Talk:Myrmecia (ant)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Schopenhauer's ant 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Stub 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Venom 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bot-generated content 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cut In Two 

message: "Foes of bull ants are the black ants, which"...??????  203.161.102.82 (talk) 08:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Black Ants? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Telling the difference between male and female

message: 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)
thread_title: New species?

message: 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)
thread_title: Working in sandbox

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I note that the life cycle and reproduction sections may be problematic in relation to organisation. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Thanks, friend. It's always nice to be appreciated. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, you definitely deserve it! Burklemore1 (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Copy-edit/GA Nom readiness

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lion ants? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  M. gulosa species group 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title: Venom Lethality

message: The  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)
thread_title:  Giant bull ants in Tasmania