This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Myrmecia (ant) has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: October 4, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Myrmecia (ant) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
What is meant by individualistic and what funciton does only having a single set of chromosomes serve? The Jade Knight 01:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Bulldog ants, like all known invertebrates, the Hox genes can only be found on a single chromosome, and most of the times in a single cluster. But since these ants only have a single set of chromosomes too, a chromosome duplication would mean that they suddenly became equipped with two clusters on two different chromosomes. And if they doubled once more, they would have as many Hox genes as tetrapods. I guess that would give them some interesting evolutionary potential, or what?
Schopenhauer, in his Will and Representation, mentions this ant as attacking itself when cut in half; that is, bottom against head. Does anyone know if it's true? 201.19.202.103 19:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so, but I've seen them killing them self by accident by stinging their own head. 220.253.102.59 04:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I've added some information regarding the anatomy of ants and the diet of bull ants. I'm not sure if this is enough to remove the stub tag though, so I'm asking for the opinion of others.
I also have information regarding habitat, but it is specific to the Red Bull Ant. Cheers, Danger Al Danger Al 09:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
hi,
im from germany so dont mind my bad english ;)
as far as i know, Myrmecia doesnt have a social stomach and so they cant regurgitate food. they use eggs to pass food to their mates and larvas.
The potency of a venom has nothing to do with its ability to induce anaphylaxis, a severe allergic reaction. You can have something non-potent (such as peanuts for example) that can induce it. If an anaphylactoid (a reaction resembling an allergy) reaction is what was meant, then that could be the case. This should be reviewed and changed appropriately. -- MartinezMD ( talk) 01:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
A computerised algorithm has generated a version of this page using data obtained from AlgaeBase. You may be able to incorporate elements into the current article. Alternatively, it may be appropriate to create a new page at Myrmecia (alga). Anybot ( contact operator) 16:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
No corroborating evidence can be found for the claim that "if it is cut in two, a battle begins between the head and the tail". However, the quote itself does appear to be correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.0.174.20 ( talk) 22:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
"Foes of bull ants are the black ants, which"...?????? 203.161.102.82 ( talk) 08:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: move the ant's page to Myrmecia (ant) and the disambiguation page to the plain title (to avoid a malplaced disambiguation page), per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 00:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Myrmecia → Myrmecia (ant) – Proposed move article content to Myrmecia (ant), direct Myrmecia to Myrmecia (disambiguation). Myrmecia is a genus of ant, a skin disorder, and a genus of algae. Myrmecia is a very important algal genus for lichenologists. A Google Scholar search of "Myrmecia" AND "Algae OR lichen" produces 952 results, and 736 results for "Myrmecia AND lichen". This is a large number for single algae genus. This is a huge number for a lichenized fungus associate. The number of results may be expected to grow because this algae is a key example in recent hot topic philosophical problems related to evolution of symbiotic associations, to the species problem, and to the debate on classification of lichens according to ancestry of the fungal component, rather than on any other species criterion for the symbiotic association, which is related to the philosophy of natural kinds. The Myrmecia skin disorder (basically, a wart), has an interesting place in history [1]. The ant will likely always produce the most number of Google results, because of Schopenhauer if for no other reason, but a content move and redirect to disambiguation are well-justified. FloraWilde ( talk) 18:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed in the edit history that some editors have stated the winged bull ant seen here is of an uncertain sex. That is not true, and it's very obvious which gender the winged ant belongs to. That is a female bull ant, THIS is a male - seen here. You can tell the difference since the male has smaller mandibles and is usually mistaken for a wasp. I hope that resolves the issue. Burklemore1 ( talk) 02:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
A new peer reviewed article in 2015 states of four new described Myrmecia species, seen here. Any confirmation on this? Burklemore1 ( talk) 04:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
CONFIRMED: New species of Myrmecia! Burklemore1 ( talk) 04:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I have been working on this article in one of my sandboxes for awhile. It should be done soon. Burklemore1 ( talk) 12:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Burklemore1, as you may have noticed, I've begun a copy-edit of this article. I have to say, at first glance it is impressive work, hats off to you. There are a few minor prose issues, which I will work through, and hopefully I will catch all of them. There is one slightly larger problem that I wanted to bring to your attention (or really to that of anybody watching this), and this is of within-section organization. You've done a good job, and I think the important information is all there, but there are sections which need a little re-ordering, so that sub-topics are grouped together. Currently, it is just a little haphazard. For instance; the first paragraph of the taxonomy section, each sentence is on a slightly different topic; you start with the history of the classification of the genus, go some other places, and then come back to the history in the second paragraph. Now I could try to fix this myself, but I don't know the source material, and might introduce factual errors; so I'd much rather do it in collaboration with you. Regards, Vanamonde93 ( talk) 04:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I should mention that your immense effort and help to fix up my mistakes and further improve the article will not go unnoticed, so spoiler alert; expect a barnstar coming your way. ;-) Burklemore1 ( talk) 10:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I saw the note about peer-review at Wikiproject Insects. The main thing I'd look to improve right now is the lead. I generally expect leads to be brief by only introducing what I'll be reading about in the article without quite as much detail to read through. It seems to have a bit too much information that is better left for the body of the article. I'd keep the first paragraph as is, but really try to condense the last three. I'd focus on brief statements on things relatively unique to the genus:
Other things like discussion of exceptions to the general rule, explaining things more in-depth than a single sentence, etc. is a good indication it's better left for the body. I'm happy to take a stab at this if that's preferred to show what I'm thinking, but this is just my main suggestion for now. Overall it looks like a good article. It might get a bit too technical in a few places for my preferences, but not enough for me to really fuss over considering how much detail is already in the article. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 14:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
In the etymology section mention is made of Australian Aboriginal names for this ant being translated to "lion ant". Besides the fact that the languages arent specified (there scores of different Aboriginal languages), the translation is dubious since lions were never native to Australia and so I cannot see how there can be a language reference to lions. Is this a bad translation or just complete fantasy? Dalamani ( talk) 18:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 ( talk · contribs) 19:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The images you've found have dumbfounded me, and nearly all are within copyright laws and are fairly relevant. You've done a good job.
The original file was uploaded by the author (User:Fir0002)
I'm rather curious with this, because normally you add "public domain" to images or works that are "intellectual property rights have expired,[1] have been forfeited,[2] or are inapplicable." I also think works can be in public domain if the original author is willing to do so.
Done.
I'm not sure if a creating a new division for the common names would be necessary. All of these species are referred as "bulldog ants" and many other names that are provided, hence it would be redundant since the names are already given. However, M. pilosula group and M. nigrocincta group are always referred as jack jumpers due to their jumping behaviour, which could alternatively be bracketed after the species group name so this tells the reader the common name is only restricted to specific species. In regards to your last comment, I have based it off the list found in Cucurbita, an FA-class article, but I may discuss this with another editor. Also removed the ref section.
Done.
Page 54 and page 58 state the translation. Would it be necessary to add a note about its possible inaccuracy?
It's advised against delinking articles that do not exist. It has been proven red links help build Wikipedia. Even FA crtieria isn't against redlinks. It is only a problem for FL candidates if there are too many of them. Also, M. fulvipes has already been linked (in the table).
I'll look through the sources and see what they say. Aside from that, it is most likely due to human activities (queens must have been on ships, because the nests were mainly found at ports).
Under "Diversity" in the taxobox, you put "94 species". Change it to "94 subspecies" or "Nine species".
Thank you, and thank you again for taking this on. Whether or not this process takes awhile due to the articles size of overall quality, it will be exciting. Burklemore1 ( talk) 09:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Done.
I'm not going to do much in the way of citations, just letting you know. I'm not going in any particular order. I've asked for a second opinion who I hope will be more familiar with the citation expectations.
Yes, it's an authoritative source in terms of taxonomy and has been cited in numerous high quality ant articles. The author is also Barry Bolton, who is among the most respected and reputable myrmecologist known.
Done with ref no. 133, but here is the isbn link of that book on Amazon (for ref no. 276).
Ref no. 143 does not have open access. Also, identifiers such as doi's, pmid's and such usually serve as urls to their respective abstract pages.
I'll need further elaboration with this one.
E.O. Wilson listed them among the most well known, a long with Iridomyrmex. Camponotus, Pheidole and Solenopsis.
You mean ref no. 237? I was given full access to it via download and it states this in the introduction (just like a general overall before going into other details).
Yes, it was last updated in 1996, so it will need updating sometime.
Under the M. gulosa species group, the article states that they are rarely or never found in Tasmania. However in this same species group it includes M. esuriens that I believe is endemic to Tasmania, and also M. forficata that is "most often found in Tasmania".
See:
Insects of Tasmania - Myrmecia
Encyclopedia of Life: M. forficata
Encyclopedia of Life: M. esuriens
Myrmecia_forficata 121.223.148.108 ( talk) 00:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Myrmecia (ant). 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) 08:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I have removed a sentence claiming the lethality of myrmecia venom and a photo caption repeating a line from the article claiming that fatalities from myrmecia stings are well known. While it may be true that there are well known fatalities from myrmecia stings, featuring the line prominently as a photo caption implies that myrmecia venom is particularly lethal. This is not adequately supported and is editorializing. Myrmecia stings may be marginally more lethal but not in any way which warrants fearmongering. The rest of the discussion of the details behind each fatality and details of the differences between myrmecia venom and other hymenoptera venoms has been left unchanged as it provides a more objective view of the matter.
2603:9001:2907:6100:C036:968A:7056:6535 ( talk) 16:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The § Species groups section states that these giant bull ants "are rarely or never found in the north-western coastal areas and Tasmania". While they were far less common than the jack jumper ants, we knew as kids (some decades ago) to avoid crossing paths with "inch ants", or "inch-a-mans", at several places in the northern Tasmanian bush. We even found a nest in the school yard when an old gum tree was felled. I can provide no written references for this, besides my own experience. But the claim in the article is dubious. yoyo ( talk) 13:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
(Moved from User talk:Kevmin#Re-instatement of unsubstantiated content)
We recently removed a statement that asserted that '3% of Tasmanians' are severely allergic to Myrmecia pilosula toxin. An ASCIA correction statement was provided therein; providing detail of an official consensus established at '1% of the Tasmanian population.' This is ASCIA's position. Flagging of content from research that cites 3% or more has come under scrutiny for 'conflict of interest' for four persons involved in research surrounding this topic. We would like a clear explanation of your reason to perpetuate information disharmonious to ASCIA's statements. 203.59.212.191 ( talk) 08:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
ASCIA is not a point of view, it is the authority., please take time to actually read over WP:sourcing and wp:POV, that is not how unbiased reporting works. The ASCIA very much is a pov, especially if they have not published any peer-reviewed metastudies that back their position, and has no absolute authority over wikipedia or its content-- Kev min § 21:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
This conversation may form part of an enquiry into media perceived bias. Please state otherwise if contributors do not wish for their comments to be public knowledge.203.59.212.191 ( talk) 23:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
The most confusing bit it where you state in regard ASCIA: 'but means they are to be addressed in the article while retaining the literature that is already there.' You didn't retain anything. You removed it. Aren't you breaching the rules you're quoting?( talk) 03:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Request for evidence used to support claim:"3% of Tasmanians suffer anyphylaxis." P 203.59.212.191 ( talk) 23:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Myrmecia (ant) has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: October 4, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Myrmecia (ant) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
What is meant by individualistic and what funciton does only having a single set of chromosomes serve? The Jade Knight 01:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Bulldog ants, like all known invertebrates, the Hox genes can only be found on a single chromosome, and most of the times in a single cluster. But since these ants only have a single set of chromosomes too, a chromosome duplication would mean that they suddenly became equipped with two clusters on two different chromosomes. And if they doubled once more, they would have as many Hox genes as tetrapods. I guess that would give them some interesting evolutionary potential, or what?
Schopenhauer, in his Will and Representation, mentions this ant as attacking itself when cut in half; that is, bottom against head. Does anyone know if it's true? 201.19.202.103 19:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so, but I've seen them killing them self by accident by stinging their own head. 220.253.102.59 04:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I've added some information regarding the anatomy of ants and the diet of bull ants. I'm not sure if this is enough to remove the stub tag though, so I'm asking for the opinion of others.
I also have information regarding habitat, but it is specific to the Red Bull Ant. Cheers, Danger Al Danger Al 09:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
hi,
im from germany so dont mind my bad english ;)
as far as i know, Myrmecia doesnt have a social stomach and so they cant regurgitate food. they use eggs to pass food to their mates and larvas.
The potency of a venom has nothing to do with its ability to induce anaphylaxis, a severe allergic reaction. You can have something non-potent (such as peanuts for example) that can induce it. If an anaphylactoid (a reaction resembling an allergy) reaction is what was meant, then that could be the case. This should be reviewed and changed appropriately. -- MartinezMD ( talk) 01:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
A computerised algorithm has generated a version of this page using data obtained from AlgaeBase. You may be able to incorporate elements into the current article. Alternatively, it may be appropriate to create a new page at Myrmecia (alga). Anybot ( contact operator) 16:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
No corroborating evidence can be found for the claim that "if it is cut in two, a battle begins between the head and the tail". However, the quote itself does appear to be correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.0.174.20 ( talk) 22:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
"Foes of bull ants are the black ants, which"...?????? 203.161.102.82 ( talk) 08:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: move the ant's page to Myrmecia (ant) and the disambiguation page to the plain title (to avoid a malplaced disambiguation page), per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 00:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Myrmecia → Myrmecia (ant) – Proposed move article content to Myrmecia (ant), direct Myrmecia to Myrmecia (disambiguation). Myrmecia is a genus of ant, a skin disorder, and a genus of algae. Myrmecia is a very important algal genus for lichenologists. A Google Scholar search of "Myrmecia" AND "Algae OR lichen" produces 952 results, and 736 results for "Myrmecia AND lichen". This is a large number for single algae genus. This is a huge number for a lichenized fungus associate. The number of results may be expected to grow because this algae is a key example in recent hot topic philosophical problems related to evolution of symbiotic associations, to the species problem, and to the debate on classification of lichens according to ancestry of the fungal component, rather than on any other species criterion for the symbiotic association, which is related to the philosophy of natural kinds. The Myrmecia skin disorder (basically, a wart), has an interesting place in history [1]. The ant will likely always produce the most number of Google results, because of Schopenhauer if for no other reason, but a content move and redirect to disambiguation are well-justified. FloraWilde ( talk) 18:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed in the edit history that some editors have stated the winged bull ant seen here is of an uncertain sex. That is not true, and it's very obvious which gender the winged ant belongs to. That is a female bull ant, THIS is a male - seen here. You can tell the difference since the male has smaller mandibles and is usually mistaken for a wasp. I hope that resolves the issue. Burklemore1 ( talk) 02:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
A new peer reviewed article in 2015 states of four new described Myrmecia species, seen here. Any confirmation on this? Burklemore1 ( talk) 04:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
CONFIRMED: New species of Myrmecia! Burklemore1 ( talk) 04:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I have been working on this article in one of my sandboxes for awhile. It should be done soon. Burklemore1 ( talk) 12:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Burklemore1, as you may have noticed, I've begun a copy-edit of this article. I have to say, at first glance it is impressive work, hats off to you. There are a few minor prose issues, which I will work through, and hopefully I will catch all of them. There is one slightly larger problem that I wanted to bring to your attention (or really to that of anybody watching this), and this is of within-section organization. You've done a good job, and I think the important information is all there, but there are sections which need a little re-ordering, so that sub-topics are grouped together. Currently, it is just a little haphazard. For instance; the first paragraph of the taxonomy section, each sentence is on a slightly different topic; you start with the history of the classification of the genus, go some other places, and then come back to the history in the second paragraph. Now I could try to fix this myself, but I don't know the source material, and might introduce factual errors; so I'd much rather do it in collaboration with you. Regards, Vanamonde93 ( talk) 04:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I should mention that your immense effort and help to fix up my mistakes and further improve the article will not go unnoticed, so spoiler alert; expect a barnstar coming your way. ;-) Burklemore1 ( talk) 10:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I saw the note about peer-review at Wikiproject Insects. The main thing I'd look to improve right now is the lead. I generally expect leads to be brief by only introducing what I'll be reading about in the article without quite as much detail to read through. It seems to have a bit too much information that is better left for the body of the article. I'd keep the first paragraph as is, but really try to condense the last three. I'd focus on brief statements on things relatively unique to the genus:
Other things like discussion of exceptions to the general rule, explaining things more in-depth than a single sentence, etc. is a good indication it's better left for the body. I'm happy to take a stab at this if that's preferred to show what I'm thinking, but this is just my main suggestion for now. Overall it looks like a good article. It might get a bit too technical in a few places for my preferences, but not enough for me to really fuss over considering how much detail is already in the article. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 14:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
In the etymology section mention is made of Australian Aboriginal names for this ant being translated to "lion ant". Besides the fact that the languages arent specified (there scores of different Aboriginal languages), the translation is dubious since lions were never native to Australia and so I cannot see how there can be a language reference to lions. Is this a bad translation or just complete fantasy? Dalamani ( talk) 18:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 ( talk · contribs) 19:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The images you've found have dumbfounded me, and nearly all are within copyright laws and are fairly relevant. You've done a good job.
The original file was uploaded by the author (User:Fir0002)
I'm rather curious with this, because normally you add "public domain" to images or works that are "intellectual property rights have expired,[1] have been forfeited,[2] or are inapplicable." I also think works can be in public domain if the original author is willing to do so.
Done.
I'm not sure if a creating a new division for the common names would be necessary. All of these species are referred as "bulldog ants" and many other names that are provided, hence it would be redundant since the names are already given. However, M. pilosula group and M. nigrocincta group are always referred as jack jumpers due to their jumping behaviour, which could alternatively be bracketed after the species group name so this tells the reader the common name is only restricted to specific species. In regards to your last comment, I have based it off the list found in Cucurbita, an FA-class article, but I may discuss this with another editor. Also removed the ref section.
Done.
Page 54 and page 58 state the translation. Would it be necessary to add a note about its possible inaccuracy?
It's advised against delinking articles that do not exist. It has been proven red links help build Wikipedia. Even FA crtieria isn't against redlinks. It is only a problem for FL candidates if there are too many of them. Also, M. fulvipes has already been linked (in the table).
I'll look through the sources and see what they say. Aside from that, it is most likely due to human activities (queens must have been on ships, because the nests were mainly found at ports).
Under "Diversity" in the taxobox, you put "94 species". Change it to "94 subspecies" or "Nine species".
Thank you, and thank you again for taking this on. Whether or not this process takes awhile due to the articles size of overall quality, it will be exciting. Burklemore1 ( talk) 09:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Done.
I'm not going to do much in the way of citations, just letting you know. I'm not going in any particular order. I've asked for a second opinion who I hope will be more familiar with the citation expectations.
Yes, it's an authoritative source in terms of taxonomy and has been cited in numerous high quality ant articles. The author is also Barry Bolton, who is among the most respected and reputable myrmecologist known.
Done with ref no. 133, but here is the isbn link of that book on Amazon (for ref no. 276).
Ref no. 143 does not have open access. Also, identifiers such as doi's, pmid's and such usually serve as urls to their respective abstract pages.
I'll need further elaboration with this one.
E.O. Wilson listed them among the most well known, a long with Iridomyrmex. Camponotus, Pheidole and Solenopsis.
You mean ref no. 237? I was given full access to it via download and it states this in the introduction (just like a general overall before going into other details).
Yes, it was last updated in 1996, so it will need updating sometime.
Under the M. gulosa species group, the article states that they are rarely or never found in Tasmania. However in this same species group it includes M. esuriens that I believe is endemic to Tasmania, and also M. forficata that is "most often found in Tasmania".
See:
Insects of Tasmania - Myrmecia
Encyclopedia of Life: M. forficata
Encyclopedia of Life: M. esuriens
Myrmecia_forficata 121.223.148.108 ( talk) 00:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Myrmecia (ant). 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) 08:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I have removed a sentence claiming the lethality of myrmecia venom and a photo caption repeating a line from the article claiming that fatalities from myrmecia stings are well known. While it may be true that there are well known fatalities from myrmecia stings, featuring the line prominently as a photo caption implies that myrmecia venom is particularly lethal. This is not adequately supported and is editorializing. Myrmecia stings may be marginally more lethal but not in any way which warrants fearmongering. The rest of the discussion of the details behind each fatality and details of the differences between myrmecia venom and other hymenoptera venoms has been left unchanged as it provides a more objective view of the matter.
2603:9001:2907:6100:C036:968A:7056:6535 ( talk) 16:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The § Species groups section states that these giant bull ants "are rarely or never found in the north-western coastal areas and Tasmania". While they were far less common than the jack jumper ants, we knew as kids (some decades ago) to avoid crossing paths with "inch ants", or "inch-a-mans", at several places in the northern Tasmanian bush. We even found a nest in the school yard when an old gum tree was felled. I can provide no written references for this, besides my own experience. But the claim in the article is dubious. yoyo ( talk) 13:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
(Moved from User talk:Kevmin#Re-instatement of unsubstantiated content)
We recently removed a statement that asserted that '3% of Tasmanians' are severely allergic to Myrmecia pilosula toxin. An ASCIA correction statement was provided therein; providing detail of an official consensus established at '1% of the Tasmanian population.' This is ASCIA's position. Flagging of content from research that cites 3% or more has come under scrutiny for 'conflict of interest' for four persons involved in research surrounding this topic. We would like a clear explanation of your reason to perpetuate information disharmonious to ASCIA's statements. 203.59.212.191 ( talk) 08:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
ASCIA is not a point of view, it is the authority., please take time to actually read over WP:sourcing and wp:POV, that is not how unbiased reporting works. The ASCIA very much is a pov, especially if they have not published any peer-reviewed metastudies that back their position, and has no absolute authority over wikipedia or its content-- Kev min § 21:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
This conversation may form part of an enquiry into media perceived bias. Please state otherwise if contributors do not wish for their comments to be public knowledge.203.59.212.191 ( talk) 23:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
The most confusing bit it where you state in regard ASCIA: 'but means they are to be addressed in the article while retaining the literature that is already there.' You didn't retain anything. You removed it. Aren't you breaching the rules you're quoting?( talk) 03:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Request for evidence used to support claim:"3% of Tasmanians suffer anyphylaxis." P 203.59.212.191 ( talk) 23:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)