Talk:Cockroach/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Bite?

This might have been asked before, but can cockroaches bite? I've never been bitten, but I have seen that they have mandibles. If they can, could someone tell me if the bite is like a prick, or more annoying? Canutethegreat (talk) 06:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You'd have a hard time getting a roach to bite you. Their jaws are not particularly well-developed for biting - it'd be the same as being bitten by a grasshopper or cricket. Dyanega (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Today I was bitten (or stabbed) by a big roach (here in Beaufort, SC it is called a Palmetto bug).. anyway I thought it was dead so I picked it up in a tissue and apparently it wasn't dead because it got through the tissue - I felt a sharp stabbing pain in my finger and saw the thing's mandible locked on my finger. My wound looks like a slash or deep paper cut about 1/8" long and it is painful. (user: DariaMod) 10:38 pm- August 18, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dariamod (talk • contribs) 02:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for pest control

Please include a section on controlling or eliminating these pests! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.115.201 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 2 August 2004

>>>>>A large broom usually sorts them out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.37.138 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 27 September 2006

I've used soap on them. There is also a scientific explanation for that. Since they breathe through their skin, the soap blocks their access to oxygen, and they become powerless if all their skin is blocked from oxygen. --85.75.225.67 11:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

They don't breathe through their entire skin, only through trachea on their abdomen, but the rest of explanation is plausible. In my experience, moderate heat blow (using steam cleaner or even a hair dryer) kills them in seconds, even if they are hiding in cracks and other narrow, inaccessible places. Just don't blow them out of the reach. Heating also sterilizes remaining eggs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.152.65 (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The soap screws up their ability to stay waterproof, and their water escapes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Death by swallowing a cockroach?

I find it hard to believe that cockroaches are deadly if swallowed. The statement was added by an anon who's been up to no good lately. Besides, everyone knows the only way swallowing a cockroach will near kill you is if you swallow a fork while trying to fetch it out of your throat [1]. :-) --Diberri | Talk 19:02, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

The closest thing i am aware of about this,it's that if you try and eat it(the eatable species) ,you have to remove the head and legs,or it can get stuck in your trot,or something like that.--Pixel ;-) 20:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I've seen people eat live cockroaches (usually kids on a bet). They didn't die. --Suttkus 04:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

So many people have eaten cockroaches and many continue to. I dont believe it that anybody dies eating cockroaches. You may even eat them without removing the legs etc.

Cockroach's common perception as disease carrying vermin?

Perhaps there should be a section on this, whether it's myth or reality. What do cockroaches do that make them suspectible to carrying disease? For example, you know houseflies can carry potential disease and very likely germs because you see them land on dog poo all the time, so that's a given (plus I believe houseflies are born from maggots, which are usually born in carcasses -- also a given that houseflies carry germs inherently). So what is it about cockroach behavior and mating cycles that give them a reputation? I never seen them land on dog poo, nor do I know if roaches like to roll around in dead rat carcasses.

So if this is a reality and not a myth (and I have a hunch that people perceive cockroaches as more dirtier than flies, perhaps just because they're larger than flies and have the same reputation), I think this article could do well with a section on it from someone knowledgable about their habits and lifecycle. --I run like a Welshman 21:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I looked at that link and it stated:

Cockroaches have been found to carry the pathogens that cause tuberculosis, cholera, leprosy, dysentery, and typhoid, as well as over 40 other bacteria (like salmonella) or viruses that can cause disease.

So that answers the "myth or reality" question. I'll look at links before asking questions from now on. Although this should still have been mentioned in the article -- I doubt ALL of those diseases could come merely from wallowing around in garbage, which is the only filthy activity mentioned in the article. What do cockroaches do to get as filthy as the link mentioned, swim in horse diarrhea while drinking raw eggs before crawling into a gorilla's butthole? --I am not good at running 05:34, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've seen cockroaches here in Japan crawling around on dog poop outside my apartment building.--BaikinMan 15:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Cockroaches are actually fairly clean animals. If you watch them, you can see them clean and preen themselves. Which doesn't make them remotely sterile, of course, but at least it's an improvement on, say, what the family dog does. All animals, in fact, all solid objects, are covered in bacteria and germs unless something happens to make it otherwise (such as washing your countertop with bleach). Saying, "We found 40 species of bacteria, including salmonella, on a cockroach" isn't saying much at all. If we examined any random 1 inch square of your skin, we'd find 40 species of bacteria easily, probably including salmonella (it's rather common). --Suttkus 04:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but that preening is just to keep their sensory hairs clean of debris. They still tread through all types of filth and thrive in decay, like other 'unclean' bugs. There ARE clean bugs, for example ants, who not only keep themselves quite clean (having to live IN dirt) but have a natural cleanser/secretion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Surviving Nukes?

Somebody once told me that cockroaches somehow were able to sujrvive through nuclear detenations. If it is true (is it?) how is it possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.55.195 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 16 February 2005

Dear anon, I recommend you this experiment: trap a living cockroach and put it into the microwaves. Put it on full power for a couple of minutes and ... It survives!--62.6.139.12 10:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah well that isn't the same kind of radiation, still it's true. They're not moist enough to get heated up very badly by microwaves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.29.229 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 22 April 2005

Cockroaches can handle several times more radiation than a human, but are not nearly as resiliant as many other species. The concept of only roaches surviving nukes is basically an urban myth. —Pengo 06:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's the likely source for the cockroaches-surviving-nukes urban legend: Natick R & D Command: Attack of the Mutant Giant Madagascar Cockroaches. Read the story for more info: the cockroaches survived high levels of radiation in military research and seemed immune to chlordane (Raid) and invaded the nearby town of Natik, Mass. from July 1974 to March 1975. --Garnet Hertz 19:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I belive that the roaches can survive the radiation, but a thermonuclear blast brings temperatures up millions of degrees. I thought that any living being would be incinerated. Right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.103.134.110 (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Yes, cockroaches near the blast center would be incinerated, but those farther away and/or underground who survive incineration would be more resistant than humans to the radiation. —Lowellian (reply) 18:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Mythbusters debunked this. They subjected several insects to different types of radiation, and found that roaches are no more resistant than any other insect, but are actually less resistent because they are a moist creature. RockstarRaccoon (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The article says that a cockroach's cells divide only once, when it molts (comma added by me). Did they mean their cells do NOT divide while they're not molting, or that there's only one cell division per molt? It seems bizarre that they could survive without constant cell division like every other animal.

Will outlive the Human race?

That's rather speculative. Shouldn't that part of the article be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlschaefer (talk • contribs) 18:42, 17 May 2005

• Yes! what a moron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.24.252 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 21 May 2005
  • In other news, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There's probably a policy page on that. 82.139.85.106 09:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    • No. They already are older than the human race, and probably will outlive the human race, considering how hard they are to kill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperCockroach (talk • contribs) 14:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Do they really have any chances surviving once humans are gone? It seems to me they depend on us too much for food. I also seem to recall reading/seeing pictures of them dying out pretty soon after us as well, has anybody else seen that too? Ολίβια (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Roaches were here and living happily millions of years before humans appeared, they don't "depend" on us for anything. Our presence has favored certain species at the expense of others, but that's a power shift, and without us, things would go back pretty much to the way they were, except that a few species would now be distributed globally, rather than endemic to certain regions. No doubt we've caused the inadvertent extinction of several species of roaches already (e.g., ones that had lived on small islands to which we introduced pest species), so our net effect on roach diversity has been negative. Dyanega (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

While we do provide cockroaches with an endless buffet,they can eat things besides our scraps. Cockroaches can eat wood, paper, even the glue used in book bindings. So I think it is safe to say that they will have no problem surviving after our species is long gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.39.201 (talk) 06:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Resistant to Radiiation?

Are they? I heard something about that...--Nate3000 22:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The source cited seems credible, but my question is- why and how? Among other things, radiation poisoning causes mutations in DNA. And they can survive the amount of radiation at ground zero of a thermonuclear explosion? If this information doesn't belong in the cockroach article, it belongs in some article linked from the cockroach article. Lotusduck 04:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

See my comments in "Surviving Nukes?" below. --Garnet Hertz 19:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Surviving 9 days decapitation?

Wrapper of a Penguin bar often states that a cockroach can survive for nine days after having its head chopped off, and then it starves to death. How reliable are Penguins on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkhaios (talk • contribs) 08:07, 18 June 2005

Reflexes in some of the muscle tissue might continue that long. I wouldn't call it surviving, though. --Suttkus 04:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

i don't know about nine days, but i've unfortunately seen it. Read this: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=5244F57C-E7F2-99DF-3E40BA295C3DCC0A&sc=I100322 --Jerome Potts 21:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It is essentially correct. Much of the cockroach "brain" is distributed in the ventral ganglions. A decapitated cockroach is certainly mentally reduced, but it does retain some capacity. It can even be taught to respond to sensory input that's not dependent on the sensory organs in the (decapitated) head.Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Move to cockroach?

Shouldn't the article be at cockroach, following Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)? The introduction implies that there are species in the order not considered cockroaches, but that appears not to be the case; for example ToL considers Blattaria to be synonymous with "cockroaches". Gdr 15:16:52, 2005-08-14 (UTC)

Probably. Given redirects it doesn't seem terribly important, but doing it the other way works just as well. Wikibofh 15:46, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Blattaria or Blattodea?

I've written an article on the "Paleozoic pre-cockroaches". This paraphyletic group is ancestral to not only to cockroaches, but also mantises and termites as well, thus they are not cockroaches. This group is the one that fossil so called "giant cockroroaches" of the Carboniferous and the Permian belong to. The problem is that the oldest formal name for the group I have found (Henning, W. (1981): Insect Phylogeny. Wiley, Chichester, Britain) is Blattodea, the name used as the order name for modern cockroaches in this article. The last article by the name of Blattodea was sunk into the current cockroach article for that very reason. What should I do? Should I edit in the name Blattaria for the modern forms and reserve Blattodea for the fossil group? Should I put in a disambiguation-page for Blattodea, explaining the strange disparity in naming? I'd very much like advice on this. The current article is found under Blattodea.Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that both names "Blattaria" and "Blattodea" have been used to refer to extant roaches. In May of 2006, I attempted to make all the taxonomic references to the ordinal name in WP consistent, and at that time, found a rather lengthy explanation stating that "Blattaria" was the name used to refer to roaches plus all the extinct roach-like insects, and "Blattodea" referred only to living roaches (that is, the terms are NOT synonyms, as many people think). It was the ONLY reference I ever saw that mentioned both names and explained the distinction between them. If Hennig does not distinguish the two terms, then you CANNOT assume that he used "Blattodea" in the same sense. I can't track down that reference now, unfortunately, but will ask you to do this much: PLEASE find a reference that explains the difference between "Blattaria" and "Blattodea", and if it does NOT agree with what I have just said, let me know. I'll do some more research, but I'm reasonably sure you have it backwards at the moment. As such, all of the articles presently linking to your new Blattodea article should NOT be, as they are not referring to extinct roach-like insects. Dyanega (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

See my comment on the talk page for your Blattodea article; I'm fairly confident it needs to be renamed. Dyanega (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continued under the Blattodea page.Petter Bøckman (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Flight?

Does anybody know anything about cockroack flight? I know they have wings, but all the ones I have encountered were flightless. Are all species flightless? If not, which ones can fly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.66.66 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 26 August 2005

Palmetto bugs, which you run into a lot in Florida, can fly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.103.218 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 17 October 2005

Are palmetto bugs a species of roach then? Tyciol 06:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, palmetto bugs are a type of roach. However, the insects I see people refer to as Palmetto bugs here in Florida are wingless. However, like most folk names, "palmetto bugs" is applied to different species in different areas, or even by different families in the same area. I have seen both Asian and American cockroaches fly. They don't do it very well, but they certainly can. The bright green Cuban Cockroach which is sometimes attracted to porchlights here in Florida flies very well. It's also rather pretty. --Suttkus 04:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I remember, there are two species that are commonly found in South African households, of which (the larger, immigrated?) one is fairly clumsy – it's more like it can influence the direction of its fall – and the other (smaller, native South African?) one has better steering capabilities and can be seen flying more often. When a cockroach bumps into you in SA, it's probably the first kind. Unfortunately, I don't know the species' names.—Wikipeditor 12:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll have you know, that I live in Taiwan and I can guarantee you (to my horror) that these suckers certainly do fly. (and they are BIG! EEEIIII!!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.229.217.87 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 7 June 2006

To my knowledge, it can be temperature dependent (i.e. they can't fly below a certain temperature). I also think it's species dependent. I worked with Giganteus, and those bad boys would be like flying tanks - to my knowledge though, that species cannot fly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.170.194 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 20 August 2006

First hand experience with the American cockroach (while dissecting it) has revealed that the dorsal wings are like two way 'hinges'. They can either remain open or fully closed, even in the case of a dead roach. The smaller, more posterior wings act like one-directional 'flaps'. They revert to their original closed position even when pulled to the outer extremity. Are these mechanisms present in live roaches or were induced due to rigor-mortis? If not caused by death, then how does ths mechanism help in flight, if at all? Vader1941 19:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)vader1941

The 3-inch cockroaches in the Caribbean FLY!! One flew onto me from 10 feet away ... their wings function like a beetle's wings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.37.138 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 27 September 2006 yes they can fly we had a bad encounder with them when i was younger my dad killed one in our kitchen and a second later millions of them came out after us it was like a nightmare.till this day i dont know what happen that night.they where comming out of everwhere flying at us one of them did manage to bite my sister.maybe some one out there can tell me why whould thay do that was it the queen he killed? --172.147.182.143 06:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I find info on their wings and wing use conspicuously lacking from the article. And recognise the back-and-forth above myself. Always when speaking about roaches: can they fly? no; yes; no, that isn't a roach - why not settle the matter in the article, someone who knows? --83.253.48.84 22:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. This is a common question and could make it into the article right after the wing description. Maybe someone not as lazy as I am put the link below to good use...

http://www.essortment.com/articles/cockroaches-fly_1768.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.195.219 (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It is commonly thought that only large cockroaches like you might find in Japan fly, but the small ones can fly too. I wonder why they tend to crawl around most of the time, it makes them a lot easier to catch. 82.139.85.106 09:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Roaches are fully capable of flying short distances, however, they are somewhat clumsy and it takes alot of energy because they are not designed for it. That's why they crawl around rather than flying all the time. 69.65.84.56 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC).

Cockroach racing

Yes I know. But maybe it should be mentioned. I know that the fictitious Gil Grissom from the long-running CSI: show likes it, but does it even exist?! Anyways, if it does it deserves some reference. --Kilo-Lima 17:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but people only go to those things to see a cockroach crash. --Bluejay Young 19:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Biology

I've made a few changes to the biology section and had a little revert skirmish with IdleGuy. So I thought I'd outline my position and try to get some consensus before changing it again:

It is commonly said that for every one roach seen, there are at least a hundred more hidden (necessarily, though, this claim is apocryphal).

My main concern is that this line is in the Biology section when it is just a bit of folklore. Of course, there must be more cockroachs than are seen, but biology is a science and made up numbers belong in another section. Maybe 'Cockroachs and Humans' or 'Cockroachs in Domestic Life' or 'Cockroach Folklore'?

Cockroaches have a very high resistance to radiation, making them the only creatures likely to survive a nuclear winter. [1] [2]

'Nuclear winter' is different to a nuclear explosion and the cited websites don't mention nuclear winter at all, 'explosion' was changed to 'winter' when it was copied from the source. Looking at the cites, I believe the tiscali.co.uk cite is just wrong. I don't have a cite (how could I? I don't think any scientist is going to write a paper on how a website is wrong), but a quick consideration would suggest that cockroach wouldn't be the only creatures to survive. What about other insects? Extremophiles and other unicellular organisms, etc. Ashmoo 23:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Why focus on Madagascar Hissing Cockroach?

Any reason for giving this species so much text? Information should be merged into the existing MHC article. Wikipeditor 01:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It seems strange to me too. —Pengo 06:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree gentleman. I think the text is ok because it´s describing a very peculiar type of cockroach and the readers doesn't need to go to an specific section if they only want superficial information. E.Cortez 05:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

But why have information about this one species of cockroach on the main page, where all information about every other species has its own page? Why is this cockroach described on the main page instead of the American cockroach or the Asian cockroach? All the other species have their own pages, so I think it makes perfect sense that the Madagascar one have its own page as well. --bewebste 16:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

yes I agree, this text interrupts the flow of the article and should go in its own section. We don't need the same info two places. As such I am moving it. pschemp | talk 20:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know if the content regarding the choice of cockroaches to live in groups is for all species? How likely for Periplaneta? The ones here (in my apartment! UGH!!!) are most likely Periplaneta americana and I'm wondering if there are nests somewhere in the walls or whatnot? If not, than I guess bait traps aren't as useful as aerosols, but i'm apprehensive to spray those around here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.170.194 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 20 August 2006

Advertising pest-control companies

Advertising individual pest-control companies is considered by Wikipedia as Spam Vandalism. Consider the current links, the links are to some general or specific information on cockroaches -- three of them are even Universities. As for the link to live-pest-free.com, it is simply an advertisement for some device that they claim will eliminate pests. It seems to me to be blatant advertising for a particular product.Ted 04:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Bipedal running roaches?

I came to this wiki through reading bipedal. On the page it mentions that some species of cockroach are also bipedal for periods of running. This is not mentioned on the page, so I was hoping for a roach-expert to mention if they'd come across it. If not, I think we should fact-check that claim on bipedal. Such a thing should definately be mentioned here. I think I do remember hearing about it before, which is why I ask. Tyciol 06:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Underland Chronicles

I'm going to add to the "popular culture" section. In this series of scholastic novels by Suzanne Collins Gregor(11) who lives in a poor new york apartment, follows his baby sister Boots down a (rate?) in the laundry room. They end up in an underground world called the Underland inhabited by pale, violet-eyed humans and many different kinds of giant animals and insects, includig cockroaches. They are four feet tall, relativly harmless, and speak in sentences much likes Yoda, like "Give us five baskets, give you?". They adore Gregor's sister Boots and refer to her as "the princess". Grahamr,the Gilnean Pally and highly edited by Tyciol 06:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Cockroaches and human health

I found this article very useful and I would like to suggest to the writers/cockroaches specialists, a sub-section in this article talking about the relationship between cockroaches and human health. Since it's a popular belief in many countries that those insects can transmit a lot of diseases and this subject is not well discussed within the article, I suppose such an issue deserves a good amount of attention as it is a matter of public utility.

Thank you very much. E.Cortez 05:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with E.Cortez -- even the CDC mentions food contamination and spread of disease: http://www.cdc.gov/nasd/docs/d001201-d001300/d001251/d001251.pdf Register 26.07.06.0928am

Black Beetle?

Why does Black beetle redirect here? I'm pretty certain that these are not the same. Cockroaches aren't beetles - they're not even in the same order. There are a few different species called 'Black Beetle' (such as Pterostichus melanarius) but I don't see any way that cockroaches could be correctly considered as such. Anyone? Duckwizard 09:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Aren't they called black beetles in England? --Bluejay Young 19:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

South-eastern pocket gophers are called "salamanders" by the locals (central Florida). This name is certainly incorrect by the more accepted definition of "salamander", but it is nonetheless a real name in real use. Just a really bad one. I've heard people call roaches beetles. They'd probably call them black beetles, but most of them are brown around here.--Suttkus 04:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation Page Needed?

Newbie here, I don't really know how to edit the main functions of Wikipedia, but might I suggest that someone more skilled than I add a disambiguation page for "Cockroach / Roach" that would list the all the relevant entries (such as "Asian Cockroach" [2], "American Cockroach" < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_cockroach> etc. for those like myself and a previous poster who went looking after doing battle?

Thanks to all

--BaikinMan 15:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you just type in the search it comes up, and this is the generic page, and is for the order. The problem is there are a LOT of species. Heck, there are 6 families below this, and those have genera. The list would be overwhelming, IMO. Wikibofh_(talk) 15:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that, and I appreciate your prompt input, but I do think that some sort of link to other (at least the most common types) of roaches would be helpful to the casual searcher. I should probably learn to how to create disambiguation pages and make it a personal project.

--BaikinMan 15:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Creating the page is easy enough, but dab pages are normally for "other uses" (ie roach). I guess my question is why not just type it into the search box on the left? Both American and Asian go straight to the species. But sure, go ahead and learn. No time like the present. Wikibofh_(talk) 16:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Eating the Dead?

I have a cockroach problem in my home, as many people do. I live by NYC so it's the American Cockroach. However I've seen something peculiar two times. One time a cockroach died, I saw another live one next to it. I couldn't figure out what it was doing though. Was it trying to wake it up thinking it was still alive? Or was it trying to eat it? Was it having some type of mourning session? (Although that's not possible since then they would have to be intelligent.) Again I saw the same exact thing happen in my bathroom a few minutes ago. What is it trying to do to the dead cockroach? (Lord Vader 03:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

I read somewhere that when food is scarce then they eat dead insects. Actually I think it doesn't "know" it is a cockroach. It treats it as regular food. Maybe alive cockroaches give a characteristic smell of "living". Logictheo 21:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting fact/insecticides

I've changed the interesting facts to reflect the fact that it is almost impossible to buy OP insecticides in the first world these days. Any supermarket and most hardware store insectides are synthetic pyrethroids and have been for the past 15-20 years. I guess the original contributor was working with very out of date material.

Anyway it makes little difference to the article since pyrethroids are still neurotoxic and the effect is the same.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.198.2 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 30 August 2006

This source [3] claims that pyrethroids are merely 'flushing agents'. Various points in support of the claim have been laid down. Is the claim true/false? Vader1941 19:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)vader1941

I think the Interesting Facts section needs to be changed to 3rd person form and put in a more "encyclopedic" form.

scskowron 10:25, 10 September 2006

Please STOP reverting the erroneous information in "Interesting Facts"

I have altered this entry because it is factually incorrect. It is almost impossible to find an ach insecticide in the suprmarket these days. The vast majority of insecticdes a cockroach will encounter are pyrethroids. I have provided a refercne for this. If you wish to dispute it then provide a counter-reference. Don't simply revert my entry because you disagree with it.

I'm sure you are in love with your own submission amnd hate to see it altered but I'd like to think that referenced fact trumps self-adulation. If you have any facts then present them. If you don't then kindly bugger off.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.198.60 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 2 September 2006

• Haven't made a single "submission" to the article, other than provide minor stuff (which I did reference). What exactly does your reference say? How is the current article factually incorrect? Arguing that an 11 year old book is authoritative is speculative at best? Where does it talk about current availability. Oh, and limit your personal attacks, which are at best annoying, and at worst, blockable offenses. Wikibofh_(talk) 05:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not a roach expert, but in the Interesting Facts portion of the article there is talk of roaches dying on their backs, but as I have heard, they usually don't die that way; true, they could land on their backs, be unable to grab on to something, and simply die of exhaustion, starvation, and so on. The explanation that I have heard is that when they die, their legs contract into such a position that they become extremely top heavy/their center of gravity is altered, and cannot sustain a normal "roach stance". In most cases they are dead before they flip over on to their backs. Does anyone have a reliable source for the current entry in this article or for what I'm saying? Not completely sure about it and would like to know. Thanks. Ashton.olive 09:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Undetected vandalism

Major damage was done to this article by an anonymous editor on 22 July 2006. I'm sorry I missed this, or I would have reverted it immediately; unfortunately there has been considerable editing done since then so I'm not quite sure what to do. Probably the worst of it is that all the references and external links were deleted. I don't have time to address it, but hope there is some other editor who will. MrDarwin 20:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hrm. I've restored most of it... but I can almost see their point in deleting most of those wikilinks. It wasn't necessary to, say, wikilink termite so many times, or to link extremely common words like wood (where the linked-to article is unlikely to be specific enough to be helpful.) I think maybe I restored a few too many of the wikilinks, really... --Aquillion 04:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the "external links" section, which had been deleted in its entirety. I agree that some of these links are probably unnecessary, but at least a few of them will be useful to users of the article (and may provide references or validation for some of the information included in the article). Another editor with more time will have to sort through them and decide. MrDarwin 13:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Is Megoblatta Longipennis an actual species or just vandalism--70.237.130.231 15:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"Pennis", with two n's, is Latin for wing. It occurs in a lot of scientific names for insects. I know two dragonflies with the species name "longipennis" as well. And, yes, it does produce a lot of juvenile attempts at humor. "blatta" refers to cockroaches.--Suttkus 04:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Pest Control

Some of the Pest Control section is written like a how-to guide, and filled with BLOCK CAPITALS. I'm going to delete that part, it really dosen't belong in an encyclopedia.76.170.5.117 03:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)MaxW

References

There was a broken link (no longer correct) on the references, specifically:

"Cockroaches make group decisions"

Previous link was http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20060327/cockroach_ani.html, current link is http://animal.discovery.com/news/briefs/20060327/cockroach.html; I already corrected the page, however it doesn't appear to work. Am I missing something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sab0403 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Oriental Cockroach

The article contains the following sentence: "Cockroaches are mainly nocturnal and will run away when exposed to light. A peculiar exception is the Oriental cockroach, which is attracted to light, thus making it a far more annoying pest."

The link to Oriental cockroach, however, mentions no such thing. On the contrary, it explains that "are often called waterbugs since they prefer dark, moist places."

Which is correct? --144.131.125.216 10:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting non-facts

The "interesting facts" section is in need of serious revision. There is no reference to the section on radiation survival, but a reference (#1) two paragraphs below indicates that the number of rads they can survive is not nearly as high as the paragraph suggests. Furthermore, the reference #1 is on a paragraph regarding roaches surviving without heads, but reference #1 doesn't actually deal with this topic at all. Some of the statements there are dicey as well (cockroaches certainly need blood for the same reasons humans do, and I'm going to need a seriously well referenced article proving they can be taught to avoid electric shocks without a brain). I do not have time to fix this currently, but will address it later if no-one else does before. --Suttkus 14:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the (citation needed) tag for the statement regarding cockroaches eating from postage stamps. I've referenced Medical and Veterinary Entomology by Mullen and Durden. If anyone wishes to check this themselves, then it is located on page 32 in the 2002 edition in the Behavior and Ecology section of reading. -- Permafrost 12:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Eucylptus Oil on cockroaches

A few days ago I saw a cockroach in my bathroom, I tried to shoo it but it didn't budge - so I grabbed the nearest thing I could find: Eucyliptus Oil spray from an aerosel can - which didn't contain any listed insecticides or nothing. Anyway, just a gentle quick spray, and the cockroach dropped off the wall, fell onto it's back and basically totally freaked out. It's legs were kicking profuriously and it looked like it was dying.
I watched as the helpless creature freaked out as if it were dying. So I figured I should spray it some more to perhaps put it out of its misery - which completely freaked it out some more.
A few moments more of watching it and I couldn't stand to see it suffer - so I poured a little bit of water over it, which seemed to calm it down.
When I came back later, it had moved from its puddle, and had calmed down, but was limping with use of only 1 leg :(.
The next day I came back and it was climbing my shower door but was moving soooo slowly and was batling to make any progress.
I feel like I should either put it out of its misery or else I should try help it somehow - like moving it outside with its friends.
Any advice?

Anyway, my actual question is, what do you think the Eucyliptus oil did to the cockroach? Rfwoolf 15:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Insects breath through small tubes lining their abdomen. Oils can block these tubes and cause them to suffocate. --Suttkus 04:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

weaknesses in the article

• "cockroaches leave chemical trails in their feces" -- uh, all feces of all species are full of chemicals, i suppose? The text that follows is not explanatory enough.
• "the egg case of the German cockroach holds about 30–40 long, thin eggs, packed like frankfurters" -- Hilarious!
• "It can also hold its breath for 45 minutes and has the ability to slow down its heart rate." Do insects really have "hearts"

--Jerome Potts 21:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The trails are probably scent markers. In other words, as I read the article, cockroaches excrete a chemical or chemicals in their feces that they can detect by scent.

The "packed like frankfurters" is a very vivid metaphor. I don't think that sentence could have been better.

Most large insects do in fact have a heart, although their circulatory system is usually open. There may be a large artery that delivers the blood to one end of the body, but from there it leaves the artery and freely flows past the tissues back to the heart. Anyway, it works that way in a few insects I know of, so extrapolating, I'd guess that it works that way in other large insects too. But extrapolating is of course dangerous, so I'd say: consult a book on insects. And please inform us of your findings. ;-) 82.139.85.106 09:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Young cockroaches fearless of anything

I observe that young cockroaches, those with their butts pointing up in the air, run around fearless of anything. This must be one method of them spreading further. Therefore statements like "cockroaches fear light" need to be tempered. Jidanni 00:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Taiwan, elevation 777 meters.

Merge proposal

I put merge tags on Blattellidae and Cockroach because, if you expand this cockroach article with a "See also" section to other cockroach articles, and adjust a bit of the lead paragrah, then you end up subsuming all the content in Blattellidae anyway. Any objections? =Axlq 15:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

STRONG Object: it is sloppy enough as is, without completely screwing up the taxonomic hierarchy. Blattellidae is a family, Blattodea is an order. Names referring to different taxonomic ranks should NEVER be combined into a single article unless they are 100% synonymous (i.e., if there is only a single family in an Order). Dyanega 00:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Do not merge. Dyanega is right. Merger between two taxa of different levels is inappropriate. —Lowellian (reply) 07:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Folk etymology?

The folk etymology of the English word cockroach is the Spanish cucaracha.

Folk etymologies are known to be unreliable, and often plainly wrong. So unless we can get a reliable academic reference that will allow us to drop the "folk", this sentence should be removed. 82.139.85.106 08:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Function of the cerci?

Do the cerci have a function in cockroaches? 82.139.85.106 08:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sensory. The most notable function is to trigger the escape response (a puff of air movement that deflects enough cercal hairs triggers the roach to run forward) this is a reflex, and does not involve the brain. This is not unique to roaches, however. Just try it on a cricket. Dyanega 22:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture is not synonymous with "Trivia"

There seems to be a tendency for some editors to assume that popular culture is, by definition, trivia, and should be excluded from Wikipedia articles. Please allow me to re-post here an important section from WP:TRIV:

What this guideline is not

There are a number of pervasive misunderstandings about this guideline and the course of action it suggests:

• This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. - If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.
• This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. - Some information is better presented in a list format.
• This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information. - This guideline does not attempt to address the issue of what information should be included in articles — it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies.

Not all embedded lists are trivia sections

For further information concerning the use of lists in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Lists (embedded lists)

In this guideline, the term "trivia section" refers to a section's content, not its name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and unselective list. These disorganized items are in need of cleanup, either by incorporating them into the prose of another section, or by filtering the list to be more selective. A selectively populated list with a narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information within the article.

As such, the list in the article as it stands now is neither disorganized, and as to how unselective it is, that's evidently a matter of taste (it's hard to objectively distinguish whether a link to Franz Kafka is truly any different from a link to Pokemon, especially since more people know about the latter). Tagging it as a trivia section that needs to be removed is, I believe, one of the actions WP policy itself suggests (directly above) is not appropriate use of the tag. Dyanega (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What, exactly, does the section add of an encyclopedic value to the article? It is unsourced trivia, whether you want to try to claim it as otherwise. There is no discussion of cockroaches in popular culture, its just a list of films, tv shows, etc where cockroaches are either a major or minor character. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly - it's an embedded list, and not a trivia section, nor a discussion of roaches in popular culture. Wikipedia policy draws this distinction, even though you evidently do not. Furthermore, I see only two items in that list that are not cross-referenced to other WP articles, and only one of them needs to be sourced (a recent addition which I will now remove). Insisting on a source for every single item in a WP article is excessive. Sourcing is for when someone is likely to challenge the material. I don't think anyone is going to dispute that the movie Joe's Apartment is a movie about cockroaches. WP is not a paper encyclopedia, so the ability to electronically cross-reference is useful and desirable. Consider this: I am a professional entomologist, about as technical an editor as could possibly review an article on insects such as this one, and if even I find cross-referencing to pop culture to be an informative thing, here in a primarily technical and scientific article, then what problem do you see here that I don't? Sure, I personally don't care about the "Deadly Rooms of Death" computer game, but I cannot - as an objective and neutral editor - say that this is any less deserving of mention here than Kafka. That is a value judgment, and not what WP editors are supposedly here for. Without deleting any content, then, how else would you propose to present these cultural cross-references? Dyanega (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The "popular culture" section is really not working well with the rest of this article. However, it is quite a collection of stuff which some people don't want to lose, so I have split it out into a separate article at Cultural references to cockroaches, and kept a brief summary to round out this article. The new article is not complete by any means, and needs some work, but I think it can be viable. --Slashme (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Awkward Phrasing with Inadequate References

I find that the following sentences can be improved, references are noted:

(Original) Section: Biology "Cockroaches are generally omnivores. An exception to this is the wood-eating genus Cryptocercus, with various species found in Russia, China, Korea and the United States. Although they are incapable of digesting the cellulose themselves, they have a symbiotic relationship with a protozoan that digests the cellulose, allowing them to extract the nutrients. In this, they are similar to termites and current research suggests that the genus Cryptocercus is more closely related to termites than it is to other cockroaches..."

>> to >>

"Cockroaches are generally omnivorous with the exception of the wood-eating genus Cryptocercus. These cellulose consuming cockroaches themselves are incapable of digesting cellulose, which they require a symbiotic relationship with the protozoa Flagellate Faunae and Archaea. Because of their ability to consume cellulose, research conducted at the Natural History Laboratory in the University of Ibaraki in 2004 indicates that there may be a closer relationship between cockroaches in the genus Crypotocercus and termites than other cockroaches..."

http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jsme2/19/3/19_215/_article http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jsme2/17/4/17_185/_article/-char/en

There are a lot more, but I haven't the time. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The protozoa names you give are completely erroneous, and the references you list are not the ones being mentioned in the article, which have nothing to do with the University of Ibaraki, and date back at least to 2001. References have been included, please do not change the text as you suggest. Dyanega (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I cannot find why the protozoa name is erroneous. The references I have posted was published in 2004, the references that you included in the article was published in 2001; clearly there have been more research conducted and information accumulated between the two dates that the article does not include. Science Links Japan Microbes and Environments Trophallaxis. I have not made any changes to the text. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the term "flagellate faunae" is not a scientific name, it is a noun plus an adjective that describe a category, like saying "tall buildings" or "passenger vehicles". "Archaea" is also a name for a higher category of life, and is not specific. The abstract of the reference you link does not indicate any specific evidence regarding the actual relationships of termites and roaches; he simply follows the classification of previous researchers, and neither confirms nor refutes their work - as such, it does not merit inclusion here. Dyanega (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Radiation nukes cockroaches

Chernobyl research shows bugs are NOT nearly as resistant to radiation as commonly thought.

See the article here: http://blogs.zdnet.com/emergingtech/?p=933 82.131.210.162 (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanliness?

The popular culture heading describes roaches as "fastidious," but the article otherwise doesn't seem to say much about it. In fact, there's only one search result for 'clean' in the entire page. Could someone with more knowledge explain exactly how dangerous roaches are in terms of carrying disease/bacteria/et cetera? 97.100.222.156 (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

"Fastidious" means that they groom themselves constantly. You won't have any trouble finding this point of roach behavior in print, especially if you read some of the external links on this page. Cats are fastidious too, but they are still covered with bacteria, and pose a health risk to humans who contact them - but you don't generally see cat owners worrying about this (i.e., they don't consider it dangerous, and it's a rare thing to find a cat owner who refuses to touch their cat because they're worried about bacteria). More to the point, however, scientific studies that document whether a roach's cleaning regime leads it to carry diseases or not are not going to be easy to find. Speaking as a person who has done insect behavioral research, the matter is this: who would pay someone to do research into how clean roaches are? What difference would it make? The bacteria you breathe in every minute, or have on your hands when you touch your own food, are probably a far greater risk to your health and well-being than anything a roach might have on its body - unless, of course, you make it a habit of eating roaches (or, rather, eating them without washing them first). Furthermore, the degree of physical contact between a roach and anything you might put in your mouth is going to be extremely limited, meaning the odds of a significant inoculum of bacteria being transferred from the roach's body to YOURS is vanishingly small. Accordingly, the level of "danger" is certainly utterly insignificant. How do you quantify a level of danger that is immeasurably small? Like I said, there may not be anything documented in black and white that gives any measure of what you're asking. Peace, Dyanega (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 97.100... If there are references for cockroaches being fastidious they should be included, along with possibilities of disease transmission. Condescending comments from self-proclaimed experts are valuable, of course, but are no replacement for documentation with references. Bob98133 (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

A little bit of reading from the results of google scholar searches helped to add some cited statements to their role as pests. The bacterial load depends on their enviroment, so they can be a little more of a risk in hospital enviroments. Shyamal (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Zebra cockroach?

I found an interesting-looking cockroach on a hike in Stellenbosch this weekend. I am no entomologist, and the closest guess that I could come up with was that it was probably a member of the Temnopteryx genus. This genus is mentioned in Alan Weaving; Griffiths, Charles Llewellyn; Mike Picker (2005). Field Guide To Insects Of Southern Africa (Field Guide Series). Cape Town: Struik Publishers. p. 46. ISBN 1-77007-061-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link), but the species they describe is about 2 cm long, while this specimen was about 4 cm. Any suggestions? --Slashme (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I requested info from a friendly entomologist via email, and apparently it's Aptera fusca. --Slashme (talk) 10:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

gross!

The egg case of the German cockroach holds about 30–40 long, thin eggs, packed like frankfurters

Really is that necessary? Can't we think of something else that they look like? It's put me off my lunch. Does the Frankfurter Wiki page say, "meat filled skins that look like cockroach eggs"?

--APDEF (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you think of anything else that is well-recognized in all English-speaking countries that consists of two rows of elongated cylinders with rounded ends? I certainly can't. Dyanega (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Elongated cylinders? Like oxygen tanks? Why can't we just say 30–40 long, thin eggs, packed side by side in rows? Note that the article does not say in TWO rows, so in an effort to justify this inelegant simile we have introduced hearsay into this discussion.

Even if they are, in fact, in two rows, that does not necessitate the usage of a simile of any kind.

--APDEF (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

extermination

Has man has ever dreamt up any theoretical ways to eradicate the cockroach? For example, bioengineering dominant cockroaches that produce sterile offspring....?

--APDEF (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

They're scavengers. That is an extremely beneficial role. How much life could this planet support without soil??? As for what would happen if we eradicated all the scavengers, imagine if every plant and animal that died just stayed where it was afterwards, and rotted but never actually went away - the layer of rotted material would pretty soon make it impossible for any new plants or animals to survive. To put it on a more personal level, if you have roaches in your home, then what they are doing is cleaning up your mess. Dyanega (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"As for what would happen if we eradicated all the scavengers"

Doug, I wouldn't go that far... I certainly never suggested the eradication of all scavengers.

Roaches, however, do very little 'cleaning up' of people's homes. One would have to have quite an ugly infestation and I doubt that the net result would be a state of cleanliness. As an authority on insects, you know that ants are much more efficient, and have a demonstrable role in soil management. Furthermore decay is facilitated by microbes, and would not stop if we eliminated the beloved cockroach.

My question was one of methodology and not practicality or desirability.

To put it on a more personal level

Let's not put this on a personal level. If one has roaches in one's home, it can be because they live near wooded areas which roaches inhabit, that neighbours in connected buildings have infestations. These charming insects did not come to perform maid service, but are looking for any bit of food they can find.

--APDEF (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Dyanega's points were, firstly, that cockroaches are only a pest where they clash with humans, so that complete eradication would be a disgusting overreaction, and secondly that the only time they are a pest in human habitation is when we feed them through dirty habits. Whether it's you or your neighbours feeding them, the problem does not lie primarily with the cockroach, but with the humans. One other thing: apart from smallpox, every time humans have tried to "engineer" their environment by the heavy-handed approach of removing a species from the food chain or adding one, the cure has been worse than the disease. --Slashme (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Slashme, I appreciate your love for the cockroach, but it will be impossible to get a relevant answer to my question if you are going to be trolling and perpetuating a tangential opinion. Roaches are not a product of unsanitary conditions; they are a product of evolution, and my question is theoretical. Fortunately I am not on intimate terms with them. If you don't have the answer, sit back and let someone who does know speak, please. It really is not relevant how much you value cockroaches. For the record Dyanega's comments did not need, nor benefit by your contribution. Insects are his area of expertise and I understand that he knows a great deal about them. Comments about smallpox or "every time man..." yadayada, totally un-cited generalization, are off-topic. Please start your own discussion heading on the appropriate page.

--APDEF (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Why would human want to eliminate the cockroach. For me, i would only want to get rid of the american one, cause thats the only one i ever seen inside. Hence, annoying. If you killed of the 4 annoying/pest ones wouldnt that be all good then? IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

They would wwnt to elliminate it because it is disgusting. Some can bite you too. If they are poisnous they could kill you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.70.210 (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sex atttractant mimic for the American cockroach

Sex attractant of the American cockroach

L-bornyl acetate, available from Sigma-Aldrich, mimics the sex attractant of the American cockroach. Source: Sigma-Aldrich catalog ([4]). A very long time ago, this was tested. L-bornyl acetate (no weight will be specified) dissolved in isopropyl alcohol:distilled water (v/v). It was very lightly sprayed in a non-carpeted dorm hallway w/roach bait ("motels") and it very nicely cleared a room. It's only available to research institutions and licensed commercial exterminators, so do not try this at home.

Also, note that the most common cockroach in temperate regions of North America is the german cockroach. (See the main article).

--Davison19067 (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

cockroach

diagram of cockroach and parts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.103.87 (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

cockroachs can turn againest eachothere. little baby will climb up on you. a female will have up to 20-35 babys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.223.142 (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Blattabacterium

This article suggests that multiple Nocticola species lack Blattabacterium cuenoti, not just the one named in this article. Can someone check this against other references, and amend the article if appropriate? -- The Anome (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Black-beetle

Hello folks. I added a note to the article that the term "black-beetle" has been colloquially used to refer to cockroaches, citing my claim to the Oxford English Dictionary (see here). It's been reverted with a summary noting that the term hasn't been used for a hundred years or more. I think the claim does deserve a place in the article, though perhaps not right up in the lead. Here's my rationale:

• It's a term I've encountered in Victorian natural history writings, and was verifiably used to refer to cockroaches (as the OED evidences)
• That the examples cited in the OED are historical doesn't mean the term hasn't been used in a hundred years - generally the dictionary cites old examples to date the origination of a phrase
• Even if the term really is no longer in use, I believe it's useful to cover historical terminology as well.

Stemonitis reverted me in good faith so I thought I'd seek further input rather than just sticking the thing back in. Is there a place for this in the article? Where should it go? Gonzonoir (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is this one ?

it looks too long and slender for an american cockroach, and what is it doing on foliage in broad daylight ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Oliver Twist reference

"In Oliver Twist, the children, Mr. Bumble, and Widow Corney sing about feeding Oliver cockroaches in a canister." (Cultural Reference section) Surely that's not from the book Oliver Twist, but the musical version titled Oliver!--Sergeirichard (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

What's the actual count?

How many species of roaches are out there - 4,000, 4,500, or what?

Also, there is information on the largest varieties, but what about the smallest? The German cockroach? How small? Smaller than a sesame seed? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ages

The artikel say:

Eggs and egg capsules

Cockroaches live up to a year.

Reproduction

The adults are also long-lived, and have been recorded as surviving for four years in the laboratory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3dcboz (talk • contribs) 11:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Cockroach/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

---- i think your ariticle is quite good, but you haven't said where the word 'cockroach' comes from.because i have to do my homework about where it is from.

Last edited at 06:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)