# Talk:Insect wing

I know that for the moment a lot of space is taken up by the naming conventions, but I'm going to move this part to the Comstock-Needham system article, and develop the rest a bit more. IronChris  |  (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

a little discussion about these vestiges might be a good idea too Goldfinger820 01:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

We should have at least a line or two expalining the general shape of wings in each order, example for beetles, odonates, hemipteran etc. Note that most orders are named after wings,examples, lepidoptera, hemiptera etc. A note on the etymology may also be useful.AshLin 03:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a lovely basic article. Good foundation to start on.
Each order in hexapods has slightly different wing structures, different venations, different names. Would the wings of each order (technical description) be treated in seperate articles with this one being the common insect wing description with links to each of these articles? --Viren 03:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that we can start off by doing the descriptions here, and if they get too long we can move them (or just some of them) to a seperate article. Better that than we do them on seperate pages and they end up too short, not to speak of the fact that it would be more difficult to find all of the information in one go. I think it's generally best to start on a common article and split if necessary (see sections vs. separate pages, article size). IronChris  |  (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The next question is: should we merge elytron here as well? It would fit quite nicely here, in my opinion. --Stemonitis 12:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I would have been against, but then I took a look at elytron, and it is a rather short article so it could fit in here. I'm not sure if it really is a necessity though, as there are links from this article already... I guess it makes it easier to get all the information without having to search through several articles. Maybe you should propose this on the talk page of "elytron". IronChris  |  (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What is a "glossimar" wing? I know I have spelt that wrong, but I've hear the phrase used in the context of insect wings - jak (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The dictionary meaning of gossamer is any very thin gauzelike fabric; also, a thin waterproof material. Another is a fine, filmy substance, like cobwebs, floating in the air. It calls to mind a very ephemeral substance. Enid Blyton quite often used the word gossamer when describing fairy wings. You may have heard it in this context. I've seen the butterfly family Lycaenidae also referred to as gossamer wings. --Viren 04:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have at least some discussion here of the relative merits of the different theories regarding the origin of insect wings? -- NJPharris 03:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The lead paragraph uses some weasel words or unspecific descriptive phrases. For example:
"Insects are the only group of invertebrates known to have evolved flight. Insects possess some remarkable flight characteristics and abilities, still far superior to attempts by humans to replicate their capabilities. Even our understanding of the aerodynamics of flexible, flapping wings and how insects fly is imperfect. One application of this research is in the engineering of extremely small micro air vehicles with low Reynolds numbers."
Is this article catering to the average reader, or is this article more focused on specifics and details? I'd like there to be more specifics (that are introduced of course) and less ambiguous/weasel words, since this is supposed to be a good article. - M0rphzone (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any of the other bolded examples as being weasel words, except for extremely small. As for the others, they represent certain metaphysical ideas that really can't be measured or specified, for example, remarkable flight characteristics and abilities. you really can't attach any numerical value to that. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-=  06:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The article says: "Unlike most other insects, the wing muscles of species of Ephemeroptera (mayflies) and Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) (the two living orders traditionally classified as "Paleoptera") insert directly at the wing bases, which are hinged so that a small movement of the wing base downward, lifts the wing itself upward, very much like rowing through the air."
If it said "Unlike all other insects", it would mean that this only occurred within Paleoptera. But it says "most other insect". So it must mean that they are not the only ones. So the question is; what other insects use wing muscles which insert directly at the wing bases? 2A02:FE0:C900:1:ADC4:D2C2:F604:A44D (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's just poor phrasing, since the "indirect flight" section explicitly states that all insects except the Paleoptera use indirect flight.  I'll fix it. HCA (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The changes on Latest revision as of 08:59, 27 September 2014 adds a reference to ref name="Megerler" but does not give that reference any information. The edit that put that change in was user User talk:Megerler. The change is in Insect wing#Aerodynamics section. That looks to me like it's original research. Why shouldn't it be reverted? SesquiZed (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Article: Insect wing, Section: Hovering
Entry in table: Honeybee - 250 bit/s
Question: What is the unit bit/s in the context of wing beats?
I have searched high and low for a definitive answer to no avail.
Will the author kindly provide a definition of this unit or provide a clarification.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof. Bleent (talk • contribs) 00:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC) 

Fixed HCA (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I've hidden the sentence in the lead about wings not being appendages, as the unqualified statement seems too bold, and is at odds both with the article's main text (which is cited) and with the published literature, e.g. Evolutionary origin of insect wings from ancestral gills (which, for instance, suggests that "wings evolved from gill-like appendages" of aquatic ancestors). I think the section in question may require revision, as then will the mention in the lead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I am very confused with how to reconcile the diagram of insect wing venation and the written text. The text says that the Radius vein has 1–5 branches which reach the wing margin but the diagram shows 6 veins doing so. The text says that the media has 1–4 branches which reach the wing margin but the diagram shows 8 doing so. The text also states that the Anal veins are unbranched when they all look branched in the diagram. I assume the answer to this dilemma has something to do with some of these branches not "counting" as real branches, but for the life of me I can't figure this out even with extensive internet searching. Flyingratchet (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

While I am reasonably knowledgable of insect biology, and in general appreciate the density of the information of a fascinating topic such as this one on insect wings, many of the terms used here range from uncommon to very uncommon.  It seems that they need either links and or to include definitions as part of the article; sometime a less technical phrase would serve equally well.  Some sections are good at explaining and others not.  For example, under Venation is an effective explanation: “The archedictyon is the name given to a hypothetical scheme of wing venation proposed for the very first winged insect.”  Dense but informative.  But elsewhere terms are dropped into the article with no explanations, such as the section (below), on Morphology — Internal.  As a work-around (for now) to rewriting sections, I’m double bracketing terms I think need linking or defining in one section, and suggesting that there is probably further need.  

Morphology -- Internal
“Each of the wings consists of a thin membrane supported by a system of veins. The membrane is formed by two layers of integument closely apposed, while the veins are formed where the two layers remain separate and the lower cuticle may be thicker and more heavily [[sclerotin|sclerotized]. Within each of the major veins there is a nerve and a trachea, and, since the cavities of the veins are connected with the hemocoel, hemolymph can flow into the wings.[1] Also, veins are the wing's lumen, being an extension of the hemocoel, which contains the tracheae, nerves, and hemolymph. As the wing develops, the dorsal and ventral integumental layers become closely apposed over most of their area forming the wing membrane. The remaining areas form channels, the future veins, in which the nerves and tracheae may occur. The cuticle surrounding the veins becomes thickened and more heavily sclerotized to provide strength and rigidity to the wing. Two types of hair may occur on the wings: microtrichia, which are small and irregularly scattered, and macrotrichia, which are larger, socketed, and may be restricted to veins.  The scales of Lepidoptera and Trichoptera are highly modified macrotrichia.[2]”
This is my way of dropping some IMHO hints and a lazy way to find existing links and creating a to-do list for myself or others, and to either work on find missing links -- or to be advised of the error of my logic.
OK, my shot for now.GeeBee60 (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The image File:Areas of insect wing.svg Used to identify areas of the insect wing has a black artifact in the middle of it. It appears to have been in the image sense the image creation. The editor who uploaded it has not been active since 2012 so I'm not sure it's worth contacting that editor. Perhaps someone could either figure out how to fix it, track down an alternative image, or propose that someone at our Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop fix it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Werid, looks like it's some sort of problem with WP.  If you go to the image and click "original image", it appears without the black box, yet it appears in any re-sized images. HCA (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there's nothing in the image itself, nor do any invisible boundaries of objects coincide with the artifact, so it's being created by the Wikimedia software that scales the image. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps we should file a... (puts on sunglasses)...bug report. HCA (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
If you know how (flicks minute speck from immaculate coat), do it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Groan Yes, it was just brought to my attention that the original file doesn't have the problem.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I reported here Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#SVG_rendering_problem.3F--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
They replied that it was a "Flowed Text" problem, a known bug. I may be able to fix it given this knowledge. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Yup, I got the sucker. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Insect wing. 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/20110716085018/http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/ent425/tutorial/wings.html to http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/ent425/tutorial/wings.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930041743/http://www.famu.org/mayfly/pubs/pub_s/pubspiethh1932p103.pdf to http://www.famu.org/mayfly/pubs/pub_s/pubspiethh1932p103.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bernstein.naturkundemuseum-bw.de/odonata/Coxoplectoptera.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716085018/http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/ent425/tutorial/wings.html to http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/ent425/tutorial/wings.html
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) 05:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Insect wing. 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/20110413014530/http://insects.tamu.edu/fieldguide/aimg26.html to http://insects.tamu.edu/fieldguide/aimg26.html
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) 02:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)