# Talk:Myrmecia (ant)

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)

It means they are hunting alone instead of in pack, among other things. They are the least social of all ants. About the single set of chromosomes (only in one known species that I am aware of), they just don't seems to be needing more than one.

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 AlDanger 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)

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)

Also, to further prove that the winged ant is a female, here is a photo of two bull ants mating, seen here. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
That was me and a file mover (fulfilling my request for file renaming). After an unregistered user contradicted my unlearned assumption that the subject is a male, I decided to remove mention of the sex, as no information is better than possible misinformation. Thank you. JKDw (talk) 07:56, 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)

Thank you Vanamonde93. I appreciate that a lot, but I send my apologies for any embarrassing mistakes I may have left. ;-)  I work best when I have a large chunk of information ready to post, but it usually gets disorganised when I find new info that is useful for the article when the large chunk is added beforehand. It's difficult, but I cannot see myself rewriting the entire thing, although I should consider doing that. I see no problem with a collaboration if that works with you. This is bound to be imminent later on with other sections you have not worked on, but I will be happy to work with you. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Seeing as you *could* try, I'll do the reorganization of the paragraphs under your specific requests unless it potentially conflicts with anything, though this can be discussed. Since I am rather familiar with the sources, it would be a lot easier for me to do it. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
No worries; those things happen to all of us. It is frequently the case for me that when I work on building content, I get too close to the article to see structural issues. So, for starters, the taxonomy section. I think it should start with what is currently the second sentence, skip the stuff about the type species, and continue on to the paragraphs about the classification history. Once that is done, you can come back and say "under the present classification, it is the only extent genus...Its type species..etc." Also, I think the classification history is fairly solid; but in addition to the clarify tags that I've added, the genus appears to currently be classified in the family formicidae, in the order hymenoptera? This should be mentioned. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, which is why I frequently request a copyedit for the articles I work on beforehand so the prose isn't much of an issue (I am especially thankful when clarification tags are added, it definitely helps a lot). I will get onto this when I wake up, I am currently exhausted and it's nearly 20 minutes to 3 in the morning. If you see anymore structural issues, I'll be more than happy to discuss to fix it up. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, I found this source that describes renal failure in dogs due to bull ant stings. I'm not clear on where I should place this information though; perhaps the venom section? Burklemore1 (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Take your time with the previous suggestions, but I'm just going to add some more here while they are still fresh in my mind. The description section is good; again, a little re-organizing is in order. I would collect all size-related content, followed by colouration, and then variation between sexes/castes. Right now these are mashed together a little. Also, yes, the venom section would be appropriate for that information. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Alright excellent. I have added some more info over the days, but I'll get onto your suggestions once the GA review for Macabeemyrma is finished. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I note that the life cycle and reproduction sections may be problematic in relation to organisation. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:44, 25 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)

Thanks, friend. It's always nice to be appreciated. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
No worries, you definitely deserve it! Burklemore1 (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Quick note: I am marking this done at GOCE, because I have made one pass over the whole article. However, I will keep it on my watchlist, and discuss the suggestions I have made above (and perhaps make some more) until they have been worked through. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
No worries, thank you so much for taking your time. It must have been a time consuming task considering the article is appropriately enormous. I look forward with more future discussions with you. I can confirm Macabeemyrma has passed GA review, and so I can finally focus on this article more. Once everything you and I have discussed is finished and solved, I'll probably send you a message that it's in peer review so you can make any additional comments. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey Vanamonde93, I have reorganised the taxonomy and description sections. The only thing in the description part that discusses the size I did not move was the size measurements of M. brevinoda (13 - 37 mm), as this is discussing the morphology of the workers and should be placed there. The sections about the queen, male and brood have not been touched. If you have anymore suggestions for improvement, let me know. I'll also get around on fixing up all areas where clarification is needed today. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:51, 7 August 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:

Content about characteristic mandibles and eyes
Being mostly monomorphic (the exception can be in the body of the article)
Nests are typically either mounds or a simple nest in soil (what does simple nest mean to someone just starting to read?)
Longer lifespan
Gamergate qualities
Solitary hunters (leave the pheromone discussion for the body)
Restructure the last paragraph to say they have a potent sting, one of the most toxic in the world, and can cause severe allergic reactions.
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)

Your suggestions are highly appreciated, thank you. So when you mean by "take a stab at this", does this imply GA review or just anymore comments you will provide? I will get around to this later on tonight or possibly tomorrow. I will also notify you on it and see if you're happy with the changes. Burklemore1 (talk) 11:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh I just meant I could make the changes myself, but I wouldn't have time for edits until tomorrow at the earliest, so it'll probably be better if I just stop back and see what your changes look like if I don't get to them later this week. Kingofaces43 (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I'll do the editing, though I will be addressing some issues raised in the GA nomination of Prionomyrmex first. If all of my changes aren't satisfactory you can simply change it to what you feel makes it better. Burklemore1 (talk) 17:08, 10 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)

It may have been Moore's error since he was in charge of translating it, I think? I know for a fact these ants were greatly respected by the Aborigines but that can say a lot about today. I'm sure you have checked the source material, but that is what it says and I cannot objectify to it. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I think there has been a misunderstanding here. Going back to Moore's original, the entries in his "Descriptive Vocabulary" are of the form: English term - (Latin name, if applicable) - Aboriginal term. For example: "Albatross - Diomeda Chlororhyunca - Wulwul", or "Ant, white - Molada". In the latter case, Wulwul is the Aboriginal word for what the Europeans called white ants (i.e. termites). This does not mean that the term Wulwul literally means "white ant", it is just the Aboriginal term. Similarly, the entry for myrmecia in Moore's Descriptive Vocabulary is "Ant, lion - Formica Maxima - Killal, Kallili". Hence Lion ant was the European name, and Killal or Kallili is the Aboriginal, but this does not mean the concept "lion" was present in the Aboriginal word at all. In fact, as stated above, lions are not endemic to Australia, so it is highly unlikely that anything in Killal or Kallili means "lion". I have corrected the article accordingly. Xtal42 (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Myrmecia (ant)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 19:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


### Comments by Dunkleosteus77
#### Image review
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.

What is the source of File:Jumping jack male.jpg?
The original file was uploaded by the author (User:Fir0002)

Add {{PD-US}} to every image that does not currently have it.
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.


#### General comments
Is this article written in Australian English? If so, add the template {{Australian English}} to the article's talk page.
Done. 

State the common names for the the "Species group" table, and scrap the ref division and add them into the group name division. Also, state the species common name and then the binomial name in the article. While on the subject, you might want to have someone else check if that list is allowed against GA criteria.
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.  

In that case, state whether they're known as jumper ants or bulldog ants next to the binomial name
In its own section of the table, or?
well, you have table titled "Group name" which says things like "M. aberrans species group", so what I want you to do is change it to "M. aberrans (bulldog/jumper) ant". Do you understand?
I just found a link that gives common names for six species groups (See here). I'll add a new division and provide the common names where available, please disregard my previous comment on the belief the names were not available.
Try merging the contents of "Phylogeny" and "Taxonomy", because "Phylogeny" talks about evolution in the first three sentences, and the rest is all taxonomy. 
Done.

You might want to double check the translation of the Aboriginal name for it, because ancient Aborigines have never been in contact with lions.
Page 54 and page 58 state the translation. Would it be necessary to add a note about its possible inaccuracy?  

Yes. By the way, is there a translation for "toon-jee" and "injabadii", the two other aboriginal names provided?
Alright, I'll add that in a moment. As for the other names, I couldn't find any source (including the one cited) that gives a translation. Perhaps I should tweak the note to avoid OR.
Get a rough translation from a translator site on google. There's bound to be something.
Alright, I tried to retrieve a translation there and nothing came up. I have decided to remove the sentence.
In some places, it switches from past to future tense, as with "Brown would later classify the genus Promyrmecia as a synonym of Myrmecia in 1953" in the "Taxonomy" section.
Rewritten. If there are more cases of this, can you list them down so I can fix them? Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
In the "Description" section, why did you link Camponotus bendigensis to an article (that doesn't exist) and not M. fulvipes? Try not to link anything to an article that doesn't exist. 
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). 

Is there any hypothesis on how the ants got from Australia to New Zealand, with a 4,000 km ocean barrier?
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). 

Ah, I found out how it was introduced. It was believed the ants originated from a wooden crate found in a front yard that was originally from Australia.
Has this happened anywhere else?
Not entirely sure, such case of an exotic Myrmecia species is only known from that report.
Under "Diversity" in the taxobox, you put "94 species". Change it to "94 subspecies" or "Nine species".

I have a feeling you have the species and species-groups mixed up. There are indeed 94 species that are grouped in nine species groups (I don't recall any subspecies, and M. maxima isn't assigned to any group because no type specimen is available). These groups contain species who are very similar to each other, but they are still distinct enough to be classified as species.
I haven't read the entire article yet, so I might be back with some more comments. All-in-all, you've done a great job with the article.
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)

The sentence "In Tasmania 3% of the human population" in the lead is lacking a comma separating the subject and the predicate. Add a comma after "Tasmania".
Done.


### Citations review
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.

No worries, I will go leave a message on someones talk page and see if they can do an additional review.
Is "Antcat", ref#2, a reliable source?
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. 

ref #133's (New, Tim R.) and ref #276's (Kynett, Harold) isbn numbers, do not lead me to the correct page, did you copy/paste it correctly?
Done with ref no. 133, but here is the isbn link of that book on Amazon (for ref no. 276).  

Add url's where applicable as with ref#143 (Archer)
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.

refs #135 and #136 (Wheeler) lead to the same page, as well as ref #162 through #165 (Schmid-Hempel), you just provided different page numbers. Actually, you've done this in many places. Use {{rp|page number(s)}} directly after the correct citations, <ref>Wheeler, 1933</ref>{{rp|43}}.
I'll need further elaboration with this one.

Well, you have "Schmid-Hempel 1998, p. 294" which would probably be formatted as <ref>Schmid-Hempel 1998, p. 294</ref> in the text, and you also have "Schmid-Hempel 1998, p. 296" which would probably be formatted as <ref>Schmid-Hempel 1998, p. 296</ref>. Instead of having two different refs linking to the same page, but different pages, use the template {{rp|}}. So, the two given refs should be instead formatted as <ref name=example_name>Schmid-Hempel 1998</ref>{{rp|294}} and <ref name=example_name>{{rp|296}}, where you use one ref instead of two refs linking to the same page, and the {{rp|}} describing the page number. Do you understand now?
I do, but how I cited them is still correct. For example, my current FAC just had its source review done and the user, who has written more than 100 FA's did not suggest any change with the refs of  Hölldobler & Wilson 1990 p. blah blah.
I suppose this is just a matter of your discretion
Many FA articles have followed this.
Why do you have a reference for "Myrmecia is one of the most well known genera of ants"? Does it contain statistics or something?
E.O. Wilson listed them among the most well known, a long with Iridomyrmex. Camponotus, Pheidole and Solenopsis. 

ref #238 (Brown) is citing a sentence about how high these ants can jump, but the doi leads me to a page about their venom. Please move this to the "Venom" or "Sting" section.
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).

No, I mean ref #238. It's citing the sentence " Some species, particularly those of the M. nigrocincta and M. pilosula species groups, are capable of jumping several inches when they are agitated after their nest has been disturbed", but it talks about the venom.
Well, when you raised the issue it was ref no. 237. And as I said, it said this in the introduction of the article that is only available if you get full text.
In that case, could you find another ref that talks only about their jumping capabilities?
That really isn't necessary if it's already mentioned in a reliable source anyway. And plus, there is already a reference that discusses their jumping behaviour.
When it says "although the conservation status needs updating" in "Interactions with humans", is it talking about the IUCN redlist ref?
Yes, it was last updated in 1996, so it will need updating sometime.

Shouldn't you just find another source?
Whether or not it needs updating, the IUCN is still a reliable source and no recent source can be given about its data. So we'll need to stick what we have until it is updated or a brand new source is available.
Have you tried looking for another, more recent, source?
Yes, with no luck.
For GAs, the source requirements are much more lax than for FA, so what Dunkleosteus has done above is good enough, even worthy of a FAC review. FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks FunkMonk. Well, in light of this information, I support. You've done a really good job on this, and expect another review from me on your other ant articles. Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 15:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks everyone. Specifically thank you for initiating the review. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140819130237/http://www.antforum.nl/antforum/xtof/Artikels/Myrmecia.pdf to http://www.antforum.nl/antforum/xtof/Artikels/Myrmecia.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150330221319/http://tasfieldnats.org.au/TasNaturalist/Articles/2009/TasNat_2009_No131_pp36-41_Spencer_EchidnaDiet.pdf to http://www.tasfieldnats.org.au/TasNaturalist/Articles/2009/TasNat_2009_No131_pp36-41_Spencer_EchidnaDiet.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 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)

Take this to the Bulldog ant talk page, not here. Additionally please take time to read WP:COI and understand that if you are affiliated with ASCIA and are editing at their behest it needs to be declared.--Kevmin § 16:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Additionally if you are User:Vitrumaranea, editing should be done under that username and not as an IP--Kevmin § 16:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
You have no authority to request user information.  No declaration of username will occur. Kevmin no more identifies who you are than a string of numbers and is extraneous to task.  Please address the reason for contradicting the Australian position statement. The bulldog ant page is not the page being discussed.(*marked) 2002:CB3B:D4BF:10:0:0:0:2 (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia, as a non-profit entity based in the United states and with policies that specifically are written regarding POV sourcing, is not beholden to place the ASCIA's position above that of the preexisting peer reviewed literature. WP policy is explicit that the positions be discussed with a neutral POV, which does not grant immediate weight to the ASCIA statements, but means they are to be addressed in the article while retaining the literature that is already there. Additionally you keep using the term "accredited" but that term does not actually mean anything relevant here. What peer reviewed papers has the Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy published on this subject?--Kevmin § 21:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
You do not supply peer reviewed literature to support your statement.  ASCIA is not a point of view, it is the authority.  ASCIA research in this area was taken over a 13 year period and collaborated with The Australian Health care commission and The immunology team of Melbourne.  Please provide the peer reviewed literature you believe you have. 203.59.212.191 (talk) 21:39, 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--Kevmin § 21:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
As a side note, do you have the other three pages of the medical journal that you uploaded, or are you going only on the section of text that is present on page 659 (which is starting to discuss the collembolan. (the image itself is a copyright violation per the MJA website) The article discusses Myrmeciine ants starting on page 661 with the jack jumper being talked about under its older binomial combination Promyrmecia pilosula.--Kevmin § 21:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Please avoid invoking wiki and other unrelated stalling.  Directly provide information that supports your claim. 203.59.212.191 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/78b416bf-0250-4368-89d6-81e2d9f32528/aihw-injcat-215.pdf?v=20230605182219&inline=true here is your peer review, please advise which bodies you believe represent POV. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare?  The Australian Government official publication?  Flinders University? Dr Ronelle Welton? or Professor Daniel Hoyer? 203.59.212.191 (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Where on pages 20-22 of the (not peer reviewed) state publication do the authors support the position that 1% is correct?--Kevmin § 22:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
You misunderstand.  The paper is to provide evidence that ASCIA utilise published works in its appraisals. 203.59.212.191 (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Kevmin §  --You have not provided any evidence to back your statements.  The urge to inflate numbers is human. You need to be aware that your statement of 3% of Tasmania currently suffering anaphylaxis undermines the contribution and wonderful work of Simon Brown and Troy Wanandy.  Pioneers in the immunotherapy program.  Documenting a rising figure of sufferers and presenting it as fact leads readers to believe the program is unsuccessful.  As a program in need of funding anyone researching figures will believe the program has had no impact if they happen across your version of 'truth'.  203.59.212.191 (talk) 00:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Whilst we acknowledge Wiki is open to editorial of all education levels we implore you to consider the impact of fallacious reporting.  We do not have the resources to continually amend your errors and politely request you desist for un-sourced statements that impact the lives of people actually living within the state. 203.59.212.191 (talk) 00:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Not providing the relevant page is not the fault of the reader. 203.59.212.191 (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Also involved in providing data supportive to claim: " National Injury Surveillance Unit" and "Victorian Department of Justice and Community Safety." Perhaps you believe these to represent biased POV records? 203.59.212.191 (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Still awaiting ANY proof of any kind from yourself....... 203.59.212.191 (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy Limited (ASCIA) is run by Professor Theresa Cole (President), Dr Michael O'Sullivan (President Elect), Associate Professor Jane Peake and Dr Kathryn Patchett of which you can find relevant peer reviewed works.  Explain how you believe ASCIA and its pulished work meet the criteria for POV. 203.59.212.191 (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Are you ever going to supply your research or do you have none? 203.59.212.191 (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Whilst you scramble to find evidence of a viewpoint already stated I will provide a link to PART of the information used in the re-evaluation of percenatges.  https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.33151/ajp.12.3.235?fbclid=IwAR2CbNX07AMvM5mmvc6uqAPxftnkbvbKy83sugvbdeuBfZnebKdP_P4q48w
These hospital/emergency records for all of Tasmanian over a period of four years show 0.007% of the Tasmanian population suffered anaphylaxis per year.  We rounded up so as not to insult pre-existing research bias. 203.59.212.191 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
please bear in mind one of your citation is ABC radio transcription.  Haha  Not a peer reviewed work.  The single most audited organisation for bias claims. 203.59.212.191 (talk) 23:03, 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)
Would you consider your statement that "The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare" and "Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy" to be examples of POV to still be an accurate statement?  In Australia Government are the only authority allowed to gather statistics from national health records, who do you believe can present an accurate analysis without access?  We believe your statements may be a result of slight embarrassment which is why we attempted to consult you without public scrutiny.  People are less likely to defend poor choices without an audience. 203.59.212.191 (talk) 01:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
In regard:
As a side note, do you have the other three pages of the medical journal that you uploaded, or are you going only on the section of text that is present on page 659 (which is starting to discuss the collembolan. (the image itself is a copyright violation per the MJA website)
Why would a reader have the other three pages you didn't include in your original link?  Your link is a publicly inaccessible institutional cite and ONLY shows one page.  If your statement relies on page 662 then supply page 662.  Your tone is accusatory.  Who uploaded the image?  How do you know what permissions they have?  Do you speak for the MJA? You have stated that ASCIA and Australian Health Organizations represent some kind of 'POV' violation, wouldn't that apply to The Australian medical journal? You also declare that : Wiki is not beholden to place the ASCIA's position above that of the preexisting peer reviewed literature. Um, is the minutes print of the MJA peer reviewed literature?  I think perhaps a statement from ASCI with access to public data  might maybe supersede a 1963 anecdotal meeting overview that no one can read but you.    And you sound like you are speaking on behalf of WIKI, according to you you need to declare stuff like that .
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)

Kevmin - one of your sources is a fact sheet from a  museam website, how is that peer reviewed? 202.53.41.233 (talk) 04:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
@202.53.41.233 Wow, IP Editor, I feel like you have no idea how completely off the rails your rants here appear to others.
It is your responsibility to become acquainted with the policies and norms of Wikipedia, and Kevmin does not have to kowtow to your hard-to-follow demands. You are the one trying to edit war completely inappropriate text and images into an article.
Since you think we get to make demands of others here, I DEMAND you to explain who the "we" you refer to might be. Editing on behalf of an organization or multiple parties is explicitly prohibited here, and if you are affiliated with any of the parties whose perspectives you are (sloppily) attempting to force into this article, that's considered a Conflict of Interest.
You don't get to boss editors around here, the stable version of the article is considered default whereas the burden of reaching consensus for new additions falls to you as the person trying to make changes. Maybe you can slow down, write more clearly and communicate less aggressively, and we can come to a collective understanding about what you wish to accomplish. If not, it doesn't bother us or the encyclopedia *at all*- you will not be able to force your confusing and inappropriate changes without consensus. Chiselinccc (talk) 06:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Huh?  There are multiple IPs in here, who are you talking to....?.  You may want to adjust your abuse and notice there are multiple users in a dialogue you are obviously assuming is one.  Either way  "Ranting", "sloppy", "off the rails" that's just bullying talk....maybe just answer the question dude.  Cite your source.  It's supposed to be what the Wiki writing is about at the end of the day. Try to be respectful. 49.185.180.141 (talk) 10:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
No-one is editing anything?  Its the talk page...an edit war is when people flip flop changes, not ask people for sources of statements... 49.185.180.141 (talk) 11:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
user 203.59.212.191  just give up, you aren't going to receive an answer, he has no rational source for the statement. And he's just gunna get angrier and meaner the more obvious it becomes. 49.185.180.141 (talk) 11:07, 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)

"Population surveys estimate that approximately 1% of the population in endemic areas have
experienced a potentially dangerous allergic reaction to JJA stings and that between 1% and
2.7% have experienced allergic reactions to honey bees (Brown et al, 2003, Douglas et al,
1998; Roberts-Thomson et al, 1985; Stuckey et al, 1982)."
This Appears in 'The economic impact of allergic disease
in Australia.'
Peer contributions
Associate Professors Pete Smith (Queensland),Simon Brown (Western Australia) and Raymond Mullins (Canberra-illustrative material.) Dr Matthew Cook,Consultant Physician, Clinical Immunology and Allergy,Department of Allergy and Clinical Immunology,Canberra Hospital, Associate Professor Jo Douglass,Department of Allergy, Immunology and Respiratory Medicine, Alfred Hospital and Monash University, Melbourne,Associate Professor Dominic Mallon, Consultant Physician, Clinical Immunology and Allergy(President, Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy),Associate Professor Raymond Mullins -Consultant Physician, Clinical Immunology and Allergy,John James Medical Centre, Canberra(President Elect, Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy)Ms Jill Smith,Executive Officer, Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy, Dr Melanie Wong,Consultant Physician, Clinical Immunology and Allergy,Department of Clinical Immunology 202.53.41.233 (talk) 05:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Can't help with 3%, can't find source for severe or anaphylactic reactions that high to JJA in Tasmania outside of news media. 202.53.41.233 (talk) 06:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
❤️ 49.185.180.141 (talk) 11:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)