Talk:Ceratitis capitata

Untitled

It seems as though there might be a new infestation in Boca Raton, Florida. --Phreak2599 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phreak2599 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 4 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nikhilaggarwal123. Peer reviewers: Hvmoolani, Christina.lindberg, Montana.sievert.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Redirect

Why is it that "medfly" redirects to the correct page but "med fly" does not? __209.179.37.8 (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ceratitis capitata. 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/20120422054721/http://www.paloaltohistory.com/palo-alto-medfly-invasion.php to http://www.paloaltohistory.com/palo-alto-medfly-invasion.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090428061837/http://cisr.ucr.edu:80/mediterranean_fruit_fly.html to http://cisr.ucr.edu/mediterranean_fruit_fly.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hvmoolani (talk · contribs) 16 October 2019 The contributions by the authors to now are very important and I would like to thank them for adding this important information. The information seems to be drawn from an array of independant research articles. While this information appears to be correct, it was formatted in way that did not align with the other articles in this field. I have adjusted the formatting so that it is easy to read and extract relevant information. In order to do this, I erased, added, and rearranged headings. I also combined information of various sections to create a greater sense of flow to the article. The author used Ceratitis Capitata every time the species was mentioned and I changed this to C. capitata. This change is important to maintain scientific consistency. While the introduction section had much information on the biological impact of the fly, there was no information on the appearance of the fly. I added information to this section to help provide a more extensive introduction section. Under the food habits section, I added some examples of the primary fruits that the medfly consumed and infected most often. Finally, I added hyperlinks for any mentions of other species, mating rituals, specific body parts of the flies, etc.

Life cycle

It's a well-written paragraph, really clear and succinct. It would be helpful to expand a bit and include some information about medfly's way of reproduction and maybe mating seasons. Reproduction is an important aspect of species behavior and helps the understanding of the species' survival advantage through the process of evolution. Further down the line, a paragraph on taxonomy and evolutionary history would not hurt. This also relates to the genetics paragraph, where it might help to elaborate on the behavioral advantage/disadvantage of not having an opsin gene for blue light perception - how does it relate to the species' behavior and overall fitness? Additionally, I think this article can also benefit from a morphology paragraph, illustrating the differences in life stages and between female and male, so as to help species identification. Hope this helps! Alicelixuan (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Peer Edits

Hi Nikhil, this article is very thorough and was interesting to read. Your decision to specifically refer to the implications of studies and not just extract the declarative facts about species from them really enriched the article! I only made minor changes to the grammar, mostly focussing on making sentences more concise. I also identified a couple of confusing claims where it may not be clear to the reader what the take-away point may be, so I cleaned up those sentences. I particularly like the organization of the article; it looks like you identified which information would be best suited to which section and presented it clearly. Furthermore, you appear to have made an effort to link the sections with referrals to different sections in the text and that aids in painting an overall picture. There is one possible change that I would like you to address. The 'aggression' section seems a little out of place and I wasn't able to completely understand the cause for aggressive behavior in this fly. It would help if you placed aggression as a subheading under a section (eg- Mating, if aggression in primarliy linked to mating and territory; or social behavior) so that the information is provided within some broader context. But you've done a great job and this is a very solid article!Agandhi7 (talk) 04:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nikhil! I first went through your page and edited small things like grammar, misspelled words, awkward sentence structures, etc. Your second paragraph under “Life Cycle” I think was a little confusing. You referenced two sources at the end of the paragraph, so I wasn’t sure what information came from which source. I added the heading physical description as well, because information describing the appearance of the egg, larvae, and adult were included under life cycle. This section was very descriptive, but I was again confused on where information on the adult subsection came from (the section that’s now physical description, adult) because you just cited two sources at the end of the paragraph. I was also confused in the section of mating behavior for males. The information from the Churchill-Stanland et. al. study wasn’t cited, or was cited from your first reference, it was just confusing if you read their actual study or the information was coming from the other reference. It also seems like in that paragraph all findings mentioned after you bring up the Churchill-Stanland et. al. study comes from that study, but you cited two references and one is from Churchill-Stanland, but the other isn’t, so I think rewriting that part to be clearer would be beneficial. I think generally going through and more clearly citing your information/checking your citations would really improve what you have! I think expanding on your “aggression” section would be especially interesting, but also I’m wondering if that section could be added as a subsection of social behavior? Or if fighting is part of male-male competition it should be included in mating? I also think it would be nice if you could find information on parental care and since you mentioned they lack a common gene for blue light perception maybe you could expand on that and add a physiology section? Montana.sievert (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I really enjoyed reading this article and thought you had a lot of good information that was mostly very concisely put. I started out by editing some basic grammar as well as changing some sentence structures, but for the most part there was no major grammar errors that I saw. For the Life Cycle section, I added two subsections and divided your information up into smaller chunks in order to try to better organize it. I added the "Temperature Effects" and "Life Span" sections. Next, I added quite a few links to other Wikipedia articles on certain words that were not explained and may not be common terms for most people. Lastly, your article was organized somewhat unconventionally, so I rearranged many of the sections in order to better adhere to the guidelines on the Project Diptera page. Overall, I would work on making sure no section is too wordy, and trying to divide longer sections into more subheadings. Similarly to what Montana stated above, I would like to see a section on parental care, as well as some more info about aggression, as it was unclear between which parties these aggression events take place and under what circumstances. I think overall you need to work on the consistency of your citations. In some sections like the Life cycle citations are fairly clear, while in the California Medfly crises section, there is only 1 citation for 3 entire paragraphs. Make sure you cite whenever a specific fat was stated, and try not to have multiple citations at the end of one sentence. Try to make it more clear what exactly you are citing from each source. Overall, good job and keep up the hard work! Christina.lindberg (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you to all authors of this page for a well-researched and thorough article! This article has a great lead section which includes the most relevant information about the fly. This article also follows the recommended format of Diptera articles according to the Diptera WikiProject. The use of images throughout the article was also excellent. I have edited the distribution section to include, in writing, the distribution of the fly, so that readers would not have to click on an external link to look at the map of the fly's distribution. I have also indicated several places were citations are necessary (in the immunity and invasions and eradication sections). In the "invasions and eradication" section, I recommend the author to elaborate more on the sterile insect technique, and introduce it earlier in the section. As it is now, the article discusses the sterile insect technique before explaining what it is, which could be confusing to readers. Furthermore, the article might be improved by adding a section on etymology, explaining how the fly came to be known as the "medfly." joshkim_wustl (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is incredibly thorough and includes information on a very wide variety of topics regarding this fly. I fixed a few spelling mistakes (i.e. tubercular to tubular) and grammar issues. I added several hyperlinks to add context to certain terms ( sub-Saharan Africa, fruit pests, names of several geographical locations throughout the article, instar, thorax, insect morphology hyperlinked to abdomen, morphometrics, ). One suggestion I have would be to figure out how to include the map of the fly’s geographic distribution as an image in the article rather than a link, although I visited the website and can’t see an obvious way to. Very nice work on this article! rebeccaspell (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! This article is really informative, and based on the revision history, you've added a lot of detail to make it even more comprehensive. I really enjoyed reading the section on Life span, which was really interesting. I edited the section titles to have sentence capitalization per Wikipedia guidelines, and also added some new internal Wikipedia links, especially to anatomical terms and such. I also edited overall punctuation and grammar to be more clear and informative and sound a little less like an essay. I looked at the California medfly attack article, which has a picture of a trap used to catch the flies that I added to this article as well. Overall, I think this article is really well researched and written! Steelwull (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)