Talk:Asian giant hornet

Do Asian Giant Hornets Really Eat Bee Thoraxes?

This "fact" has made its way into the media and is being passed along as fact. But every video I've seen of them attacking bees shows that what they eat are the larva. Is anyone knowledgeable enough to add something about this, whether it's true or false? Genepoz (talk) 09:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The adult hornets will imbibe fluids from the thorax of decapitated bees, but they do not consume them, so "eat" is a misleading word. Dyanega (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

butchering with impunity???

"After butchering the bees with impunity..." -- Really?? Any chance you're getting a little too involved in this topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.210.205.236 (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Any chance "butchering" is the most accurate (best) term for this sentence? Should a writer, or a scientist imitator decide? Dry and dusty lingo is a virtue nowhere of virtue.
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:6C86:DAB:7555:9739 (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC) Just Saying

Hornet attacks kill dozens in China

• Hundreds of people stung in Shaanxi province by swarms of giant insects believed to have multiplied over warm summer, The Guardian, 26 September 2013

Peer Review

Within the article, I made changes regarding some writing and grammar errors to not only fix these errors but to improve the clarity of what you were trying to say (at times, the sentences were wordy and confusing). In addition, due to some coding errors, a lot of the species names throughout the article were either not italicized or left in quotes. I went through and fixed all of these. The article discusses how “species under the genus lack distinctive characteristics, making it difficult for species to be grouped”, but this makes me wonder how then the species were divided. Why is your species categorized apart from other species in your genus? Perhaps clarify this thought in your article more. In addition, the taxonomy and phylogeny section on this article seems to deal with solely phylogeny. Consider either expanding on the taxonomy or change the heading to make it more relevant to the section content. How did your species get its name?

In addition, you mention that the reproductive anatomy between the queens and the workers is consistent but the workers do not reproduce. Is this because the workers are being reproductively suppressed? Are their ovaries not developed? How does this come about within a colony (i.e. perhaps a dominance hierarchy within the colony)? This could be expanded upon in your article.

Also, watch for repetition, you discuss the colors of the hornet’s forelegs, midlegs, and hindlegs both in the description section and in the anatomy section. Consider cutting one of these.

The sources used appear to be scholarly and accurate, but when citing these sources within the article, there appears to be a lot of repeat. For example, numbers 8 and 9 in your references list are the same source. You should combine these to be within one number in your reference list by making number 8 perhaps 9d.

Overall, the article covers a breadth of topics and was an informative, yet engaging read. The discussion about the interplay between these hornets and humans is well-explored. Diana He819 (talk) 8:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Need to Merge With Japanese Giant Hornet

As the Asian Giant Hornet has recently ascended into popularity, there is an increasing need to merge these two articles as to avoid widespread confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmoney7107 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Merging the two articles is sensible, the problem is that it will not be a particularly easy merge to accomplish. I note that people have already mistakenly tried to suggest that it is the Japanese color form that was found in North America, depsite a lack of evidence for this precise a point of origin. Until and unless such evidence is made known, it should be assumed that the only place to discuss the North American reports is in the main mandarinia article. In the meantime, do we have any broader support for going ahead with the merge? Dyanega (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The press is stating that colonies have been found of origins from Korea and Japan, so it doesn't seem proper to use the Japanese article as a place to put it. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 10:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I have just been informed that another researcher has a manuscript in press revising the genus Vespa, and I expect to receive a copy for review shortly. If the new research agrees that "japonica" is not a valid taxon, then I will proceed with the merge. Dyanega (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Even if it isn't a valid taxon, it can still have an article, since it is a population, and contains localized information. You could rename it "Asian giant hornets of/in Japan" but that seems unnecessarily long name for an article. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Too long for an article, but possible for a section within the main article. The impending revision treats "japonica" as a synonym, so I expect to be moving ahead with the merge later today; it's likely to take several iterations to shift all the relevant material, and the main article is in a bit of a mess at the moment, which isn't going to help. Dyanega (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m inclined to disagree that merging these articles is a good idea; what is the reason for the merge? The JGH page isn’t too short, or requiring context, and isn’t a duplicate of anything; if there is any overlap then it should be dealt with by summarizing where necessary, not dumping it into another article (or is the plan to just blank and redirect?)

The reason given here is "widespread confusion" and "not a valid taxon" (perhaps); those aren’t reasons to merge, they are reasons to clarify: if the JGH is a significant population (and with a history of being regarded as a separate species) then it is notable in itself. Moonraker12 (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

PS: Also, Dyanega, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but "I expect to be moving ahead with the merge later today", when the discussion isn't finished, and showed little consensus before, isn't really the best way to approach these things. Moonraker12 (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any reason for someone not to attempt the merge. Species get housed on one page and the renamed old titles "lose" their wiki-notability for a standalone page when scientists decide they were not truly separate. Historical nomenclature changes just get mentioned in whatever article they are in. This page already is clear that V. m. japonica is a former subspecies, and the other has said the two have been treated as synonymical since 1997, so that should be the end of any discussion on if a merge should be done. As Dyanega mentions, the tricky part is appropriately merging the content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the tricky part is merging the content, and this is over 20 years overdue now. I will also point out that the pending revision does not recognize any subspecies at all within mandarinia, so as soon as that is formally published the text will also be changed to explain that the names "magnifica" and "nobilis" are also obsolete. With three authorities in ~25 years all in agreement, there's no longer a justification for treating the Japanese wasps as something separate; that just creates confusion. Dyanega (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I've skimmed over where it was linked, but which one is the most current pending revision? I've seen the other two, but I don't think I've seen the third one linked yet. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It's still under review, and I'm one of the reviewers. The hope is that it will be published in 2020, and I will certainly link it here when it goes public. Dyanega (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so nothing we can really discuss right now. Either way, the other two alone already would be enough to move ahead. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43:: So, are you saying there is some criterion at WPProject:Insects (or somewhere) that covers this? Because WP:MERGE says something different (as outlined). Also (and help me out here, because I'm no expert on insects) what does V. mandarinia look like? I've found images of V.m magnifica and V.m nobilis (here, halfway down), but most of the images in Commons titled V. mandarinia are actually V. m japonica. Moonraker12 (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The point is that japonica, mandarinia, nobilis, and magnifica are all names referring to what the world authorities agree are color morphs of the exact same species. Not subspecies, color morphs. They are not independently notable entities; there is one species, and all of the information for that species should be in one article, regardless of which names have been used historically for these morphs. Merging is not a bold edit, it's almost 30 years behind the science. Dyanega (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Also if anyone wasn't aware, WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES is pretty clear the species name (or any taxonomy) needs to be correct and valid. The subspecies names have been corrected to non-existent, and subsequent article changes for such occurrences are made all the time as non-controversial moves. WP:FAUNA and related guidance pages spell out why, though they're also not going to dive into all the idiosyncrasies of taxonomic literature. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

That's only a way to merge the articles, and a way to name the articles, but, not a requirement to merge or rename articles, if the WP:ARTICLETITLE is named descriptively (ie. Japanese giant hornet can be treated as a description, for very large hornets in Japan), and the population being discussed in the article meets WP:GNG, then the article can stand on its own, without merging or renaming. Ofcourse, accuracy could be expanded by say calling it Japanese Asian giant hornets, which would indicate a population group by using the plural, using the common name of the species, and an adjective for the region. Does the Japanese article fail GNG? Is local information ill-served by having its own article, instead of having WP:SUMMARYSTYLE sections of it in the parent topic and of the parent in the child topic? When did every lineage and local population have to be documented in one article? (we have articles for different breeds of dogs, horses, invasive species populations, farmed plant lineages, farmed animal lineages, one person's cells sold commercially, etc) -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m almost annoyed, as well. I see that, despite having three clear objections to this proposal, and despite the discussion still being open (ie. not closed by a disinterested party), you’ve gone ahead and merged it anyway (I say merged; you’ve blanked about 8kb of material at the JGH page and added barely two sentences from it here). If you were going to do that regardless, why bother opening a discussion in the first place? And "It's still under review, and I'm one of the reviewers" positively shouts "Conflict of Interest". Moonraker12 (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Moonraker, at the end of the day, no legitimate objections were given that would overturn editing norms for when real-world taxonomic changes happen for non-controversial moves like that even if someone wants to erroneously claim it was controversial. While irrelevant to what's in the article right now, that Dyanega is a reviewer on a publication is not a conflict of interest (an author would be). WP:EXPERT has guidance on that, and that doesn't change what's already been in motion for awhile now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Kingofaces43: Thank you for the guideline links, anyway (which go some way to explaining the rationale, here). Though I'm still dubious as to why a subject that gets 200,000 hits in an internet search (though I note the first option is to buy one on E-bay!) is non-notable as a WP article. The fact that there is interest in a subject warrants an explanation, even if the explanation is that it's only "a color form of ... the Asian giant hornet" and "has been treated as a synonym of the subspecies V. m. mandarinia since 1997". As it stands now, a casual search for the term (following a news story, for example) ends up on a different page, with barely an explanation why. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Search hits are not a reliable indicator of wiki-notability, especially when dealing with organism common names, and is a common mistake in subjects like this. That is instead primarily based on what I described about correct naming above and gets into issues other guidance on common names gives. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

PS: I’m also still confused why the images in Commons purporting to be V. mandarinia turn out on examination to be described as V.m japonica, while the image at the top of this page (a V. m magnifica) looks very different. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Sort of in reverse order: (1) "magnifica" looks different from mandarinia mandarinia because it's a different color form; that is in essence the only reason magnifica has ever been treated as a separate taxon. Modern taxonomy no longer relies strictly upon external appearance, however, and that's why the "subspecies" like magnifica are being eliminated. (2) the form called "japonica" is not now, nor ever has been, strictly limited to Japan, which is one of the primary reasons that it was synonymized back in 1997 while magnifica and nobilis were not. Standard taxonomic practice is that for something to be a subspecies, it has to NOT show any geographic overlap with other putative subspecies, and that was very obviously not true of "japonica". (3) The pending publication of yet another revision only serves to confirm the revisions in 1997 and 2012 that both treated "japonica" as a synonym. My "insider knowledge" was in fact what was PREVENTING me from merging these articles previously, because I knew that a new revision was forthcoming, and did not want to go ahead with a merge and then find that the new revision resurrected japonica as a valid taxon, and then have to re-build the JGH article from scratch. It does happen to be something of a coincidence that I received this paper in the past week (unless the authors pushed it out when they did because of the "murder hornet" nonsense), but my going forward with the merge more than 9 months after it was first proposed most certainly does not represent a COI. (4) That I was ultimately only able to extract a few sentences worth of sourced material that was NOT duplicated between the two articles should tell you that they did NOT merit independent status in the first place. If most of the content of the JGH article had been novel, then your argument for maintaining it as a separate entity would be a LOT stronger, but since the two articles were nearly identical in content, then I don't see why the merge should be opposed. Dyanega (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2020

The reference to these insects causing 50 deaths in Japan per year relies on a New York Post article that has no reference and cites no source. It also contradicts the body of the article which states that total deaths in Japan from all insects stands at about 26 per year. I suggest removing the statement and the reference to the NYP. 105.186.152.135 (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, given that the Japanese press report does, as you point out, contradict this claim. In the event a good primary source is found for the statistic, then it should go into the section discussing stings/venom. Dyanega (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Dyanega please dont forget to change "answered=no" to "answered=yes" that way it gets taken out of the edit request queue. Nithin^talk 22:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Lazy Jargon & too many Lazy Links

For example:
"...is distinguished from other hornets by its pronounced clypeus and large genae."
I am so sure. Good writing (communication) is not easy.
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:6C86:DAB:7555:9739 (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC) Just saying.

Clypeus and genae refer to anatomical parts peculiar to insects that most people don't know about, so a change in wording is unlikely to be helpful. A labeled picture might help. USDA New Pest Response Guidelines: Vespa mandarinia Asian giant hornet p.26 Figure 3-3 A (currently reference #4 in the article) is a front-on picture of the Asian giant hornet's head with the clypeus and gena labeled, and 3-3 D-F are pictures of the "faces" of similar hornets showing the differences. That picture quickly made the meaning clear to me.--Wikimedes (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

"Murder hornet"

So it looks like there have been a few edits to add the nickname "murder hornet" (including mine — sorry, should have looked at the history first!) and they have all been reversed by anonymous editors. The media now consistently refers to this species as the murder hornet, so it seems like it's worth including the term.

For instance one anonymous editor writes: "No where except the NYTimes article (Published May 2nd 2020) calls the Asian Giant Wasp (Or its subspecies) "Murder Hornets" No where has this title ever been attributed to these creatures. This edit is to remove false information about The Asian Giant Hornet, and to prevent misinformation related to the Asian Continent, or its flora/Fauna." A commonly used nickname doesn't really seem like misinformation, and there are now many sources using the term.

Thoughts? Milhouse10000 (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of references to the term "murder hornets" by notable sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/02/us/asian-giant-hornet-washington.html

https://www.livescience.com/murder-hornets-in-washington-state.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/murder-hornets-united-states-honeybee-populatiopn/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgU68wLOPf4

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2020/05/asian-giant-hornets-arrive-united-states/

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/03/us/washington-giant-murder-hornets/index.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/52533585

I'd recommend adding a phrase like "sometimes referred to as murder hornets" with one or two citations. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 15:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This generally has not been accepted as a common name by entomologists and reporting on that name has been criticized. Probably best to wait with anything on this to avoid WP:RECENTISM issues too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It turns out it's not strictly recentism; the term dates back in Japanese to at least 2004, and I provided a link to a broadcast from 2008. As detestable as the term is when adopted into English, it does have an actual history, and so it's appropriate to include it, though without over-sensationalizing it in the process. Dyanega (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Entomologists don't need to approve of a name for it to be a common (and therefore notable) term. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 15:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

That actually does hold a lot of weight in notability or naming discussions as some common names just aren't accurate or appropriate. The current bit in the article of t least by 2008, some popular media outlets in Japan also referred to this wasp as "satsujin suzumebachi" (殺人スズメバチ, literally, "murder hornet")[11], a name that was passed along in 2020 to a New York Times reporter.[12] tackles that fine without getting in to the weeds without the unencyclopedic sensationalism in the other linked articles. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Media coverage?

Add a section on the recent sensationalized media coverage of their presence in North America? Yoleaux (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM is kind of an issue there. The first paragraph of Asian_giant_hornet#Geographic_distribution has a little on this, but beyond that, I'm not sure what would be of encyclopedic value. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

"former subspecies"

What does "former subspecies" mean? How could it now be no longer a subspecies if it once was a subspecies?77Mike77 (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It's been downgraded taxonomically to a color form, not a subspecies. I agree, maybe it should just say that in the lede, and leave the technical discussion for later. Dyanega (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I've kind of been wondering about that being there in the lead too. Normally we wouldn't even mention that something used to be a subspecies unless there's some really noteworthy history to the nomenclature, so just having a bit about that in the body wouldn't bother me at all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

"formerly considered subspecies" / "formerly considered as a subspecies" / or some variation ? -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 08:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)