This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of butterflies and moths on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LepidopteraWikipedia:WikiProject LepidopteraTemplate:WikiProject LepidopteraLepidoptera articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veterinary medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Veterinary medicine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veterinary medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicineTemplate:WikiProject Veterinary medicineVeterinary medicine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles
Invasive Spices I think it should be in a diseases category, which it already is, namely Category:Insect diseases, not a taxonomic category. The moth taxonomy categories are in practice used for the moths themselves, not for things related to moths. Of the 71,000 or so articles I've updated by bot over the last week or so, there can't be more than a handful that - like this one - have just been put into the taxonomic tree 'by association'. Anyway, I don't feel strongly, and I'm happy for you to change or revert the edit if you do. All the best, MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
"Louis Pasteur, who began his studies on silkworm diseases in 1865, was the first one able to recognize that mortality due to viral flacherie was caused by infection. (Priority, however, was claimed by Antoine Béchamp.[2]) Richard Gordon described the discovery: "The French silk industry was meanwhile plummeting from a 130 million to an 8 million francs annual income, because the silkworms had all caught pébrine, black pepper disease…He [Pasteur] went south from Paris to Alais, and rewarded them by discovering the silkworm epidemic to be inflicted by some sort of living microbe…Pasteur threw in another disease, flâcherie, silkworm diarrhoea. The cures for both were culling the insects which showed the peppery spots — the peasants bottled the silkworm moths in brandy, for display to the experts — and rigorous hygiene of the mulberry leaf."[3]
is bad. It comes from a book of "amusing anecdotes", a title that does not announce a very serious work. This passage first talks about pébrine, which is not the subject of the Wikipedia article. Moreover, it is false that Pasteur "rewarded them by discovering the silkworm epidemic to be inflicted by some sort of living microbe": other scientists than Pasteur had understood that pebrine was caused by a living organism, but Pasteur claimed to first that they were wrong. He had to withdraw later. Please, read the Louis Pasteur article, section "Silkworm disease". For me, Richard Gordon has no scientific authority. Balbiani, who disregarded Pasteur's theoretical works on silkworm diseases, is a greater authority than Richard Gordon. Marvoir (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
