Talk:Botfly

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment for class[edit]

This Wikipedia entry on the Botfly has clear and concise writing, especially in the introduction and the general category. It also has interesting information on how botflies have evolved to use vectors to lay their eggs on hosts, because hosts recognize botflies and will try to escape. This article also has a long, detailed section on the relationship between humans and botflies; for example, it talks about the relationship between humans and certain animals that people interact with, like horses and cattle, which can be infected by botflies. However, this Wikipedia article is incomplete. Three general categories that are missing in the outline and should be included are ecology, biology and evolution. Ecology should be included because in its current state, there is no information regarding where these flies are found and what sorts of environments they prefer. Biology should be included so that readers can learn about life cycles, genetics and behaviors that are specific to botflies. And, evolution should be included to understand how and why behaviors of this fly exist. The talk page states that this article is a level 4 vital article, but is classified as Start Class and only of low and mid importance across its various WikiProjects. There are many edits that can be done to improve this page; for example, there are some missing citations that need to be filled in. Under the talk page, users make good comments and edits on the quality and relevance of information provided.Hannahwhite97 (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Location of botflies[edit]

Could someone elaborate, just roughly, on what parts of the world has bot flies? The article currently has no information on this. Thanks! --David Munch (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have a botfly book at my disposal, but I am also interested in where botflies live, and this is the first place I searched. I just read about Tsetse flies and saw a great world map with a red blob on it, presumably their habitat range. I also thought the lack of geographical information to be unusual. 99.162.156.14 (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A little shocked theres not even a word to tis location and also its range. I would think that would be standard with any life thats being described here. --Cornersss (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious information[edit]

I doubt the supposition that there are 'some species' that eat "testes/ovaries." There used to be a misconception 150 years ago that Cuterebra emasculator eats testes but this was shown to be false. Are there other species I just don't know about (and also can't find any info on)? Jgreeter (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... At the very least your query deserves attention. I don't know what bot flies do to rodents in our area, but certainly they are well-known as rodent parasites in northern America (among other places of course). I had never questioned the accuracy of that claim, but on reading your objection I did a bit of surfing and found a few hits. The most substantial that I found was "DOES THE CUTEREBRA EVER EMASCULATE ITS HOST?" by Ernest Thompson Seton, writing in "Journal of Mammalogy Volume 1 1919-1920." http://archive.org/details/journalofmammalo1191920amer. p.94.
Seton's main point is that the evidence so far available was not cogent. For example: "No trace of the testes is discernible after the development of the grub. Why should there be? For at the season of all observations — August, September, and October — the testes are normally reduced to almost nothing and are even, as Bachman says (Vol. 1, p. 269), "drawn into the pelvis." This of course is perfectly reasonable and correct, and my only reservation on the article as it stands is that as it is worded, it is an attempt to prove a negative: that the cuterebra never emasculates its host. Some of his arguments are flatly invalid in context, such as: "It is contrary to the known ways of evolution, that any species should develop a habit that would tend to cut off its own food supply", though it would be unfair to criticise that one too harshly in the early 1920s. My only real reservation is that to my mind it is perfectly plausible that the occasional testis would end up as maggot tucker, even though the rather vague wording might have suggested a particular testis-eater, rather than an adventitious one.
I did not encounter any other material suggesting that any bot fly specialising in rodents was particularly prone to castration rather than arbitrary hypodermal myiasis.
In summary I am inclined to agree with you that either the text in question should be removed, or should be qualified to describe the attacks on testes as comparatively rare and incidental, rather than a normal dietary habit. JonRichfield (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


C. emasculator does not destroy the hosts' testes. Here is on authoritative (albeit not peer-reviewed) source making this point: http://entomology.ifas.ufl.edu/creatures/misc/flies/squirrel_bot_fly.htm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.207.126 (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This reference (available through scholar.google.com) reviews and rejects the proposition that C. emasculator castrates hosts: Timm RM. Lee Jr, RE. 1981. Do bot flies, Cuterebra (Diptera: Cuterebridae), emasculate their hosts? Journal of Medical Entomology 18: 333-336. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.207.126 (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Someone vandalized the content so i tried to clean it up. Could someone check the content for inaccuracies? (author?) -Xorp21- Johnakabean (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC) you was suppose to revert from version history.[reply]

Link added[edit]

I added a link to a (IMHO) very interesting and informative site about the human botfly: http://www.ambergriscaye.com/pages/town/botfly.html - maybe someone could give it a shot to give it a better title. -anonymous

Fastest insect?[edit]

So what isthe fastest flying insect now? --nocturnal omnivorous canine 12:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is really cool footage of an infected human: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/2007/01/nasty-bot-fly.html

That file no longer functions. Get a 404 Error: File Not Found. 65.163.117.163 (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how fast does it fly? That seems important given the information about speed. --Absolute Zerr--

removal[edit]

so i was watching that botfly video that has been lurking around - apparently it seems that botflies need oxygen to grow. the guy duct taped his back to prevent oxygen from getting to the larve, and so that makes the larve come to a head, just like a pimple about to pop. if there is any truth to this, which i assume is true since in the video the larve was at a head, then maybe it might be good info to include somewhere, in case someone does get this nasty botfly larve in them. From personal experience, a great way to remove a bot fly is to place a large drop of Vaseline on the site and because the botfly larvae requires air to breath, the larvae will stick its head out of the skin through the Vaseline and then you can grab it with tweezers and pull it out. --72.209.153.126 02:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excess information not pertaining to the subject[edit]

In cattle, the lesions caused by these flies can become infected by a bacteria that causes lechiguana, characterized by rapid growing, hard lumps beneath the skin of the animal. Without antibiotics an affected animal will die within 3–11 months.[3][4]

This isnt limited to the botfly and information like this is detrimental to the article because any lesion caused by any insect has the potential to cause infection, this piece isnt specific to the botfly. --65.191.182.74 (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surrey. Really?[edit]

Can we find any sources for the assertion that bot flies are present in Surrey, UK? It seems strange for them to be so localised here given that they affect entire countries in warmer parts of the world. Brammers (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've picked back through the history and it was added during this edit by an IP which has only made two edits, both to the botfly article. It's unsourced and seems unlikely to be true (in my opinion) but do I assume good faith and leave it there? Brammers (talk) 10:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it. Brammers (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Locations[edit]

More information on the locations would be good - are the ones listed for both human and animal-type bot flies, or just the human type? Because the animal type are far more prevalent, they are a problem for livestock owners in Australia which I added to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.191.172 (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improving wording[edit]

I reckon the following sentence could be greatly improved:

Copious art dating back to the Pleistocene in Europe confirms their importance in premodern times as well.

It really lacks clarity. It may have made sense when it was first inserted to the article, but perhaps after some editing it now stands alone and it is not clear what the original author was trying to say.
Aberdeen01 (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improving wording[edit]

I reckon the following sentence could be greatly improved:

Copious art dating back to the Pleistocene in Europe confirms their importance in premodern times as well.

It really lacks clarity. It may have made sense when it was first inserted to the article, but perhaps after some editing it now stands alone and it is not clear what the original author was trying to say. In particular important in what way? As a source of food for humans? Or humans as a source of food for botflies? Perhaps they were important in some other way?
Aberdeen01 (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move content?[edit]

For reasons escaping my memory I referred to this article and remained to edit. It rapidly became clear that though the material is good, it is a real pain to have it under "botfly" instead of "Oestridae", with as many redirs as seem desirable. Unless some persons concerned could persuade me to the contrary in the reasonably near future (Feb 2012 perhaps?) or I happen to forget, it currently is my intension to do the necessary edits and moves. I am not being difficult, and am open to discussion, but as things stand it seems to me a very worthwhile idea. JonRichfield (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be classified correctly as the taxonomic names, on Wikipedia, and the common names should redirect to them. Most media on youtube and other places are referring to 'botfly', which is why someone uneducated put it under botfly. If you're going to contribute to Wikipedia, do it by rules for writing and taxonomy (when related to animals, insects, and organisms. Johnakabean (talk) 04:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it called a "bot" fly?[edit]

Just curious. And perhaps we can add it to the article! Yekshemesh (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Bot means maggot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.17.0 (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Illogical[edit]

“important seasonal luxuries” — is it important or a luxury? It cannot be both. -- anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.216.30 (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes it can. Some luxuries are more important than others--take Belgian beer versus caviar. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As others said:[edit]

There is a lot of missing information, like where are these native to? This question is one of the MOST important to address in any article on a species. Johnakabean (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Botfly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Botfly. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: California Natural History[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2022 and 2 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Seanflaherty2003 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Seanflaherty2003 (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only mammals?[edit]

"Their larvae are internal parasites of mammals..."

Anecdotally, I see multiple cases of botflies infecting other animals than mammals online. Is there any reason why mammals was specifically chosen? I don't see a source claiming only mammals have botflies. 147.197.171.103 (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you do. I think you're seeing references to flies in other families that are being called botflies, like Philornis, which attack birds, are called "botflies", but are not related to actual botflies. Provide a citation with a genus and species name to an actual botfly (i.e., in the family Oestridae) that attacks a non-mammal, and I'll happily change the page text to reflect it. Dyanega (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Botfly&oldid=1194310190"