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 Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods 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.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and commonly referred to as "dogs" and of which the domestic dog is but one of its many members, 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.DogsWikipedia:WikiProject DogsTemplate:WikiProject DogsDogs articles
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
It would be important to add information about how long do these parasites live outside the human body. A dermatologist told me they don't last more than a day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.19.154.93 (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
This article has some dubious claims. Several relate to the size of the mite. What does the claim that the adults are L x W in size even mean? At any one instant, all objects occupy a THREE dimensional volume, NOT a 2-dimensional area. I understand that any (non-stereoscopic) image is 2D, but so what? I also understand that specimen preparation may compress the object and that objects (especially biological) of this size may not be rigid but again, so what? Giving us 2 dimensions for an animal which clearly must exist with 3 is lame. On a related problem with the article (as currently written); it is claimed here that discovery of these parasites was the first demonstration of a human disease with a "microscopic causative agent". 0.1 mm is NOT microscopic!! It is well withing the range of acuity of normal human vision. (I can (and have) viewed my thumb under a microscope, that doesn't make my thumb microscopic. In THIS context, microscopic means "visible only with a microscope" and clearly these mites are visible (if caught). (It is possible that they were first seen with a microscope, or first seen in a sample of human skin, but again: so what?98.21.221.175 (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
_part_2.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}