Talk:Insect: Difference between revisions

Template:Vital article

	Insect 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 13, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed May 20, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed November 14, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

Insects GA‑class Top‑importance

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 GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Archives

2002 - Mar 2008

Unlike other species, have glucose in their blood replaced by disaccaridhe called "trehalosis". ("Biokemiaa", Leena Turpeenoja 1999). It should be mentioned since it is also an explanation for seemingly endless stamina of insects and it is also wondrous detail in its own good. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.222.238.141 (talk) 08:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently heard about Afrocimex constrictus. There was no article about it here so I created it. But it could use expansion from an expert. Grundle2600 (talk) 05:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the first paragraph, it says: "...with estimates of undescribed species as high as 30 million..."

In the second paragraph, it says: "Estimates of the total number of current species, including those not yet known to science, range from two million to fifty million..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.7.59 (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is different sources. The "50 million" number is a well-known estimate from Terry Erwin of the Smithsonian Institution, based on canopy fogging studies in Peru, back in the 1980's. Some people have since come to feel that estimate is too high, and have subsequently said that 30 million is a more reasonable upper limit. So, if you look at sources that accept Erwin's estimate, it's 50, and if you look at sources that DON'T accept Erwin's estimate, they say 30. Of course, if the molecular systematists continue on their present path, and they redefine "species" so that they are based solely on DNA, then the estimate will jump to something on the order of 200 million "species" of insects. Dyanega (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It mentions that insects represent ~90% of all the different animals on Earth. Does that mean individual animals, or species? The arthropod article claims that they represent only 80% of animal species. I know that there is probably much variation in the estimation of these values. but I was wondering if it was possible to have some clarity on what the numbers are measuring, even if it is too much to comment on how these estimates compare to others. Keepstherainoff (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can there be a wasp with a bees stripes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.110.49 (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are very few bees that have black and yellow stripes, whereas there are thousands of wasps with that color pattern. It is far more common in wasps than in any other group of insects. Dyanega (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bees are a type of wasp.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 07:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took a picture of an insect (?) and want to know what it is. here is the picture, it's the green thing Thanks, Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 21:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A silkworm, I believe. If it's not, then it must be the larva of some specie of beetle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.74.105.81 (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know what this stranger is from Anja Community Reserve, Madagascar and I've also seen them at Berenty Private Reserve. The locals called it a "Leaf Bug" It is about 1cm long. I think the front/head is the orange "thing". If I knew what, I would rename the photo and add it to an article.

It would be nice if this article listed the main classes and families of insects, with descriptions and photos/diagrams to help aid identification. After all, that is what I expect from an encyclopedia! Thanks,  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 17:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It says that 90% of life forms are insects. That is wrong, right? Maybe animals, but not organisms. The Antarctic Krill is the species that makes up the most biomass out of the animal kingdom. Also, logically, plants and bacterium would make up most of the life forms in the world. It can't be true that ninety percent of all living things are made up of insects. If it was, we would be running into them everywhere. Well, they are found everywhere, but not drastically. If somebody could either fix it, or inform me if I am wrong, then please do so.

It's referring to the number of different species. That figure is correct. It's not referring to absolute numbers of individuals, or to biomass. Dyanega (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on this above. The arthropod article claims that they represent only 80% of animal species. I know that there is probably much variation in the estimation of these values. but I was wondering if it was possible to have some clarity on what the numbers are measuring, even if it is too much to comment on how these estimates compare to others.Keepstherainoff (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the inclusion of a section on insect digestion is necessary Benleclair (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put a few images of insects defecating to help round out this section, as it only had a black and white diagram. I was thinking about including an image of an insect eating, but couldn't find an image in which the act of eating was obviously the subject once in thumbnail size. If someone finds an image like this, I think it would help the section.Anandamide305 (talk) 10:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The blurb about the latest oldest insect fossil discovery is not factually correct. The fossil is a trace fossil (sometimes known as an ichnofossil), which in this case is a full body impression made when the insect landed on a muddy substrate. That must be made clear in the blurb because there are fossils of flying insects older than this--even body parts (but mostly wings). However, this new find gives us insight into the whole body of what appears to have been a mayfly (ephemeropteran) relative. It is the oldest trace fossil of a flying insect. Oh, and it's about 310 my old, not 300. Westphalian B-C in the Pennsylvanian. Check other references to make sure, like the boston globe article.Istras (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this should be changed to "Care of offspring" because ants and termites care for their young and are not mentioned being as that most of the time the young they care for are not their offspring but their siblings. I think the point of the section is to talk about energy expended by adults to their offspring (nuptial gifts).--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 15:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced Grylloblattodea and Mantophasmatodea sence they have been lowered to suborder, and are now under the order Notoptera. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 19:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link to Satoyama doesn't seem entirely relevant to me. Maybe it's because the article doesn't do a good job of explaining it, but the only connection I can see is that satoyamas contain a lot of biodiversity. By this definition we could also include Amazon. What's the connection, or should the link be removed? A little insignificant ^{talk to me!} _(please!) 14:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the section on "reproduction" I think it should be renamed to "development". What the heck is going on? Who decided to write it that way?--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 17:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It talks about both. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 00:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might find ideas, sources and images from a couple of articles I've worked on:

• Arthropod includes: how to distinguish tracheata (which includes insects) from opther arthropds (see also Arthropod head problem); exoskeleton; molting; phylogeny.
• Evolutionary history of life includes: almost all modern insects fly or are descended from fliers (in exchange I might "borrow" your item that insects may have been obscure before they got wings); more on social insects; pollinating insects seem to powered the very rapid rise of flowering plants. --Philcha (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re the points in the message to me, I might be less able to help than I thought, as my invertebrate zoology textbook gives only 27 pages on hexapods (which includes e.g. springtails as well as insects). Insects are too complex and diverse for 27 pages to give more thana general overview. So trying Google Books:

• In "Sound production and hearing" you have decent coverage of production and detecting ground vibrations, but nothing I can see on detection of sounds in air (? or water). Google Books came up with:
  • The insects: an outline of entomology (2005), pp. 87-93 looks good, lots of mechanisms and examples.
    •  Done. Good call, BTW. Cliff smith ^talk 20:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Orientation and communication in arthropods (): bees hear sounds and can be trained to respond (pp. 279-281); leaf-cutter ants call colleagues to helk in cutting (p. 284); some stingless bees use sounds to help define the location of food sources (pp. 284); the dwarf bee Apis floreaappears to hear, tho the mechanism and purpose are uncertain; other examples in following pages; fair on examples,weak on mechanisms
  • Sound source localization (2005): tympanum 1 of the 2 basic type of "ears" in insects, wide range of taxa that use this (pp. 7-9), get direction by operating in pairs; the other is "whiskers" (antennae, hairs, cerci), which seems to have intrinsic directionality (pp. 9-10)
  • The acoustic sense of animals (1983): overview of mechanisms (p. 13); hairlike receptors (pp. 14-16), with exampes of mechanisms, capabilities and uses; tympanum type "ears" (pp. 19-20), with diagram of anatomy of tympanum and auditory nerve; moth detecting a bat may be able to give a 3-D map of the bat's location (pp.20-23); insect hearing systems usually simple and single-function, and emphasise fast response at the expnse of rich information (p. 26)
  • Life's solution: inevitable humans in a lonely universe (): "sonar" in aquatic insects (p. 191)
• Chemical senses - my search
  • The insects: structure and function (1998) looks good for wide range (chemical types, uses, types of insect, etc.) if you can ignore all the chemistry formulae (pp. 704-735)
  • The insects: an outline of entomology (2005) is noted for sound above. It also looks good for chemical senses and communication, but I hit my reading limit. If two of you check it, one looking for the "sounds" link snd the other for the "chemical" link, I think you'd avoid limits. --Philcha (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the reviewer had to fix a type in a citation. I recommend refTools, see link and instructions at User:Philcha#Tools. refTools provides a form into which you enter or (better!) paste the values, then refTools takes cares of the syntax. --Philcha (talk) 07:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, I've enjoyed reading the article.

Could you please check "Some insects may retain phenotypes and genotypes that are normally only seen in juveniles" in Insect#Reproduction_and_development. It suggests that the genotype changes between juvenile and adult. --Philcha (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Moved from User_talk:Emw

Where does the classification section belong, near the top or near the bottom, and should it be called classification or taxonomy? One more thing, where should the subdivisions be, in the taxobox or in the classification/taxonomy section? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 03:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's close, but I think 'Taxonomy' is a better heading for the section in question. Of the several high-level taxa FAs I know of -- Archaea, Bacteria, Fungus and Virus (perhaps the last one isn't a proper taxon, but close enough) -- I think Fungus conveys its Taxonomy/Classification-devoted section the best by a significant margin. Given that, I think that article would be the best to model Insect's newly-renamed 'Taxonomy' section on: use a paragraph structure rather than bullet points, make a sort of mini-lead within the section to give a high-level overview, and then in a 'Taxonomic groups' subsection devote a few sentences to a paragraph describing each order. I'm neither an entomologist nor a mycologist so perhaps I'm missing some factor that makes Fungus's 'Taxonomy' section an unsuitable template for Insect's 'Taxonomy' section, but at first glance doing so seems like a good idea.

The relative position of the section seems fine as it is. Good point regarding placement of subdivision information. I think listing out the different orders of class Insecta would be appropriate for a taxobox in the lead, similar to how Bacteria lists phyla of that domain. Emw (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy refers to naming and although that is dependent on classification, the term classification is wider in scope. The other option is to call it "taxonomy and systematics" which is the next best option to the term "classification". Shyamal (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to self: Add info on insect hormone and its job in molting and metamorphosis. 22:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

??? That statement implies that there is only one insect hormone, I'm confused. Did you mean to say: "...insect hormones and their job in molting and metamorphosis." and perhaps you should add " and pretty much every other physiological process."--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 16:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a quick note someone made to themselves. If it doesn't give a complete and comprehensive description of the task, I don't think it's a big deal. :) A little insignificant ^{Giving thanks to all that is me} 18:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it was just a reminder to myself for latter... Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 21:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is it? On this page in the taxobox the Hexapods are listed as being a Superclass. Yet go to the Hexapoda page and they are classed as a Subphylum. I realise that taxonomic classification is a complex and still evolving system, but surely wikipedia should adopt a uniform system? I am not an expert so maybe I am missing something? Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is that the current page uses the classifications used by Carl Linnaeus, which where very influential in setting the taxonomy tradition but may differ from newer classifications. I am starting a new discussion section addressing this. MathEconMajor (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current page uses the following taxonomy: Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Arthropoda Subphylum: Mandibulata Superclass: Hexapoda Class: Insecta "Linnaeus, 1758" is cited as the source. This is a rather outdated, if influential, source. A look at other wikipedia articles suggests that a more modern and thorough classification would be: Kingdom: Animalia Subkingdom: Eumetazoa Unranked: Protostomia Superphylum: Ecdysozoa Unranked: Panarthropoda Phylum: Arthropoda Unranked: Tetraconata Subphylum: Hexapoda Class: Insecta If no one objects, I will probably update the classification in this article soon. MathEconMajor (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I object. The "Linnaeus, 1758" at the end is not a reference to a classification, but merely indicates the authorship of the taxon in question. Insecta (at whatever rank) was, according to the rules of the ICZN, erected by Linnaeus, so that authority should remain in the taxobox. You should also note that the number of taxa to be included in a taxobox is reasonably well constrained, as described at WP:TX. Adding half a dozen extra ranks is never going to be acceptable. We can discuss which to include out of Mandibulata and Tetraconata (I have no strong opinion), but the rest of your edits had to be reverted. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure what this paragraph is supposed to mean:

Communication using surface-borne vibrational signals is more widespread among insects because of size constraints in producing air-borne sounds. When compared with the size of the insects, communication range can be up to 1000 times the length of the body. So in order to surface-borne vibrational signals, insects of smaller size will use surface-borne vibrational signals, but it is also less diffuse and the signal is confined within the surface and is therefore on one hand easier to locate, but on the other hand is also less likely to attract the predators

And can we call it "seismic communication"?

--Rosetta1207 (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like an accident while moving text around during an edit. I've located the edit (11/11/2009) and restored the immediately preceding version. --Stfg (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Insect&diff=320784928&oldid=320783412 in 2009 the article has been listing the insect hearing range at 2 Mhz for mosquitos and 50 Mhz for grasshoppers the true frequencies are 1,000 times less. The edit in 2009 incorrectly used Mhz instead of Khz. This content can now be found in Google searches everwhere frequencies in the Mhz for sound cannot even propagate in air small distances: http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/general_physics/2_4/2_4_1.html I have fixed the frequencies to Khz --Analognipple (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would make a nice addition I think (internal systematics). I'm afraid I'm not in the know enough to add it myself though. The German page has something that might be useful as a starting point. Sean Heron (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't the spiders at least in spoken language referred also as insects? I think I've seen that in english-language programs, can't be sure though. 82.141.66.243 (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so but we need to taxonomically exact since this is an encyclopaedia. As such the mistaken usage does not appear noteworthy. AshLin (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

by the way, the example of vibration sense uses a spider. someone should change that because it's misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.74.40.71 (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of biological stability and using appendages as tools, a four footed insect-like organism would not be able to prop itself in midair very easily and be able to use two appendages together for digging, rubbing, etc.

At most it could only support itself on three legs and only lift one leg for some other use. It would tip over on just two legs, unless it can somehow adhere to a surface on two feet and not tip over.

Are there any insect-like organisms with a similar exoskeleton with only four legs? I would assume that any such organism would have long ago died out, in terms of evolutionary disadvantage compared to the six-legged insects.

DMahalko (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thought. Although I think most insect's legs are mostly undifferentiated, the one that they forelegs are (mantids, ect.) would not be able to do so with just 4. I very much doubt there were ever 4 legged insect relatives due to the fact that they came from arthropods of more legs, and insects secondarily lost their extra legs or rather the changed to serve another purpose beside ambulation (like the insect mouthparts, antenna, ect).--24.21.63.65 (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An insect can firmly prop itself up on the rear and middle leg pair, and free up the front leg pair for digging, self-cleaning, etc.

Or it can alternately prop itself up on the front and middle leg pair, freeing up the back leg pair for similar uses.

Are there any insects that prop themselves up by their front and back leg pairs, using the middle leg pair to do something?

DMahalko (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've copy-edited Insect#Taxonomy and Systematics to improve clarity, but some issues need expert attention in this section:

• paragraph 2 is internally inconsistent, and partly inconsistent with the cladogram, as to whether the Archaeognatha are in Apterygota or not.
• paragraph 3 first sentence is unclear: what exactly is separated from what by the sclerites?
• the second part of paragraph 3 (beginning at "It has proved difficult to clarify ...") and the whole of paragraph 4 read like a list of arcane controversies/uncertainties that don't go well in an encyclopedia article. What is really noteworthy here?

--Stfg (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I fixed the inconsistency in the paragraph. For paragraph 3, the sclerites don't actually seperate any physical features, but defferentiate the two seperate genera. But just in case, I changed it. I don't understand what is so controversial about about any of paragraph 3, maybe you could clarifiy.Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 14:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cladogram is very confusing. I don't see any Hemiptera in there, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.155.248 (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article is missing an early heading of Insect History or Evolution. In keeping with most article style a history section follows the intro. What do you think? Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Calliphora sp Portrait.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 3, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-09-03. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 16:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

This close-up photo of a Calliphora hilli blowfly shows facial features that are common to all insects: compound eyes and two antennae (the latter are difficult to see, as many true flies have short antennae which reduces drag). Most insects, except some species of cave crickets, are able to perceive light and dark. Many species have acute vision capable of detecting minute movement, and many are able to detect light in the infrared, ultraviolet and the visible light wavelengths.Photo: JJ Harrison

Archive – More featured pictures...

They're quite common in the UK, i've seen them in bathrooms and kitchens. They are the size of ants. They do not appear to have legs but are nonetheless equally fast as ants. Their belly is white/silverish and their back is black/greyish. Their body moves somewhat like snakes. They get startled quite easily. They move in and out of holes in the walls. They have two tiny antennas on each side of the head. Their upper body is bigger and their lower body is pointy. Pass a Method talk 01:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at user's talk-page. Haploidavey (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pszczola-osa has proposed that the following paragraph be added to the lead:

For many people the word insect associate with word pest, nevertheless, without insects to pollinate flowers, the human race would soon run out of food because many of the crop plants that we rely on would not be able to reproduce. For humans, pollination is by far the most useful activity that insects carry out. The most important crop pollinators are bees, of both social and solitary species, although visitors to flowers also include small beetles and a variety of flies. ^{[1] [2]}

This is not appropriate because it duplicates the last paragraph of that section

Humans regard certain insects as pests and attempt to control them using insecticides and a host of other techniques. Some insects damage crops by feeding on sap, leaves or fruits, a few bite humans and livestock, alive and dead, to feed on blood and some are capable of transmitting diseases to humans, pets and livestock. Many other insects are considered ecologically beneficial as pollinators or predators and a few provide direct economic benefit. Silkworms and bees have been used extensively by humans for the production of silk and honey, respectively.

as well as information given in the "Relationship to humans" section. Furthermore it is bolded for emphasis which is not appropriate in a wikipedia article and is cited to encyclopedia's which are not preferred sources. As an encyclopedia ourselves we prefer to use secondary sources like books and articles rather than other encyclopedias.

I am just noting this for reference since there has been alot of discussion of the talk page in edit summaries but no one has yet actually made a comment here. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph you mention above is upside down. It concentrate on bad site and mention marginally about the much more important - the beneficial one. If somebody edit the article for the sake of hatite to insect he should wake up. This is his own physiologic problem. Scientific insect are foundation of Earth ecology and it ought to be accepted. Psychological problems are to resolve at other place. Wikipedia is scentific edition. I will opt for keeping both section mine and the little fobian.

What are prefered sorces for you need not to be for others. The Ecyclopedias I mentioned are more relable then Wikipedia with the all public marginal tendences exprtessed by vandals and fobians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pszczola-osa (talk • contribs) 19:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit war at Insect to discuss this issue. Not that content whch will be decided on this page but the content addition of it without discussion which is an edit war. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found nothing you are talking about on the Administrators' notice board. Let me disregard you uncoordinated actions and thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.37.58 (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source for classification on wiki? I compared this page taxonomy with other sites and found this: www.itis.gov

• Class:Insecta
  • subclass:Archaeognatha
  • subclass:Dicondylia
  • subclass:Pterygota

www.biolib.com

• Class:Insecta
  • subclass:Pterygota
  • subclass:Thysanura

www.faunaeur.org

• Class:Insecta
  • Order Coleoptera
  • order...
  • ...

wiki

• Class:Insecta
  • subclass:Monocondylia
  • unranked:Dicondylia
    • • subclass:Dicondylia

How do you know which guild line to follow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.7.102 (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My science teacher tells me that an insect is not an animal. I doubt he's correct but can anyone confirm this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is correct. 71.57.152.172 (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that would seem to directly contradict Wikipedia's articl on Animals, which lists insects as an Arthropod, under the superphylum of Ecdysozoa, under the Animalia Kingdom of species. However, this discussion probably belongs at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science unless you are challenging the validity of the information found in the Insect article. 78.26 (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WOW this is really funny! Your science teacher?!?!?! Plus, on top of that mr/mrs. 71.57.152.172 seems to agree. Wow wow wow. This almost seems like a troll except that this is a common mistake...at least for non-science teachers. Funny funny funny. Just to make things clear: Insects are absolutely the most important and populous group of animals on this planet.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 04:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is pretty funny. Probably stems from the common misconception that "animal" and "mammal" are synonyms. As such, I've heard on occasion that not only insects and other invertebrates are not animals, but also that birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish are not animals. Pretty ridiculous, but not an uncommon belief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first section is about eusociality exclusively, and there's a lot of other kinds of social most if not all having examples in the insects. The second paragraph is too specific. I'll probably write on it if no one else does eventually.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 06:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The age range of existence of insects is put as 395 Mya - present day yet the universe is only 6000 years old so their must be some mistake here in the way the information is set out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.122.141 (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The age of the universe is estimated at 13.798±0.037 billion years, not 6000 years. — Reatlas (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the source that the editor has put it in there. The number of extant species in the whole world is estimated at between six and ten million. Without "in the whole world" part, it is misleading information into thinking insect has that many species. "And potentially represent over 90% of the differing animal life forms on Earth." doesn't make any sense so that's why I deleted it. What exactly is potentially represent over 90% of the differing animal life forms on Earth???? It is very obvious that insect can't be the answer. And the number of extant species in the whole world DOES NOT represent over 90%... This is stupid. I really wonder why is this a "good article" that I expect to have a high quality, but I'm very disappointed to see some non-senses right at the beginning of the article. I'm sure there are more stupid errors within the article, and I'm not interested in reading this article anymore!75.168.150.139 (talk) 05:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand what your objection is. If each species of animal is considered a different form of animal life, than yes Insects do represent potentially over 90% of the differing animal life forms on Earth. They are both common and highly diversified. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I know very little about this subject or the article itself, but may I suggest including at least a link to remote control animal in this article somewhere, as it seems to have a lot to do with insects - cockroaches in ability. The fact that insects are easy subjects for remote and robotic manipulation would seem like a relevant and interesting fact to add to this article. Thanks, Acather96 (click here to contact me) 18:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears as if results of the study "Phylogenomics resolves the timing and pattern of insect evolution" were represented wrongly in the article. The study focused on the internal phylogeny of insects, not the broader phylogeny of arthropods. The authors of paper do not claim myriapoda (centipedes & millipedes) are the closest relatives of insects.

Cladogram shown in the paper: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6210/763/F1.large.jpg