:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Harmonia axyridis/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.
Given that this species is a major invasive from points of introduction, and that by many it is considered a pest, does it not warrant high importance status?— GRM ( talk) 18:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC) |
Last edited at 18:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 19:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Harmonia axyridis. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
It appears this sentence has been moved or entered in a poor or illogical place. [There are others.] "This can cause visible and sensory contamination.[16] " Can someone find a better place for it, please? I see several other illogical sentence locations and poor syntax, and although I am capable of editing entries, it appears a bigger problem than I wish to take on for this entry.
I changed what was haemolymph to hemolymph. Later, I checked the revisions (which in hindsight I should have done first), and saw that another user made the same edit I did, but it was reverted. Considering how the rest of the article seems to be in American English, I believe MOS:RETAIN would apply here, but I'm new here so I'm happy to discuss :p 57LeafChlover ( talk) 17:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
A 2014 paper by in BMC Evolutionary Biology describes cannibalism in H. axyridis and it found for the first time a greater propensity in invasive populations than in native ones in this specific species. The paper describes how cannibalism can be beneficial during colonialism and in new environments, which can add context to H. axyridis being an invasive species. This may be a helpful detail to add to this article. Source: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-14-15 128.252.154.3 MichelleLi455 ( talk) 00:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)