Talk:Indianmeal moth

message: Hi,
I changed some sentence structure in the lead section. I corrected citations so they appeared after the period. I changed the title systematics to the more conventional on Wikipedia, taxonomy. I broke large paragraphs up in the description section. I added some terminology to the changes in fecundity section about olfactory receptors. I also added information about cannibalism of siblings and kinship selection. Interesting sections on parasites and immunity. I would recommend expanding the lead section and clarifying the section on food and pupation site competition. Felderp (talk) 03:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: Hi All,
I spent some time checking out the previous edits and I believe this article is now worthy of Good Article Status. Everything is detailed and there are many sections covering all sorts of topics about the moth. The credibility of the sources is strong as well. Great work!
Iginsberg (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Review of previous edits

message: Hi Indian mealmoth enthusiasts,
I just added 18 different sections to the article. Please feel free to go through them and make edits. Hopefully, we can get this article to improve in status together!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkrishnan2 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Vkrishnan2, great work on this article! I just have a couple small suggestions: in the overview, you mention that the Indian mealmoth is often confused with the almond moth without an explanation of why --this could be an interesting addition. You also did a good job incorporating subsections in improve the structure of the article. Under the Life history section, you could add a Pupation subsection to make the section more complete and re-allot some of the information about pupation that you include under Adulthood. Thanks! Hanna peterman (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Added Information

message: Where do i get the little traps for the indian meal moth?
I bought meal moth trap an ebay.  The traps work well to tell where they are coming from but they are not effective to elimiate them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julesdesign (talk • contribs) 02:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Trap Question

message: The common name for this insect was coined by Asa Fitch (1809-1879), a New York State entomologist. In his book First and second report on the noxious, beneficial and other insects of the State of New York (1856), he describes a species of moth which feeds on "Indian meal" (what we now call cornmeal). He refers to this species as the "Indian meal moth" or "Indian-meal moth" (reflecting contemporary spellings of cornmeal). The common name has nothing whatsoever to do with India. Since the term "Indian meal" (or Indian-meal/Indianmeal) is no longer used, this name is confusing. I think the change to the "Indianmeal" spelling was an attempt to rectify this confusion without making the more radical change to "Cornmeal moth". I would like to move this article to "Indianmeal moth" for the following reasons:
# Despite earlier claims in this discussion, I get roughly equal hits for the two spellings in Google (44,000-51,00 for "Indian meal moth" and 48,500-48,800 for "Indianmeal moth"), thus neither spelling seems to be significantly more popular at present.
# The NPCA and most professional entomological publications seem to be tending towards "Indianmeal" these days.
# The "Indianmeal" spelling is less confusing since it does not imply that the moth is from India, and is closer to the modern spelling of cornmeal for which it was named.
# The text in the article currently uses "Indianmeal" so the title of the article should be consistant.
Kaldari (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * I am not at all convinced with this move. Linguistically, if the moth feeds on "Indian meal", then I'd hyphenate the adjectival form "Indian-meal Moth", but this clearly isn't going to satisfy the Google search... From the Wikipedia side, I thought that suggested moves were supposed to generate significant support or at least general apathy before going ahead. This one did neither. However, I am not going to start a naming war by reverting this change...—GRM (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sorry, maybe I jumped the gun on the move. I just didn't like having the title and article text conflicting. I'm certainly open to further debate on it. BTW, I have included both spellings in the intro sentence now and added a section on the etymology of the name. (I also added a new picture to the infobox and did some general clean-up of the article.) Kaldari (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

text:  The problem really is that entomologists do not engage with the general public. It is fairly clear that Indianmeal moth is the majority form on Google Scholar although I see that the hyphenated version also occurs in old USDA and other entomological texts. It appears that the article was moved against the results of this discussion. I have moved it back to where User:Kaldari had placed it in 2009. What this calls for is not attrition from entomologists but greater engagement from larger numbers of them. Shyamal (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of the name and page move

message: I highly doubt that a simple sticky trap without some sort of lure works. It is not cited, so it needs to be or we should get rid of this statement. Also, what about the bay leaves? I haven't found any great sources that support this.MATThematical (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been my experience that sticky paper without lure is worthless for Indianmeal moths.  The statement needs to be deleted.TL36 (talk) 05:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The uncited claim was still present so I have removed it.  There also was a vague mention of alleged non-toxic spray, still unsourced.  Effective insecticides exist but they come with disclaimers and they can be harmful, although they tend to target enzymes and to be in amounts that affects them more than big mammals would be.  The disclaimers also warn against using them directly on food, or very near it, meaning that it's not a panacea and other management methods are also recommended.  —PaleoNeonate – 17:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Statements about control 

message: Recently I had an infestation of these in my cabinet. They were only in the brown rice (sealed package) but not the white rice (unsealed package) so I'm guessing they home in on the nutrients of the brown rice.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.15.219 (talk) 08:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  They prefer brown rice 

message: I don't see this information out there, but from what I have discovered, the caterpillars are attracted to eating dried red chiles (they will even eat through plastic bags to get to it), but die after eating them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.31.128 (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to poison them 

message: "Moths can be deterred from the area by using essential oils and natural pantry moth spray."
This assertion is made with zero supporting evidence. And whoever inserted this line didn't even bother to list what oils or ingredients they are talking about. Surely, in the absence of evidence, this sentence is ripe for deletion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.93.232 (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essential what now? 

message: * entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/urban/stored/indianmeal_moth.htm
: "Larvae: There are five to seven larval instars. Their color is usually off-white, but has been observed to be pink, brown or almost greenish, depending on the food source. The mature larvae are about 1/2 inch in length. They have five pairs of well developed prolegs that help them move considerable distances to pupate."
-71.174.177.113 (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  five to seven larval instars 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Indian mealmoth. 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/20100615060931/http://www.entomology.wisc.edu/mbcn/fea210.html to http://www.entomology.wisc.edu/mbcn/fea210.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Just a note that on Wikipedia the standard way of writing section headings is in sentence case. That is, the first word is capitalized and subsequent words are not capitalized unless they include a proper noun. That's explained at MOS:HEADINGS in our Manual of Style. Also ending punctuation generally comes before the reference as explained at WP:CITEFOOT. Thanks,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section headings and punctuation around references 

message: Hi! I am editing this page for a Behavioral Ecology course. Overall, this article is very clearly written and holds a lot of interesting information, and I made only minor general edits (grammar, sentence structure, etc.) throughout the page. My one suggestion would be to add more to the "Male pheromones" section, if possible. Nice work! LucasKat (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edits for Behavioral Ecology course 

message: In the sub-section 'Non-Plant Foods' there is a brief discussion of larval cannibalism. The last sentence of the sub-section reads: 'Typically, cannibals do not eat closely related individuals which might share genes with them, but when given the choice between siblings and unrelated individuals, caterpillars tend to cannibalize their siblings.'
The first clause of the sentence implies that larvae are less likely to cannibalize closely related individuals. However, the second clause states the opposite. I couldn't access the cited source but the above clearly needs to be changed. RobotBoy66 (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It was indeed confusing, thanks.  The article's title concluded that there was no evidence of kin discimination so I simplified the sentence.  —PaleoNeonate – 17:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Plant Foods