Talk:Blastophaga psenes

Peer Review

One thing, I have heard about how each fig really has a dead wasp inside, and it seems like that is probably your wasp (and other wasps too for different tree species, apparently). This is maybe the only fun fact I have ever heard about wasps from lay people. I would highlight that heavily, put it in your intro, people care about it for some reason. Your phylogeny section doesn't explain their relation to other wasps as much as it does figs, which is odd. Also you use the word small in your description, I would be more specific and add a measurement if you can. I changed a few grammatical things. This is a long and well divided article. Annamargit (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

This article is verifiable, broad in coverage, neutral, and illustrated by one image. If more images can be found, adding more images would improve the article. Some of the sections were very interesting. Specifically, I really enjoyed reading the chemoattraction section. In order to improve the article, the prose could be made more concise. I made some minor grammatical corrections, such as rewording the first sentence of the “Taxonomy and phylogenetics” section. Another possible way to improve the article could be reworking the sections to better match the Outline for Wikipedia pages on Vespidae species.

MadisonPomerantz (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

Though I enjoyed the bulk of the article, I had a few suggestions that would aid in making the entire article more informative. First of all, I would suggest not making claims like “Due to evolution and selection, this mutualism has been favored and continued.” I would suggest providing evidence or just entirely removing the sentence.

Also I would suggest expounding on the Description and Identification section – though the information there is valuable, I feel like there could be more emphasis on the morphology of the insect rather than behavior. For example, the vaguest of claims of made here that “they are small wasps.” It’s difficult to get a sense of their actual size because we don’t have a reference point. I would definitely do more research and try and give some measurements or potentially some surface-level morphology on coloration as well. Furthermore, I would have preferred more detail on the behavior of how B. psenses acquires parts of their diet. Though I’m sure it was factually correct, more detail would be helpful to the reader in elucidating understanding of the insect.

I found the strongest parts of the article to be the sections on chemoattraction and cleptoparasitism. I found them extremely well organized and written to the point where I even went on to read on more about the subjects themselves. I also found that the section on Disease was incredibly informative and was a great example of how behavioral mechanisms should be described.

Spencer Tong (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Zroscope Edits

Wikilinked some non-hyperlinked words.
"Yet the females detach their wings and their antennae as they enter the opening of a fig." So the females, after doing this, never fly again? They leave the fig they were born in, find new territory, and discard their wings then? EDIT- Ah, explained later, I see.
Edited grammatical error.
Under header "Life Cycle" at "...and at maxiumum, much less than a month...", is this bit needed?
The wasp doesn't really "breed" the flower by mating with it, but its actions are similar to breeding as if it were mating with another wasp, is this what you meant by "The wasp breeds the flower by sticking..."?
Changed "for the different seasonal caprifigs" to "a year; one for each of the different seasonal caprifigs".
Under "Mating", "As previously stated, once females lay their eggs in the syconium, wingless males come into the syconium and fertilize the females". Does this mean that females are fertilized, go to a new fig away from their home fig, lay fertilized egg(s) in new fig, and then breed with males and lay more eggs in new fig? EDIT- You explain it later on. Thanks.
Under "Kin", "destroys a female flower". Correct me if I'm wrong, but "female"? EDIT- Explained later.
Under "Winter versus spring caprifigs", "Spring caprifigs usually produce more wasps than winter caprifigs do because of the resources of the two caprifigs". Are you comparing resources of the two types? Spring produces more than winter type, right? Make the sentence clearer.
Under "Chemoattraction", "Figs emit compounds..." What are these compounds? Chemical?
"...more attractive than female tree figs as caused by selection", the part "as caused by selection" should be re-worded.
You're references don't link to anything. Consider changing that.
Under "Disease", "The fungus shows to be more evident in spring caprifigs that are pollinated with 5 to 10 winter caprifigs than when spring caprifigs are pollinated with only one winter caprifig". What exactly are you saying here? I can't make it out at all. The fungus is more evident in spring caprifigs than winter? Zroscope (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Some quick edits

This is a really cool article. Fig wasps are so amazing!!! I changed "both of these genus..." to "both of these genera..." which is (I believe) the proper plural form of genus. But if it isn't then it's my fault and you should change it back, sorry!

I was a little confused by the mutualism-parasitism language in the article. It seems like only flowers that are unoccupied by the fig wasps are able to go to seed. However, in the "mutualism" section you say that the oviposition of eggs into the syconia result in pollination. I guess I am just confused by your discussion of male and female flowers being parasitized (rather than simply inhabited in a mutual relationship). Perhaps you could clarify your use of those words.

Also, when you talk about this species as "free-living" wasps, I think you might consider using the words "solitary wasps." I have seen "solitary" in the literature, but not "free-living," so maybe it refers to something else. So you may want to think about addressing that as well.

Really great article though!! Gaharrison94 (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blastophaga psenes. 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/20150427143016/http://www.figweb.org/Fig_wasps/Agaonidae/Agaoninae/Blastophaga/Blastophaga_psenes.htm to http://www.figweb.org/Fig_wasps/Agaonidae/Agaoninae/Blastophaga/Blastophaga_psenes.htm

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: 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) 19:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)