 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Edits
editSomeone has been doing some serious screwing around with this article. I remember being here awhile back and it was much better, so I looked through the previous edits. I reinstalled the tax box w/o the image as someone more knowledgeable than I needs to ensure it is the correct species. I also fixed the citation in the text and added the correct reference format (Or did I?) in a new Footnotes section. And there are certainly much better references than that. Mostly the reference is about the broad mite. Also, considering the effect of this species, I believe that it rates much higher then "Low-importance." But I am certainly not an expert on this species. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Almost certainly several further interesting things could be added, including status outside of US (e.g. Protected Zone status in UK & Finland) and propensity for developing resistance to insecticides & the impact that has. Feels to me like the amount of the article focused on natural enemies is a little out of proportion. The DeBarro paper is almost certainly a better citation for the taxonomy than the Fan paper. Phil Northing (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Identity
editI am confused about the identity of the insect described in this article. Though the title is "Silverleaf whitefly" and the B biotype is mentioned several times in the text, the text does not seem to be exclusively about this biotype. I suggest that the text be narrowed down and a separate article be written about B. tabaci or the tobacco whitefly as a whole. This is justified in my view, because the B biotype is quite distinctive from the rest and is much more damaging to crops. I agree with Thomas Fasulo that an article about the B biotype deserves a higher importance rating. Dogo (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- This article is about the species Bemisia tabaci. I am not at all sure that there are two species here. Hoddle seems to think so, but it is far from unanimous. See Cui, Xuhong, et al. (2008) "Effects of heat shock on survival and reproduction of two whitefly species, Trialeurodes vaporariorum and Bemisia tabaci biotype B." Journal of Insect Science 8; and Oliveira, Maria RV de, et al. (2003) "Natural enemies of Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) B biotype and Trialeurodes vaporariorum (westwood)(Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) in Brasília, Brazil." Neotropical Entomology 32.1 : 151-154; for example.--Bejnar (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The taxonomy of Bemisia tabaci is an interesting one and DeBarro makes a strong argument that this is actually a species complex. It would be worth explaining this I think (and if I have time I will re-read the paper and perhaps make an attempt at changing this!) Phil Northing (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds good. --Bejnar (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I am quite sure that there is no difficulty in distinguishing it from Drosophila sp. (the common fruitfly), as stated in the lead of the article, and that claim needs a reference or it should be removed. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric