Talk:Paraponera clavata

Insects: Ants Mid‑importance

	Insects portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Ant task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Previous Bullet Ant Picture

About the removal of the picture, see: [1] --Wynler|Talk 19:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclature

What does "F. Smith, 1858" mean? RickK 04:16, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The answer to this should really appear in the Binomial nomenclature article; I'll have to correct it at some point.

All Linnaean names must consist of a generic and specific name followed by the first author of the species, and the date of description - i.e. the person who first made a formal description of the species, and the date of its publication. In the case of particularly prolific or well known authors - Linnaeus, Fabricius, Latreille, etc. - this is often abbreiviated (to L., F., Latr., &ct.). However, in the case of someone named Smith, there's rather alot of room for confusion given the number of Smiths who have authored species in various different fields; Hence his initial is also provided. I'll write an article on Frederick Smith at some point - he was a contemporary of Saunders, and an important figure in the 19th century myrmecological world. Incidentally, if the original author assigned a species to a genus which has since been revised, then his name and date appears in parentheses; e.g. Lasius niger (L., 1758) - Linnaeus' original description was of Formica nigra, which was moved to the newly created genus Lasius by Fabricius in 1804.

The description of genera is no different from that of species - a genus must be formally described, and it is correctly listed with the same relevant authorship acknowledgements.

Does this answer your question? 80.255 04:37, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No. If you want to explain it on this page, then please do so. If you don't then please delete it from this page. RickK 07:11, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Which part have I failed to explain? F. Smith is Frederick Smith, the author of the genus, and 1858 was the year the genus' description was published. All taxa should have this information to avoid confusing homonymns (e.g. supposing Joe Soap, not knowing about Smith's description, decided to create a a genus Paraponera for a completely different set of species a year after Smith's. It would be invalid as a taxon, being a junior homonymn, but after this had been realised, a new genus would need to be allocated for this species - say, Soapia, described by A. Nother (all completely fictional, of course!). Paraponera Soap, 1859 would then become the type of the genus Soapia Nother, 1859, and it would also be a homonymnic genus of Soapia somespecies (Soap, 1859). It would be essential that Smith's Paraponera is not confused with the invalid but necessary type of Soapia. This procedure happened very many times with genuine species; Formica Picea Leach and F. picea Nylander spring to mind (the latter species is now F. candida)). 80.255 07:52, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

OK, this IS an explanation, although more than is necessary. If you're going to include arbitrary words in an article, you really need to tell us what they mean. RickK 07:55, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It's all standard scientific notation - nothing original. You can't seriously be suggesting that the procedures of nomenclatural convention are explained in detail in every article mentioning a scientific name! I do think, however, that the explanation of this procedure should be woven into the current biological nomenclature article - perhaps a nomenclature link could then be judiciously added to the bottom of pages, as an "Also see:"? Personally, however, I don't see the problem with how it remains at the moment; encyclopaedias shouldn't explain every word - seperate articles are the places to do that. 80.255 08:06, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You can't seriously be suggesting that the procedures of nomenclatural convention are explained in detail in every article mentioning a scientific name - no, I'm not. I AM suggesting that, since few other articles include this extraneous information, that, it is either unnecessary or needs to be explained. RickK 08:08, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It certainly isn't unnecessary. Supposing, using my example above, I wrote an article on F. picea Nylander, but simply called it "Formica picea" - this could cause tremendous confusion since some people could well think it was refering to F. picea Leach. Apart from that it would be downright incorrect. Wikipedia follows correct protocols for naming - this case is no different. I'm certainly not against explaining fully in an article, but I really don't think encyclopaedic to put explainations in each an every article where the form occurs; a link at most. Articles aren't written for complete laymen who know nothing about anything, or we would need to explain english grammar at the top of every page! 80.255 08:16, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Initation ritual

Are there any sources on this? I'm going to put a citations needed on it. --Easty 11:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something I found on google: [[2]]. Contains a link to a non-English paper on the subject and some photos of the ritual. --Jone 11:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The YouTube source doesn't seem entirely credible. Wyste (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding the incredibility of the Youtube source. It seems very sensationalist and after all, indigenous people love telling lies to daze and amaze ignorant researchers. "Yea man I have to do this another twenty times!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.37.91.247 (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thirding the incredibility of the video source. One would think this is something that would be published in Anthropology literature otherwise. It definitely seems like a tall-tale told to researchers to me. --96.240.175.129 (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of the sources linked, the only one still active is the YouTube one. That video is unsourced but appears to be from one of those cable shows where they count down incredible and sensationalistic things. I know people all over the world have clocks now, but it seems a little contrived to me that the initiates have to endure the torture for exactly ten minutes (and having to do that twenty times also seems suspect). 96.42.31.132 (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - hadn't noticed this before I reverted. You have a point that the youtube video is not the greatest source, but I have just checked factiva and accessed the article in The Sunday Times and it is written by Steve Backshall who was on location with National Geographic when they filmed what was is in the video. It is strange that no academics have ever written about it though. I can make a copy available for a short time if you like. SmartSE (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This states that "The use of ants in Amazonian ordeals has been long known. The Maues of the Central Amazon are perhaps most famous for letting lesser giant hunter ants sting boys in virility ordeals (Spix and von Martius 1938 [1831]: 297). Pain and fever from the venomous stings last up to twenty hours or so (cf. Lenko and Papavero 1979: 297 302-3)".

The references are as follows:

Spix, J. B., and C. F. P. von Martius. 1938 [1831] Viagem pelo Brasil, z8z7-i82o. zd ed. Vol. 3. L. F. Lahmeyer, trans. Sao Paulo: Imprensa Nacional.

Lenko, K., and N. Papavero. 1979 Insetos no folclore. Sao Paulo: Conselho Estadual de Artes a Ciencias Humanas.

Paraponera clavata isn't normally known as the lesser giant hunter ant but it is used in a few other references other than this. Presumably, Maues = Mawé. It doesn't look easy to find the original sources unfortunately, but it looks pretty certain that this is correct. SmartSE (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this provides more substantiation. SmartSE (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any real source about those 10 Minutes and 20 times? Seeing how people react after only 30 seconds, and need to be hospitalized.. i don't believe this. Also 20 times? Common guys, who made that up? I won't take a YouTube Video for a source about something like this. Sorry but if it is not cited correctly with a trusty source in 7 days, i will remove the time and 20 times. --95.88.98.204 (talk) 05:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sounds like a growing up in Samoa sort of thing.2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:3507:6A5A:E93A:4C1F (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

isolated neurotoxin

"A paralyzing neurotoxic peptide isolated from the venom is poneratoxin."

Either I don't understand chemistry (not unlikely), or this should be worded better. N1ugl 10:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would seem to me that in-text referencing as used in this article -- (Bequaert, 1926) -- isn't how it's done on Wikipedia.

That may be proper in a research paper, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Jdkkp (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's normally the initial state that sources get added until others come by and improve upon it. So you can correct it if it's wrong :). Chris M. (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stinger

Is there a stinger as in wasps and bees, or is the stinging produced with the jaws? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.211.84 (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a stinger, on the end of the abdomen, a la bee or wasp.

Shrieking?

Is it true that they shriek before they attack? According to cracked, they say they do. http://www.cracked.com/article_15816_5-most-horrifying-bugs-in-world.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.244.189 (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any reliable sources saying that they do, and from my original research they don't either. The cracked article is riddled with errors, see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2010_May_19#Botfly where I previously made comments as 86.7 and 131.111 - I wouldn't trust anything in that article if I were you. Smartse (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, upon more investigation, I'm wrong, they do make noise before attacking apparently although it is a stridulation (like a cricket) rather than a shriek which implies a vocalisation - see this. Smartse (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alligator ant?

Isn't this species also known (perhaps only regionally) as the alligator ant? A couple of online sources use this other term, and I've seen references to "alligator ants" elsewhere, although there does not seem to be a specific species baring this name. --Roz666 (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never come across that name before when reading the sources used in the article and I can't find anything in google either. Also - if it was a local name, it wouldn't it be the crocodile ant as alligators aren't found in their range ;) SmartSE (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

I think it would be interesting to see if there is any research on the behavioral ecology of this ant - it's nest structure, social hierarchy, methods of communication, etc. If anyone had the courage to collect such data, it definitely should be included. Ajlu1 (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking into this ant recently and it's an interesting one. When I have dealt with the articles Iridomyrmex and Myrmecia, I might scoop out some sources. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA

I propose on working on this article for the next couple of days and such. With 900-1000 views per day, I believe this is bound for a quarter million award. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I should have said I'll work on this when I have the time... Burklemore1 (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review

I think this article could use some work in the behavior department. How did this ant interact with its own species and others around this? Since this animal can deal a great source of pain to others, it would benefit from a section on how its behavior may be of importance to people who see one or have an animal that interacts with these. How does the colony work? The stinger is a well flushed out part of this article, but it can benefit from other areas of information. Tefrancis (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tefrancis: This article is on my to-do list once I have other articles promoted to GA. It's among the most studied ants in the world, so finding information will be easy. Burklemore1 (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements to this article

There is a large amount of information about the history of this ant's taxonomy classification.

But unfortunately, there is very little about the ant itself: Its behavior, its feeding habits, the reason for its extraordinarily painful sting, how it evolved, etc.

The history of its taxonomic classification is not really all that relevant to an article about the ant. The other stuff that I mention is relevant, and I hope someone knowledgeable about the subject will include that material.

(ALSO: I am not at all sure that the word "synonymise" as used repeatedly in the passages about the history of taxonomic classification is being used correctly. If it is used correctly, then I believe it is used correctly only in some technical sense that is not likely to be familiar to most readers of Wikipedia. For this reason, I hope someone knowledgeable on the subject will rewrite those sentences so that they make sense to most readers.)Daqu (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? The taxonomic history is ALWAYS relevant to all insect or other taxon articles. Go have a look at every single GA and FA article about a taxon and I guarantee you will see information about its taxonomy. I take this as insulting you dare to indirectly question my knowledge on this matter. I have promoted many ant articles to GA and once to FA, so I am fully familiar with what I'm working with thanks .I guess I'm not KNOWLEDGEABLE on this subject or other familiar topics because I haven't added any info about it's ecology yet, although a good example of me proving you wrong is when the majority of information recently added to Termite (which I promoted by the way) was done by me. Does that clearly tell you I am knowledgeable with subjects such as this? I believe you also did not read my earlier comments if you were bold enough to make such statements. Burklemore1 (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Construction begins soon

I shall work on this soon, restructing the article, adding content, fixups and other stuff. Suggestions welcome, as long as you don't demand the exclusion of things you are not familiar with, but are so. ;) Burklemore1 (talk) 06:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paraponera clavata. 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/20090323040513/http://www.sasionline.org/antsfiles/pages/bullet/bulletbio.html to http://www.sasionline.org/antsfiles/pages/bullet/bulletbio.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 12:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution and habitat

This reliable source says Bullet ants also live in Australia but the article doesn't list Australia. 60.230.0.235 (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article says As far as the pain sensation, the sting would normally be similar to a bee and dramatically less than that of the bullet ants that we have in Australia. I'd guess though that they've mistaken it for bull ant. This source is more reliable and explicitly states there aren't bullet ants in Australia. SmartSE (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]