Talk:Tick/Archive 1

Archive 1

reference error

reference 10 says "note this does not work in the western states(10)" but reference 10 does not refer to any problem in the west with this method. Instead it says the same as the rest of the article;

Damminix, available in hardware stores, consists of cardboard tubes stuffed with permethrin-treated cotton. The tubes are placed where mice can find them (dense, dark brush) and collect the cotton for lining their nests. The pesticide on the cotton kills any immature ticks that are feeding on the mice. Best results are obtained with regular applications early in the spring and again in late summer. As many neighbors as possible should use it to be effective.

I didn't just remove the note and reference because there may be a correct reference that should be substituted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.9.235 (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

...

If a tick were expanded, like in a 1940s sci-fi film, so that it were the size of a large house, what sort of gun would u need to penetrate its exoskeleton? Pizza Puzzle

A big one? Seriously, I have no idea. I'm more interested on why you want to know. You're not planning on becoming a mad scientist and genetically engineering giant ticks, are you? --Dante Alighieri 22:21 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Im just observing that I can punch a tick repeatedly with my hard knuckle and the thing is still alive. When I was in summer camp, we would impale ticks on tacks and leave them around as warnings to the other ticks. They would live for 3 days despite being impaled. Pizza Puzzle

Don't lie. I know of your fiendish plans... You hope to rule as all with your invincible army of giant ticks. ;) --Dante Alighieri 22:27 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Forget trouble with squashing ticks with your hands, I recently had trouble squashing a tick between a ceramic tile and a piece of hard plastic! --Carnildo 03:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

No! Don't tell Poindexter! NO! Pizza Puzzle

I have a strange-looking bump on a mole or other large spot (the spot has been there for a long time but the bump on it is a new development) which I suspect may be a tick. Means of identifying ticks, including a picture of one doing its thing on human skin, would be helpful. It might go under "tick removal" but identifying ticks is a separate problem, it just leads to the other. --Furrykef 02:46, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In the research I did, I found no evidence that any tick jumps. Some places said it was physically impossible, as tick legs are not meant for jumping. I am curious to know which Midwestern ticks are reported to jump. What are your sources? Mr. Internet 18:22, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Do ticks have assholes or what, i think they do but im not sure i was just wondering because that question has been bothering me for a while now.

Effects of a tick

I have a kitten who was severely damaged by a grub on the throat area, exposing a deep hole near the esophagus/trachea area. The pictures I took could help this article, but could also be offensive to some - so I thought I'd ask for suggestions here before uploading something that could be seen as offensive. --Mrmiscellanious 00:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Just looked at it. Wow; I sure hope the kitten eventually recovers; doesn't look good. Craig3410

Tick Removal

Just a request to expand tick removal... comments removed

Please refer to WP:NOT which states:

Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s.

It is a really important policy. I think it applies to talk pages too and hence I have removed the comments in this section.--A Y Arktos 19:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm relatively new so please forgive me! I in good faith posted some instructions on how to remove ticks... while I appreciate that contravened the WP:NOT guideline, do you think some short area on how to remove ticks (even if it's just a line), or at least a link to a wiki.eHow on the subject, would be appropriate? Something like, "ticks are removed using tweezers by pulling directly up from the parasite's mouthpiece". I think it's a case of what ISN'T instructions, because I feel this particular piece of information is particularly important and it's a case of phrasing it as such. People looking at this article in need of advice on this matter wouldn't find anything otherwise, and I was struck by the lack of anything on how to remove them. --Christopher 05:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Putting this kind of thing under something like common ways of would probably be appropriate and describing common methods that other people use to "treat" ticks. your right - it's about phrasing and so long as it's factual info such as common methods employed for removal of ticks i see no problem with it because it's not advice or telling someone what to do

Wikipedia also has guidelines about going easy on newcomers - obviously something the above editor has'nt read yet Goldfinger820 06:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• With reference to Goldfinger's comment about "going easy on newcomers - obviously something the above editor has'nt (sic) read yet" - I assume he was referring to me - I would like to point out that my comments above about tick removal were pasted here in January. User:Christopher denman failed to read the talk page, his comments were reverted with an explanation. Exactly how does one remove inappropriate additions more sympathetically other than referring to the policy by which they were removed?

I do see something very wrong on so-called "factual info such as common methods employed for removal of ticks" While User:Goldfinger820 may "see no problem with it because it's not advice or telling someone what to do", the policy is quite clear "Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s." Tick removal quite clearly comes within the scope of instructions or "how-to". One person's common methods may not in fact be appropriate.--A Y Arktos\^talk 11:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it can be argued that a short section on the results of published research into the most effective methods of tick removal is perfectly within the scope of a Wikipedia article. It's not original research and it isn't a how to. 124.185.17.116 (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. It is OR and How-to. Bob98133 (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

i also disagree, vehemently. original research or not, it is not only how-to, it is medical advice, and that is an issue that has been debated ad nauseam in the medical forum. the concensus has always been that anything remotely resembling medical advice exposes wp to an unaccepatable degree of liability.Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Surely you are kidding. Lots of [[]Wikipedia:Fa#Health_and_medicine|Featured medical article] contains treatment info. Are you making no distinction between description of treatment methods and how-to advice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.223.110.61 (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed "lots" of wikipedia articles have information on treatment... and from what I've gathered editing past articles that contained similar information, as long as it is in the form of "typical treatments" and not written as instructions, then it is acceptable (with citations ofc). I can remember long ago looking in a World Book encyclopedia at the "tick" article for ways to remove them... though it may not be the best example because it included methods that are considered unnecessary or even completely wrong. Look at the article on Australian ticks. Besides being one of the most comprehensive articles of its kind on wikipedia, it has a subsection on how to remove a tick correctly and mentions things like "seek medical assistance".

And one more thing - it's definitely "frowned upon" to remove information from talk pages unless it's copyright violation or personal attacks. Wikipedia isn't going to be sued for non-professional medical advice found on a talk page, nor would the person giving said advice be liable. Lime in the Coconut 17:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Tick Bites

In Brazil, people use a traditional plant extract (Arnica) to treat tick bites. It relieves the itching and seems to have an antiseptic effect. It would be nice to have a section on traditional views on ticks in various cultures, and the way people get rid of them. Not with a "how-to", focus but rather with anthropology/history in mind. Hugo Dufort 06:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

i was wondering if a tick could completly cacoon themselves under the skin? Also i was wondering what kind of harmfull results there could possibly be from the remainder of the head in side the skin.

ohaithar

No A tick cannot cacoon themselves under a hosts skin, and the most harmful result from the refainder of a tick in the skin is that it becomes infected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.64.186 (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

US-Centricism

I think the article is too US-centric. It should mention more about ticks outside US, and regional differences between species.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 85.226.122.221 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC+11 hours )

I concur, though I have added some Australian info, this article probably should be tagged for geographical bias. I know nothing about Africa, but I suspect ticks are a mjor economic and health issue. There is a mention of HIV. Some of the info in this article is species specific, but the life cycle info is useful, and although species specific, needs to be identified as such and informs about ticks more generally. Some other info perhaps should be developed in separate species articles. Australian info is at Paralysis tick.--A Y Arktos 19:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

While I was traveling in Brazil (Minas Gerais state), I once was infested by about 50 small red ticks, running all over my skin and under my clothes. It was a frightening situation. There were also large (adult) black ticks which we couldn't crush because their shell was so hard. I wish I could find more information about non-US ticks in this wiki article! Hugo Dufort 02:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This article should more be in the US country article under ... environment? If the level of detail shall be so high in regard to local occurence, while having so little precise information about the subject at hand, this article should not be graded excellent.

Ticks as spiders

Why don't ticks cast webs?

Probably the same reason a ladybird doesn't cast webs. They just don't....

In all seriousness, although ticks are arachnids, only spiders have the ability to create webs. Other arachnids such as scorpions and solifugids do not make webs either. -GamblinMonkey 13:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Because ticks don't feed off of small insects. Therefore, making a web would be pointless for a tick. BigSciZot 15:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd personally like to see a tick catching a deer in a web... --Phasespace (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Nutalliellidae

Is the third tick family, Nutalliellidae, still a valid family? If so, it should be added to this article. Squamate 04:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Ticks as disease vectors

A recent edit "removed statement that ticks are vectors of malaria and HIV: where is the reference to support this claim?" A google search came up with this reference http://www.tickner.info/about_ticks.php which supports the claim. I have reinserted.--A Y Arktos 21:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe I've heard about research conducted by the National Institute of Health (NIH) which concluded that the probability of contracting HIV from an insect bite is about 1 million to one. That might sound safe until you realize that in one summer alone, there could be hundreds of millions of insect bites in the country, therefore potentially hundreds of opportunities for HIV infection. Landroo 15:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That "reference" is a link to a commercial website. One then has to follow another link to Traveldoctor (http://www.traveldoctor.info/diseases/11.html). Click on the links for "HIV" and "malaria"; you'll see nothing about ticks serving as vectors of either of those diseases. Check Kettle's text "Medical and Veterinary Entomology", Mullen & Durden's "Medical and Veterinary Entomology, and Harwood & James's "Entomology in Human and Animal Health" -- no mention about ticks serving as vectors or malaria or HIV. By "reference" I meant a publication in a refereed scientific journal; something that has passed peer review and documents experimental transmission according to modern scientific criteria. Check as far back as you'd like in The Journal of Medical Entomology, Medical and Veterinary Entomology, The Journal of Parasitology, Acarologia, etc. No evidence exists. I have removed the statement again because it is false. Ticks are NOT vectors of malaria nor of HIV! Squamate 02:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

suggestion of another photo

All the photos in the article show hungry ticks. This article needs a picture of a fully fed tick with a big belly. Kowloonese 18:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Kitten Picture

I'm not sure I'm buying the kitten picture. Is there any collaborating evidence to support the assertion this wound was caused by a tick? Where was the picture taken? What were the circumstances? Was the animal treated by a vet? I believe an encyclopedia should not publish as fact possibly apochryphal stories. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.57.126.186 (talk • contribs) .

I agree that the image is unclear. It looks more like an abscess or something. Maybe an infection, but I doubt even that (and that wasn't what the caption indicated). I have been around dogs all my life (and a lot of them, believe me) and despite the frequent (weekly maybe) tick bites, I've never seen such a thing. But anyway, as you say there is nothing to verify the accuracy of this image and its caption (vet opinion, etc.) so I removed it. In any case, I don't think it brings anything more to the article (you couldn't see much). IronChris | (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Mimetism?

I know a woman who had a tick attached to her arm for 2-3 days before she realized it. She was trekking in a difficult spot and didn't change clothes for that long, only washing face & hands. When she reached the camp, she finally took a shower and only then she discovered the tick. It was cream-colored, although most ticks we had seen had always been black. So we wondered, when ticks mature on a host, can they "take" the color of the host's skin or hair coat? Hugo Dufort 06:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Though I'm not a specialist, that sounds rather unlikely. There are many cases of adult polymorphisms in other sorts of mites, but I don't know of any in ticks. I did a quick search for scientific articles on the subject, but nothing relevant came up. It was probably just a different species of tick than those you were accustomed to.

If it turns out that it is indeed some kind of mimetism, then that would be a very interesting discovery, and I promise to change the subject of my Master's to that! IronChris | (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any explanation about this adult, cream-colored tick, which was found on a woman's upper arm? I am still puzzled (and slightly disgusted) by this strange bug. Hugo Dufort 02:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As I say, I can only think that it's a species that is naturally cream-colored. If you take a look at the images Image:Tick (aka).jpg and Image:Tick 2 (aka).jpg, you'll see that different species come in a wide range of colors.

On a side note, a tick is not a bug :) IronChris | (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just found a cream coloured tick on my dog. I've always thought that ticks were usually black because of the colour of blood, which isn't something that they can change. When I squished the tick open, there was a white pus substance inside. Maybe they were eggs? FredTheDeadHead 13:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I can tell you from experience in picking a couple of engorged ticks of my dog here in southern California that the engorged ticks are often a lighter color ranging from pasty grey to that of a golden raisin. They even look like raisins too if they are flly engorged. Disgusting but frequent fact of life for dog owners. They aren't changing color to remain hidden, I think it's just they are stretching so much that the color gets diluted. I will not give instructions for removal but will tell you that most Vets have handouts on the subject or can print one up for you upon request. Some vets even sell a small plastic device that comes with instructions. Now that i know color is an issue, I'll try to snap a digital photo of any engorged ticks I see this season and ask other dog owners to do the same. I'll see if I can find anything citable on the color lightening issue.LiPollis 21:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Tick Cement

I'd like to see some mention of Tick Cement here. 214.3.118.1 18:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

External link (Ticks) proposal

http://www.borislavdopudja.net/en/writings/ticks/

--Borislav Dopudja 12:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That's an ecxellent photo of an engorged female and since there are two other ticks in the picture, it offers a very instructive comparison between the normal tick and the engorged tick. it also illustrates that question from above about engorged ticks being lighter in color. I would love it if you would upload the photo to this article. Since you took it, it's yours to do with as you please.LiPollis 20:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks to Borislav Dopudja for allowing us the use of his very high quality dog tick photos. I have included two in the article which I feel add to the general understanding of ticks and their life cycle. They fill in a gap that existed. Until now, we did not have good comparison photos of engorged females to males nor did we have a photo of an engorged female dog tick still feeding on its host. Tell your doggie he/she was very brave to sacrifice some blood for us in order to get those pictures! thanksLiPollis 05:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I am glad it helps! :) --Borislav Dopudja 16:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the photos has been deleted in a recent edit, but the one of the engorged female remains and is immesnely helpful. if anyone else wants to click on Borislav Dopudja 's above links, they'll find some pretty amazing tick photos, even some of ticks mating. Ewwwww!LiPollis 17:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ticks

In the article about ticks, it mentions a "paralysis" tick in Australia. In fact, tick paralysis also occurs in the US with the brown dog tick and probably others. It is uncommon, but as a veterinarian, I see about one case every year in dogs. They present with weakness and reduced reflexes in all 4 limbs. Once the tick is removed, they improve within 12 hours. Cmorrill 11:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Article layout

What the heck happened here? Classification now runs on and on in the middle before the rest of the article. Seems to me it should be moved to the bottom so as not to disrupt the ease of reading, yes?LiPollis 17:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not move all this into the taxobox and be done with it? Squamate 09:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What's with the massive copyright tag?

Couldn't an editor simply delete the alleged copyrighted material? LiPollis 01:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Copyvio content

I have removed the offending 'life cycle' section of the article. The rest of the article is not copyvio. I am doing this in keeping with the spirit of WP:CP, specifically the "Article?" box. It was easy to cleanly remove all copyvio content and the best action in the first place would have been to simply remove that content rather than tagging as copyvio. guiltyspark 21:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

This article needs many more photos, of different stages of different species of common ticks. Until then, it needs more links to big galleries of such photos.-69.87.203.120 21:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not apply heat

"Self-examination is recommended after spending time in infested areas. If an embedded tick is found, it should be removed with fine tweezers by grasping the head and pulling with steady firm pressure. The tick should not be grabbed in the middle of its body because the gut contents may be expelled into the skin. The use of heat (lit match, cigarette, etc.), or petroleum jelly is NOT recommended to force the tick out. These methods will irritate the tick, and may cause it to regurgitate its stomach contents into the individual, thereby increasing the possibility of infection."[1]-69.87.203.120 21:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Advertisement

Ok, it looks like some people from some companies decided to advertise on the "Population control" section. There is nothing special about the products, so i don't think we should have the products advertised in the section, or not even have the section at all. --Andrew Hampe ^Talk 23:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Taxonomy

The taxonomy follows an outdated concept. Briefly, to treat the Acarina as an order is misleading (though at least the family orthography is correct in the present article), it is a relic from the times when mite systematics was insufficiently known and there was excessive overlumping. The Acariformes diversity for example cannot be dealt with properly that way. Acariformes and Parasitiformes need to be treated as superorders as it is done in modern works. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

wth is..

"The West bob, although originally identified by A.C.Steere as a focus of Lyme disease, has traditionally been viewed as having minimal tick infection rates."

the "West bob"? If that is some arachnology shorthand, just recall that we're not all board certified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.68.234 (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Feeding habits

A soft tick was found feeding on the neck of a mosquito Culex pipiens--Rimeentomologist (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Humanism

The quality of this article is extremely low. This is not a title within encyclopedia, but more like article in local newspaper.

Sick and tired of this "article" - because it has humanistic approach to the subject. Please, cut the article clearly to subjects "Tick" and "Ticks and people". And article "Tick" to contain information about .. guess .. Ticks! Species and the way ticks live.

The same burp for Finnish wikipedia tick page (puutianen) http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puutiainen.

But see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zecken - this is good high grade stuff.

"According to Pliny the Elder, ticks are "the foulest and nastiest creatures that be" - so what. I personally think humans certainly are "the foulest and nastiest creatures that be" //arl (sorry, not a native English speaker, and anonymously even though i have wikipedia account. This pun is intended.)

but ticks be nasteh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.64.186 (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal paragraph

i have just deleted the entire paragraph on tick removal in accordance with wp: wikipedia is not a manual.medical advice is particularly frowned on. i'm going to look closely at the population control paragraph tomorrow, as it seems to have a lot of how-to in it too.Toyokuni3 (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I am the person who added this paragraph. I respect the Wikipedia's policy, and try to abide by it. However, I question whether what I wrote is actually a violation of it. Removing ticks is a way of PREVENTING medical problems. I did not give any advice about what to do if a medical problem should arise. In fact, although medical professionals may know how to treat tick-borne diseases, I suspect that most Boy Scouts know more about tick identification and removal than some doctors do. I think that this information would be very, very helpful for readers, because there is SO MUCH disinformation about how to do it (applying petroleum jelly or gasoline or heat, twisting, using a "to and fro motion" etc.), some of which appears on these pages, and even in first-aid manuals. I respectfully request that you reconsider your decision. Thomas.Hedden (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Many Wikipedia articles about medical conditions contain "treatment" sections. For example, look at the articles on appendicitis; bone fractures; organophosphate poisoning; etc. I can understand that references should be provided, but I think that prohibiting information about tick removal when bone setting procedures are described is silly. Thomas.Hedden (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It says on the first aid manual 2006 that you're meant to remove the tick by a 'to and fro' motion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.166.160.19 (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the removal or modification of the Population control section should be reconsidered. It assumes that there is some benefit in removing or controlling ticks, but this is not stated. In addition to there being some how-to content, there is the larger question of why should tick populations be controlled, particularly out of doors. Bob98133 (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

'Paralysis'

paralysis isn't a disease. it's a condition, symptom, component of many disease states. this nees explanation.Toyokuni3 (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

cattle tick

The southern cattle tick, Boophilus microplus (Canestrini), causes annual economic losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars to cattle producers throughout the world, and ranks as the most economically important tick from a global perspective. Cgoodwin (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC) see: http://espace.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:80851 Has this tick been mentioned under a different name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.13.46.84 (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Life cycle

I came to wikipedia to get an overview of the life cycle of ticks, but this article has none. I don't have time to research it now, but here's one starting point http://www.bada-uk.org/homesection/about/ticks/lifecycle.php RPTB1 (talk) 09:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Cameosis?

I removed Cameosis from the list of diseases for which ticks are vectors since the source doesn't mention the disease and the link points to a music album - I assume it's a scam (please correct me and it if I'm mistaken). Phasespace (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Are ticks really found in shrubs, and do they really "drop from their perch"?

The article today states that ticks are found in shrubs, and that they "drop from their perch".

I humbly oppose these statements, and propose them to be removed until evidence that supports them is brought forth. I have not seen examples of the like, but rather the opposite. It might be that certain species have these abilities, I am only somewhat familiar with Ixodes ricinus. Christina Öhman states that: "I also tried to collect Ixodes from trees and bushes with the aid of a sweepumbrella, but without any appreciable results, the reason obviously being that Ixodes does not occur on trees and bushes." (Öhman, C. 1961. The geographical and topographical distribution of Ixodes ricinus in Finland, - Acta Soc. Fauna Flora Fennica 76: 1-38.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arto.kem (talk • contribs) 14:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the CDC Tick Management Handbook says, "Ticks do not jump, fly or drop from trees, but grasp passing hosts from the leaf litter, tips of grass, etc. Most ticks are probably picked up on the lower legs and then crawl up the body seeking a place to feed. Adult ticks will, however, seek a host (i.e., deer) in the shrub layer several feet above the ground, about or above the height of children." Perhaps the definition of "shrub" is at issue here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Canine jaundice

Canine jaundice, better known as leptospirosis, is spread by infected urine and feces, not ticks. Looking through Pubmed, I've found no studies mentioning any evidence, or even suspicion that there is a causal relationship between tick bites and leptospirosis. I don't know where LA County PH came up with this nonsense, but I doubt this lay pamphlet of theirs is a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.186.237.147 (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"Lone star" not proper noun

The term "lone star" is only a proper noun if followed by the word "state" as in "Lone Star State", the nickname of Texas. When followed by the word "tick", this is not a proper noun. One need only examine the title of any scientific paper refering to lone star ticks to see that this term is not capitalized by those in the know: the scientific community. And there is certainly a list of official common names of arthropods produced by the Entomological Society of America, in which "lone star tick" is not capitalized, just as the official name "blacklegged tick" lacks an otherwise grammatically necessary space.

Here is a link to Pubmed showing that "lone star tick" is not capitilized in scientific papers: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=lone%20star%20tick

Here is the ESA list of official common names: http://www.entsoc.org/common-names —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.186.237.147 (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, once sorted out, update this. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "official common name". There may be an "official" vernacular name according to one of various organisations, but common names are just whatever the taxon is called. Although you are right that species names such as "Lone Star tick" are not necessarily proper nouns (there is some debate, and it comes down to philosophical questions of species concepts), the Lone Star in question is clearly a specific lone star (that of Texas), and is therefore a proper noun. Just as the California spiny lobster takes a capital C, so the Lone Star tick takes capital L and S, but no capital T. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Observe reference #3 already listed under the Amblyomma americanum page, and you shall see that "lone star tick" contains no capitalized letters. Are you suggesting that the scientists who have produced at least 90% of all publications referencing these ticks are wrong, while you are right? Check the CDC, too. It would be a simple matter to produce dozens, if not hundreds of peer-reviewed articles backing this point of view. Heck, here's a Texas A&M Dept. of Entomology webpage about lone star ticks just to show that, even in Texas, people who know what they are talking about don't capitalize this name: http://insects.tamu.edu/fieldguide/cimg370.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.186.237.147 (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Then that is the argument you should use, rather than claims about proper and improper nouns. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever; see first paragraph in this section for additional arguments. Why don't we compromise and use the most widely used common name "lone star tick", on this page and then add "Lone Star tick" as an alternative common name on the Amblyomma americanum page. I'm just opposed to entirely deleting the standard "lone star tick" and replacing it with the Texas-colloquial "Lone Star tick". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.186.237.147 (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can call "Lone Star tick" any more colloquial than "lone star tick", but I accept the argument from reputable sources. I'm not sure whether they need to be listed as alternatives; most species names are sometimes capitalised, and I figure it's mostly a matter of style. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

First Aid

I was looking for a description of how a tick breathes when its head is embedded in the host. I have heard that they breath through their anus but can find no support. Covering/clogging the anus with any gel-like substance is an effective method for causing the tick to back-out after 2-3 minutes, making removal very safe and easy. Mrw81 (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Microwave Ticks?

Can ticks in clothing be reliably killed by microwaving the clothing? For how long? What precautions are appropriate? (Ordinary washing/drying does NOT reliably kill ticks.)-71.174.176.38 (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

lifecycle questions

how long do they live? do they stay on the host or leave? -- 08:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)grin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:5D0:2:211:21F:3AFF:FE04:2B11 (talk)

Diet and feeding behaviors - Tick attachment vs tick feeding

Currently, citing http://www.cdc.gov/ticks/life_cycle_and_hosts.html as the source, the article states:

Some ticks will begin to feed immediately while others may wander around and look for areas where the skin is thinner

This assertion is not true and is contradicted by the cited source. The source states the following:

Some ticks will attach quickly and others will wander, looking for places like the ear, or other areas where the skin is thinner.

and

Depending on the tick species and its stage of life, preparing to feed can take from 10 minutes to 2 hours. When the tick finds a feeding spot, it grasps the skin and cuts into the surface.

It is essential not to confuse the process of tick 'attachment' with the process of 'preparing to feed'. If you don't understand this distinction then don't edit the article. There is enough misinformation already on the internet about how ticks attach and feed without a Wikipedia article adding to the misinformation because one or more editors is incapable of understanding plain English sources like the one cited. I am amending the text so that it reflects accurately the information given in the cited source. 124.186.93.5 (talk) 06:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

On reflection, my comment above is overly harsh. I concede that the CDC article is not as clear as it could be about the important distinction between the process of tick 'attachment' and the process of tick 'feeding'. When I have time I may try to tease out the importance of this distinction in more detail.124.186.93.5 (talk) 07:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Kill them with fire

Someone edit that one out please.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.223.169 (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Merging languages

This entry should be merged with de:Zecken. They have same entries in Spanish; es:Ixodoidea for Tick and es:Ixodida for Zecken, where having same superfamily of Ixodoidea. Therefore, it is evident that tick in English and zecken in Germany are same. I tried to add de:Zecken from wikidata, but error message said that I cannot do it, instead I should merge it. I went to merge instruction but it is too complicated and I give up. I would ask somebody to do the work. Katsutoshi Seki (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I merged both entries now. Please review. There were conflicts for es:Ixodoidea and pt:Carrapato. --Stefan Weil (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Removal Methods

While the mechanical method is good, it isn't the only one. Anecdotally I could provide evidence that covering with alcohol swabs - such as found in single-use packets or a q-tip soaked in isopropyl alcohol - or covering in vaseline jelly - either directly or with an applicator - is highly effective in forcing them to back out of their own volition with no chance for left behind parts. Is there any reputable and citable evidence for these methods? Alex (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"Lone Star Tick"

I've been reading about the "Lone Star Tick" in the news and came (of course) to Wikipedia to learn more. But here is nothing. That tick is said to be causing problems for humans in the SE US, and they are spreading up the East coast. Or so I've read. Info here would be good.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220102727.htm

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Lone-Star-Tick-Bite-Triggers-Red-Meat-Allergy-270422991.html

Thanks, Hordaland (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Tick anatomy

More on tick anatomy would be useful -- a diagram would be especially helpful. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tick/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 11:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be in fairly good shape, so I'll do a detailed review over the next few days. Vanamonde (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking on the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   All issues addressed

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   All issues addressed

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Sources are formatted appropriately

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   All sourcing issues addressed: remainder are very high quality sources.

   C. It contains no original research:

   No issues found through spot checks.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Offending paragraph, from old version, removed: no other concerns.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Expansions carried out in the appropriate areas.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   No extraneous material

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Only (minor) issue addressed

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No recent stability issues.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   No issues with image licensing.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   All images are relevant.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Passing this now. Well done: this is a well-written article on an important subject.

Specific comments

Taxonomy and phylogeny

• Does "argasid bird tick" refer to the name of the tick? Then shouldn't it be capitalized?

Argasid is an adjective derived from the soft tick family Argasidae and should have a small "a". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Link rDNA or rDNA analysis

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Link or explain "capitulum" at first use

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Link or explain "monophyletic" at first use

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Can I assume that ticks have not undergone any of the (rather tedious) renamings that less prominent taxa are prone to?

Not that I am aware. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Range and habitat

• Unsourced sentence at the end of the first paragraph.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Not too happy with the organization: both disease and range information are mixed into both paragraphs. Can it be rearranged a little?

Is it any better? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed.

• This section in general is a little thin. Is there information on how far north they are found? Whether they are present in greater quantities around human habitation? Whether the different varieties differ in range?

Expanded a bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Anatomy and physiology

• "that have secondarily lost the segmentation" I am confused by the use of "secondarily" here.

Explained a bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• The paragraph beginning "The Argasidae also differ..." refers to diet, and is out of place where it is.

Moved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Why not make diet and feeding a level two section? It is substantially different from what it is currently under.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Diet

• Is "its unfed weight" grammatically correct? Uncertain, as I've never seen this usage.

I think so. I have replaced one of the two instances of its use. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think the distinction between "expands" and "grows" in the last paragraph needs to be better explained: are some ticks actually adding new cells to their cuticle, while others are not?

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Crystal clear now, thank you.

Life cycle

• Slight redundancy in the Argasidae section, wherein the fact that a blood meal is required at each stage is mentioned twice

Fixed.

• And, that fact is a little confusing. I understand that every meal a tick has is a blood meal; so is this just saying they need to feed to transition to the next stage?

Yes, in Argasids.

Relationship to humans

• "Despite their poor reputation among humans, ticks play an ecological role in their communities." This sentence appears to make a normative judgement about such a role, which I am in general not fond of.

Removed.

No, it just says that many people don't like them.

I'd disagree, but we can have that conversation elsewhere :)

I'd already changed my mind on that and had intended to remove it: it did have a normative feel to it!

• Furthermore, the first paragraph here is a little out of place, as it is not referring to humans. What I would suggest is that the first paragraph of this section, minus the sentence fragment "Despite their poor reputation among humans," be moved to the "Range and habitat" section, which can then be titled "range, habitat, and ecology". Alternatively, the disease ecology bit could become its own section.
• "the mobile host can travel the globe" this is odd, as the next fragment says "migrate across the sea" which is a subset of travelling the globe. I'd suggest a different phrase here.

Done.

• Actually, ignore the struck comment. I read the whole section, and it seems to me that the issue is not so much with some content being out of place as with the section being inappropriately titled. It deals with all aspects of disease ecology, so why not call it that?

First part now named Ecology. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

General comments

• In general, this article is on the short side, at ~28kb/2500 words of prose. This is not in and of itself a problem, so long as we can be certain the major aspects have been covered: at the moment, what I'm concerned with is the relative length of the "range" information, but I'm also wondering if more detail can be added on the ecological role, and/or about diseases in animals other than humans.

Have added description of taxonomic range. Their ecological role is rather sharply limited to being ectoparasites and carriers of disease.

• The lede is the only place where reptiles and amphibians are mentioned as hosts.

Fixed.

• At the moment, the lead does not seem to include information about the range/distribution, or the life cycle of ticks.

Added.

• The sources are generally very very solid, but I'm a little uncertain about the "CVBD" source, and the "aafp" website. Do they really qualify as RS, especially given that they are used for quasi-medical information?

The CVBD source is a Bayer site, and is used only for anatomical information, for which we are sure it is reliable. The American Family Physician journal is reliable but have replaced it with the same advice from the impeccable Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay.

• This result is rather worrying. This does not look like a website that lifted from Wikipedia.

I'm glad to say that that paragraph pre-dated our involvement with the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC) I have removed it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

That makes two of us, I would hate to be the one to discover two editors I have huge respect for violating copyright... :) Vanamonde (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the commons link go in the see also section? Not sure about this, but that's where I've always seen it.Vanamonde (talk) 10:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Done.

• Okay, thanks for the reorganization, but I'm really not a fan of the level-two heading "biology". I would consider taxonomy and population control biology too, and I think it makes the TOC ugly: but this is not quite contrary to any guideline, and so I cannot make you change it. Just a suggestion.

Taxonomy moved inside. I try to keep number of chapters down to around 7 as a rule, and the biology/with humans split is well established also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Still not a fan, but okay.

• That's everything, I do believe: passing this shortly. I hope you folks found the review a helpful process. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, and yes of course, the article is the sharper for the careful review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks. A good reviewer sees things that previous contributors missed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tick. 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/20141024083617/http://www.bada-uk.org/correct-tick-removal to http://www.bada-uk.org/correct-tick-removal

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

New species -- the longhorned tick -- found in America

Hey all, I'm not quite sure where this could go on the page but I've found a few sources about a "new" species called the longhorned tick that has apparently landed in America. Any thoughts or suggestions as to where this could go? Thanks! Sources 1 and 2PcPrincipal (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello. It's not a newly discovered species; it has just newly invaded New York. This article doesn't talk about what species are found where, so I don't think it belongs anywhere in this article. The tick has already been noted to have invaded the US, over in its own article, Longhorned tick. Thanks. Strebe (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I see! Okay no worries then. Thanks for the help. PcPrincipal (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Reversion re red meat allergy

@Strebe: I don't believe the NPR reference supporting red meat allergy associated with tick bites is adequate. I'm not an expert in reliable medical sources so I raised this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, where consensus so far appears to agree with me. The editors there have found an adequate survey review co-authored by the academic in the NPR interview:

Commins, Scott P.; Platts-Mills, Thomas A. E. "Tick bites and red meat allergy". Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 13 (4): 354–359. doi:10.1097/ACI.0b013e3283624560. ISSN 1473-6322. Retrieved 14 March 2019.

which is available freely at PMC 4235259. Unfortunately I don't currently have time to read that article and see what precise wording it would support. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

You could also cite PMID 30844847. PMID 30182427 says that the allergy is growing. PMID 29685461 describes the biology, and says that research into this is helping explain how allergies (the fundamental biology of all of them) happen. PMID 28224342 says that it happens "on multiple continents", naming a couple of countries, and specifically supports the claim about the lone star tick. The fact that tick bites can lead to red meat allergies is accepted knowledge, and there are plenty of sources. I appreciate the efforts to reach the ideal for sourcing, but I think it's important to do that with the recognition that the content as written is already verifiABLE, even though the currently cited source isn't the ideal.

Of perhaps more importance from the reader's perspective: Please link to Alpha-gal allergy in that paragraph. That's the article about this particular phenomenon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not so concerned about which citation is used as long as it is WP:RELIABLE. I will, however, reiterate that primary sources are not ideal, as WP:SECONDARY describes. There is nothing wrong with NPR's reporting on this (or in general). Specifically, overly technical sources do not serve lay audiences. Meanwhile, experts don't need Wikipedia to find sources in their own fields. Lastly, I would encourage editors not to delete material just because its citations are missing or poor. That's not a service. A service is to determine whether the information itself is good by finding good sources and citing them. Only if that fails, delete. Strebe (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

News stories on scientific subjects are generally secondary. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS, and the WP:NOTGOODSOURCE section higher up on that page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

What are residual host cues?

During the first several hours, both control and dehydrated ticks showed high activity, likely due to the effects of handling and residual host cues.

I take it they mean maybe there was still some carbon dioxide around that was breathed on them? Or maybe they mean residual effects of host cues; e.g., they were still excited due to the shadows, vibrations, etc. of being handled. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I would have thought residual effects of proximity to potential hosts such as any lingering breath or body odour, or by sensing body heat, moisture or vibration from the laboratory environment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Why do they wave their forelegs?

From http://www.cvbd.org/en/tick-borne-diseases/about-ticks/tick-feeding/host-seeking/ The ticks rest in the questing pose. Often, the ticks rest with the anterior end of the body pointed down towards of ground, but this does not occur in all individuals or all species.

Vibrations caused by animal movements as well as odours, body heat, and shadows from such hosts excite tick responses, causing extension and rapid waving of the forelegs. If contact is made, the excited ticks cling to the bodies of animals as they brush past.

If they're already in the questing pose, why do they need to wave their forelegs? Does that have something to do with their use of Haller's organ? According to https://entomologytoday.org/2018/01/16/up-close-look-tiny-sensory-pits-ticks-use-smell/ If you ever find a tick before it finds you—that is when it’s still hanging out on vegetation hoping you’ll brush past it—you may notice the little bloodsucker waving its “arms in the air like it just don’t care.” But ticks aren’t fans of 1980’s hip hop. They’re waving their arms because they are trying to get a whiff of you.

While insects primarily smell with their antennae, ticks are not insects; rather, they’re arachnids, and they don’t have antennae. Instead, a tick smells using a structure on its forelegs called the Haller’s organ. The Haller’s organ is described as a tiny “sensory pit” that can detect chemicals like carbon dioxide, ammonia, or pheromones. It can even sense humidity and infrared light, which includes body heat emitted by the warm, blood-filled creatures that the tick wants to find.

From http://medent.usyd.edu.au/fact/ticks.htm In searching for a host, they display a behaviour referred to as 'questing'; whereby the tick climbs to the top of nearest vegetation and waves its forelegs to and fro slowly, hopefully contacting a prospective passing host.

So maybe it's kind of like if you were in a dark room like in that climactic Silence of the Lambs scene, trying to find someone who's also moving around -- you might start waving your arms around, in hopes of making contact that you otherwise wouldn't. I was also reading this interview: CS: So it’s easy to miss them. You’re most likely to get them in late spring, early summer. They’re usually in low vegetation like grasses, meadow stuff. And they’re mainly out there for small mammals, mice and things like that. But if you’re brushing through there, they crawl up on a grass blade and wave their front legs.

MF: They call that questing. I just found that really creepy. When they climb up on the branch, waving their arms, waiting for you to come by.

CS: “Come get me!” So they have little hooks on their little claws, so they can hook onto you. They can also smell you, your breath (the carbon dioxide) with the tips of their legs.

Maybe they're more likely to hook on if their arm (and therefore their claw) is moving, compared to if they're holding their arm still. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

We should add more info about diapause if we can find it

From https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080249377500184 Seasonal rhythms, regulated by diapause, are important for synchronizing tick activities with favorable climatic conditions. The diapausing tick also has the advantage of being more resistant to unfavorable temperatures.

From http://www.cvbd.org/en/tick-borne-diseases/about-ticks/tick-feeding/host-seeking/ Appetence is preceded by hunger, which in turn is influenced by the tick's physiological condition; appetence does not occur in diapausing ticks.

From https://doi-org.mutex.gmu.edu/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2016.05.006 Whereas responses to ambient conditions can best be described as tactical, anticipation of unfavourable conditions well in advance of predictable seasonal climate changes is more of a strategic response, and the mechanisms involved are various forms of diapause that are incorporated into the developmental biology of these tick species.

Also: Most authors distinguish two main types of tick diapause – developmental (morphogenetic), here including reproductive, and behavioural.

Also: Together, the two forms of diapause synchronize tick development and host-seeking activity with the seasons, so that vulnerable ticks are less exposed to the dangers of dehydration or freezing. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Tick season(s)

This isn't really a scientific source, but it mentions that peak tick season is from April to June and gives some reasons why. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to this resource?

Bull Epizoot Dis Afr. 1965 Jun;13:169-76. EXPERIMENTS TO DISCOVER A SUITABLE FLUID FOR MOATS AROUND TICK-PROOF STALLS. BARNETT SF, BROCKLESBY DW. PMID: 14344197

I was wondering what the gist of the experimental results was. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Against of bee-ticks .

Comb over entry.

One work - always to drink the blood. Another - always afresh to raise! ))) 176.59.192.250 (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Formatting

@Invasive Spices: Concerning this edit with the edit summary lots of variables and a few entire citations were lost Not a single citation was deleted. Furthermore no parameters were lost. Rather a series of |first=/|last= parameters was substituted with a single equivalent |vauthors= parameter. Boghog (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Boghog: I understand you're not doing this intentionally but my guess is this is an automated tool that is not working correctly. For example the entire 10.1016/j.cub.2018.04.038 citation disappeared, as did a lot of the |pmc=, |pmid=, and |issn= parameters. Invasive Spices (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. There may have been a few errors. My latest set of edits preserved doi:10.1016/j.cub.2018.04.038 and added nine missing |pmid= plus one additional |pmc=, and fixed several broken |doi= values. Boghog (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Boghog: Still not working. |title = parasitised feathered dinosaurs as revealed by Cretaceous amber assemblages and every |issn=. I haven't checked the whole thing. Invasive Spices (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Invasive Spices: The ref in question is ref #6 and is still there. There were 99 citations before my edit and there are still 99 citations after my edit. The problem was that PMID 29233973 from which the citation was rebuilt dropped "Ticks" from the title. I have fixed that in this edit. Why is |issn= even necessary? I you insist, I will re-add them. Boghog (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Boghog: The title: I see. That is their mistake yes. ISSNs: I'm just obsessing over that because they were there already, but also I have used ISSNs to figure out a mystery when the journal title was truncated, and the authors were "somebody et al" and somebody was definitely misspelled, and it was a third world country so no one ever archived it... Invasive Spices (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Restored |issn= values in this edit. Boghog (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Boghog: This looks good to me. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• There was one reference that was duplicated three times. I merged them in this edit, hence the total number of references has now been reduced from 99 to 97. Boghog (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Boghog: This looks good to me. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Agriculture

Name hosts of ticks 41.223.73.254 (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Disposal options

I don't believe flushing ticks down the drain works 100%. Ticks are obviously specialized in finding new hosts, like sewer rats. Squashing "not engorged" ticks thoroughly on a hard surface works, but some experts advise against squashing engorged ones. Burning them works 100% (the head part of enlarged ticks), with just a simpel lighter. It dies almost instantly, and it works great while holding it with metal tweezers. I use the last method myself. Source https://thebuginator.com/how-to-kill-a-tick/ Karel Adriaan (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Removal and disposal section.

Maybe good to have a section on that. Karel Adriaan (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Dessication

This sentence is incorrect (doesn't even make logical sense) and is not an accurate representation of the source: "During droughts, they can endure dehydration without feeding for as long as eighteen weeks, however, ticks with limited energy reserves may succumb to desiccation after thirty-six weeks." 98.97.12.3 (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Good catch. That was completely garbled. I fixed it to reflect the information in the source’s abstract, but I question the value of the factoid. Something about survival in a real drought (as opposed to weird, 2-day, unnaturally wet/dry cycles) would be more informative, I think. Strebe (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, OP here - thanks for fixing. Agree with you on factoid, it's "reaching" a bit. May want to just delete. 2605:59C8:1018:AD10:1212:1E2D:CA31:288A (talk) 11:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

ticks - at least some adult ticks - absolutely drop from trees.

I take issue with "A common misconception about ticks is they jump onto their host or they fall from trees, however, they are incapable of flying or jumping." Falling does not require jumping or flying and there is nothing to keep a tick from dropping. To the contrary, it makes no sense for them to climb down from perches, rather than simply drop. Also, they are well suited to parachute via extending all of their legs, or controlled dives via trailed back legs. Furthermore, my wife and I have found ticks on us many times after being no where near vegetation to brush against. >> some ticks do drop from trees.

Low spreading branches - such as beach trees have - seem to be preferred, for obvious reason. MongoPawn (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Can’t change an article with an anecdote as a justification, but the passage you give is not cited and not logical, so I deleted the bit about falling from trees. Strebe (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)