Talk:Grasshopper/Archive 1

Archive 1

Jumping and Nervous System

I added a section on jumping, because that does seem like something that people who come to this site might be interested in. I also revised the section on the nervous system, which was a bit sparse and contained some errors (the stuff about the neuropile was wrong). Unfortunately, for the latter I forgot to fill in the bit which explains what the edit was about in the History, so sorry about that. Does anyone know if I can add it retrospectively? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjheitler (talk • contribs) 21:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Military personnel instructed to collect grasshoppers?

I removed this statement, which is unsourced and unspecific: "Some countries supposedly instruct military personnel to collect grasshoppers to eat as a food source." - anyone got a reference/source for that? Varchoel 07:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

From PNA/Biology

• Caelifera—the insect suborder of grasshoppers, which at present redirects there. For such a notable animal group, the article is in pretty sad shape. Postdlf 08:22, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Juvenile Lubber Grasshoppers?

Juvenile Lubber Grasshoppers?

I took this pic in Panama. Someone suggested they're Juvenile Lubber Grasshoppers. Sounds likely considering this is what an adult looks like. Does anyone know for sure? DirkvdM 07:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

i like tis picture

More Info

I think it would be a good idea to expand all of the anatomy-related sections, because there were a lot of organs mentioned whose functions were not presented. My main reason for saying this is that grasshoppers are often dissected in biology classes, and all easier-to-reach info is a good thing. :) —anonymous

Lacking important information!

Like the cricket article, this one lacks important information. What do grasshopers eat? If there are different diets, at least mention *some* of them. And why aren't the legs used for jumping mentioned? Any kid will tell you that the most notable trait of a grasshoper is that they *hop*! 201.235.51.21 04:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

And what is their average lifespan? What is the brownish secretion, expelled from their mouths when they are picked up? Dr. Dan 14:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I opened this article to find out about the lifespan of grasshoppers. Still no info on that. Do they die, hibernate or what? Carmaskid (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Another photo

Another photo of which I don't know what it is. I named it a cricket, but now assume it's a grasshopper because of the short antennae. Other than that I'm stuck. If you know more, could yo add that info to the photo's page? Thanks. DirkvdM 18:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A question

Why was my extremely clear and excellent photo replaced with a drawn illustration? It is clearer, sharper, and more detailed than any of the othe r pictures in the gallery. It's really no big deal, I'm just wondering.

PiccoloNamek 00:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

question taxonomic photo ID

This is regarding the photo: Image:Orthoptera vdg.jpg|Grasshopper in The Netherlands

---

While I am very impressed with this photo -high quality image, etc. I am slightly skeptical of whether or not it is actually a grasshopper (family acrididae). The antennae seem a little long, the tarsi count appear to be 4-segmented and not three. I could not discern whether there was an inconspicuous tympanum or not on the front tibia. That would have cinched it for me. Anyway, maybe it is a grasshopper. Just curious --Moscow999 03:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A new Photo:

Here is a recent photo I took of a grasshopper in my yard in Northeast Ohio (North Ridgeville)

Grasshopper Image

Page's main image

I have reverted the page's main image to my own because this grasshopper is the most commonly found, especially in America (where many English Wikipedia users reside). Thus, it is better for identification of what the average person thinks of when they think "grasshopper." Additionally, the other images proposed have not been of any better quality or detail than mine, so I see no reason to change it. Before changing my image, please respond to this, and let's come to consensus.
Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 02:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Of the two images (below), 1 is a much better photograph. It is better exposed and the composition is superior. They both (purport to) show the same species, so the arguments about it being a more appropriate species fail. I'm sorry, but of the two, I (and evidently others as well) would go for 1 every time. --Stemonitis 12:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Both are of far lower quality of the (now) FP which was for a while the main image. Reverted back to that image as it is far higher quality. The fact that your image is "most commonly found, especially in America" doesn't mean anything and should bear no relevance as to wether it should be used for the main image. I would think a less common image would be more remarkable. --Fir0002 10:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Fir you reverted it back to your own, he has a point the most common grasshopper would be best but only if the image is good. Gaogier ^{How can I help?} 00:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• 
  1
• 
  2

correction on grasshoppers as a source of food

it says koreans enjoy them as a side dish. it is not true. Koreans "do" eat them, but they don;t eat them as side dish. also it is extremely difficult to find grasshoppers nowadays. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.221.9.115 (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
Some of Indonesians (natives who live in the woods, especially in Java) eat them fried. Some eat them as side dish, and some eat them as main source of protein. I don't really understand about this part, I'll look for more info on this. K-lenx 14:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Rape?

Now I'm not quite sure if there is an alternate definition of rape, but I believe that the last sentence of the first paragraph under Characteristics should be removed, it reads: "Some species have been known to rape people." I'd do it myself if I was a little more confident in my own judgement. EDIT: After investigating the last update made to the wiki it was made to characteristics with an IP that has been associated with vandalism. I have chosen to remove this line, sorry if it upsets anybody, I'm not the most experienced wiki user.
Redian 00:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Anatomy

File:Grasshopper anatomy.jpg

Simplified grasshopper anatomy

Grasshopper's mouth structure

I've made two pics from personal experience on examining a dead grasshopper (school project). It was a species of grasshopper that is commonly found in Indonesia, so the form might be slighly different from american grasshopper, but I think I've drawn the important parts. The captions were based on what I got from school, so please correct me if I'm mistaken. If these pics are fine, please put them on the page, or I'll put it next week if there's no correction - K-lenx 24 May 2007
I've put them on the page, hope it helps --K-lenx 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the picture is fine, except that the colors for the mandible and the labrum are swapped in the frontal and bottom view. I first thought it was intentionally, but then I couldn't seem to find any purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.153.26 (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Suspect change needs verification

An anonymous user at 205.174.123.184 recently changed the text "[...] about 11,000 valid species described to date" to "[...] about 18,000 valid species described to date". I find this change a little suspect since it was made by an anonymous user without any references being made to allow the fact to be verified. Perhaps it's true and perhaps it isn't. I'm clueless about such things, so I wouldn't even know how to begin going about verifying the validity of this change. But I think the change should be scrutinized.

BTW, why is the rate of vandalism on this page so high?

--Pomakis 16:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick request

Does anyone have locust disection diagram or guide to or similar? Ive googled it quite a bit but I cant really find anything. Thanks

CaptinJohn 21:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

no reason exactly

this is interesting —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mydachshunds2 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

SEM Photo

The SEM photo of spiracle is from a cricket (not grasshopper) per the photo's uploader. I corrected the caption for this photo where it also appears on Scanning_electron_microscope. My question for the experts is whether this photo of a cricket's spiracle is appropriate for this page. Should this be identified as being from a cricket? If the spiracles of a grasshopper are similar to a cricket's, then I think it's okay to leave it as long as it is properly identified. If they're not similar, perhaps someone can substitute a better image.--CheMechanical 06:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

White space in Biology section

It's probably being caused by the taxobox (or whatever it's called). Anyone know a way it could be fixed? -Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 14:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

Wikipedia requires pages to use a standardized version of English for each article. The spelling for this article is all over the place, as this long-standing introduction sentence illustrates:

Species that change color and behaviour at high population densities are called locusts.

Although this is a compromising sentence, it does look a bit weird having an -our and -or ending in the same sentence, and goes against the Manual of Style. If you read on a bit further, you find, within two sentences:

There is also a neuropile in the centre, through which all ganglia channel signals. The sense organs (sensory neurons) are found near the exterior of the body and consist of tiny hairs (sensilla), which consist of one sense cell and one nerve fiber, which are each specially calibrated to respond to a certain stimulus.

Here we see -re conflicting with -er.

It could be argued that the article should use Commonwealth spelling, as the creator of the article is an Australian; but it could also be argued that the first divisive spelling introduced — on the seventh edit — was American hemolymph (as opposed to haemolymph).

Personally I would be in favour of using Oxford spelling, as it is often seen as a compromise, is the international form of English spelling (used by the United Nations etc.), and because of the simple fact that grasshoppers are an international subject.

Swedish fusilier (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have standardized the spelling to Oxford spelling now. Swedish fusilier (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Disruptively large taxobox

Caelifera Temporal range: Phanerozoic (Permian-Triassic, 250mya) to Recent
Immature Grasshopper
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Arthropoda
Subphylum:	Hexapoda
Class:	Insecta
Order:	Orthoptera
Suborder:	Caelifera
Families
Superfamily: Tridactyloidea Cylindrachaetidae Ripipterygidae Tridactylidae Superfamily: Tetrigoidea Tetrigidae Superfamily: Eumastacoidea Chorotypidae Episactidae Eumastacidae Euschmidtiidae Mastacideidae Morabidae Proscopiidae Thericleidae Superfamily: Pneumoroidea Pneumoridae Superfamily: Pyrgomorphoidea Pyrgomorphidae Superfamily: Acridoidea Acrididae Catantopidae Charilaidae Dericorythidae Lathiceridae Lentulidae Lithidiidae Ommexechidae Pamphagidae Pyrgacrididae Romaleidae Tristiridae Superfamily: Tanaoceroidea Tanaoceridae Superfamily: Trigonopterygoidea Trigonopterygidae Xyronotidae

I'm trimming all the families out of the taxobox, which is disruptively large and ruins the formatting for all the images. Here is the full taxobox, including the families, for reference.--ragesoss (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Grasshoppers

Grasshoppers usually come out of their eggs in spring or late summer. They can be many different sizes and colors. Grasshoppers from Costa Rica can be very large. Grasshoppers mainly eat grass or some grasshoppers eat other bugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.52.231 (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

grasshoppers

grasshoppers are exelent jumpers. they eat grass or somtimes other bugs.they are incects.grasshoppers can be green or somtimes brown.they can be lots of dirent sizes.costarican grasshoppers are the size of a bannana.there can be many at a time and can often damage fields.grasshoppers lay eggs they do not give live birth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.52.231 (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(Not really a) grasshopper in Kona

I am almost certain that the photo titled "Grasshopper in Kona" shows a katydid, not a grasshopper. Rulatir (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'll remove the image. Evlshout (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Nsenene

Though on its own, the section on nsenene is interesting, unfortunately, this is not a grasshopper but a katydid. My first impulse was to suggest moving it to Tettigoniidae, but this article is not yet well developed. With a bit of extra work, "Nsenene" could become an article of its own. Dogo (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, since nobody else has done so, I have now written the article on nsenene and removed the relevant section from this article. Dogo (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Aside from being ungrammatical, this sentence:

The chemical reactions throughout their nervous system slowly destroys itself when in contact with Columbian bananas[citation needed].

...has nothing to do with the paragraph in which it was inserted. I left it in place, but commented it out. rowley (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Grasshoppers as food

I think that something should be included about grasshoppers being used as human food. This is common in many cultures, and is becoming more prevalant in others.Mk5384 (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

There is already a section on that topic... de Bivort 13:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Some old page history

Some old page history that used to be at the title "grasshopper" can now be found at Talk:Grasshopper/Old history. Graham87 15:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Grasshopper spit

Wow, I don't see anything on this page about grasshopper "spit"... you know that gross brownish stuff they puke up on you if you catch them? I'd say it's definitely notable enough to be mentioned but I don't actually know what the stuff is. 74.243.6.26 (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that you may be looking at the wrong end of the animal?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I came here looking for the same information. When I was young, I frequently observed grasshoppers discharging a brownish liquid from their mouths. Years ago I read an article describing the purpose of the liquid, but I do not recall what the article said because it was so long ago. --167.206.248.10 (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Image question

• 
• 

The left image is currently in the article. The right image is (to the best of my reckoning) the same species, and I think it is considerably better. Does anyone else think the right image should be in the article? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

support, for the unbroken antennae alone. de Bivort 23:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

friad jgezq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.149.4 (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Redlink

The Pneumoridae appear in the cladogram but we say nothing about them. Would be handy to have an article on them! Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Like this? LittleJerry (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks a good place to start. The other families have articles like this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Taxonomy

This may have been a featured article, but the taxonomy is all over the place! ... with references to the "great-green grasshopper" (obsolete name by the 1970s) and potentially confusing content with other Caelifera: which should not be a redirect page. Roy Bateman (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The only great green thing in the article is a bush cricket, mentioned to say it is NOT a grasshopper. Where other pages redirect is not an issue for this particular article.

My point was: why have a picture of a bush cricket under grasshoppers then? (I didn't explain well above - apologies). What I attempted to do was to juxtapose this with the grasshopper picture, partly to make the point - but you just deleted all my edits. Don't understand your point in second sentence. Roy Bateman (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I haven't made any edits. The picture's caption makes (or made) its point simply and clearly: many readers will assume that green insects with long thin legs and long antennae are grasshoppers, so the image shows that they are crickets. Its function (to spell things out rather) is to show by exception where the boundaries of the group lie, i.e. just before you get to the crickets and bush crickets.

The "second sentence" states that what other articles may say or contain is not an issue for this particular article. However, if you create a WP:FORK of this article at Caelifera, that is a matter for discussion somewhere. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The mapping of common names to taxa is always loose as there can, by definition, be no formal control of common names; taxonomists necessarily use Latin. However, "grasshoppers" is widely used as a common name for the Caelifera, as at well-maintained and heavily-used sites such as Orthoptera.org.uk, Grasshoppers of Europe, BugGuide.net, and Encyclopedia of Life. The Tree of Life site uses the less snappy "Shorthorned Grasshoppers, Locusts and Relatives". Respected entomology textbooks like Gullan and Cranston use the phrase "grasshoppers and locusts", essentially agreeing that Caelifera and grasshoppers are synonyms, as few would disagree that the locusts are themselves grasshoppers. Other biology books such as Hoffmann's Insect Molecular Biology and Ecology are similarly happy to equate the Caelifera with grasshoppers. In short, while no common name can be a perfect match for a taxon, grasshopper seems a good, widespread, sensible and largely uncontroversial name for the Caelifera. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Roy Bateman, it appears you made your giant changes after Chap addressed your concerns. That is not productive. Please establish a consensus first before you do these changes and don't edit war. LittleJerry (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted Caelifera but will make no more edits to this until resolved HERE - suggest you and Chiswick Chap do the same Roy Bateman (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The reason we use scientific classifications is precisely to avoid "loose" taxonomy: for example, to include Tridactyloidea under "grasshoppers" is just plain wrong. You are wrong to say that are a "sensible and largely uncontroversial name for the Caelifera". I could equally quote textbooks going back to Uvarov and Ragge, which would be equally valid for the common terms (the latter being responsible for getting rid of "shorthorned Grasshoppers" I believe). A page called "grasshoppers" should indeed be 'user friendly' to the public, so I would suggest putting the more technical taxonomic content where it belongs at sub-order level, and focusing on the important and relevant content such as "locusts" being a subset of and taxonomically indistinct from grasshoppers (which is an important point). I object to the high-handed deletion of my edits. Roy Bateman (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

If you look at international links, it is also a mess: with some (e.g. French, Spanish) using Caelifera, some using local equivalents of "grasshopper" - is it really too difficult to have 2 separate pages? Roy Bateman (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Wait until a consensus before you change. Your edits do not get to be the default. It is not our concern what international wikipedias do. Also the sources you are citing, appear to be outdated, Chap's sources are more recent. LittleJerry (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

You miss the point and I wrote "... going back to...". As Chiswick Chap observes: ToL has "Caelifera: Shorthorned Grasshoppers, Locusts and Relatives" - accuracy is often "less snappy". Roy Bateman (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The only group where you may have a point is Tridactyloidea (the most basal clade). The other branches on the tree are commonly known as grasshoppers. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Any names other than "pygmy mole crickets" for Tridactyloidea? Then the Tetrigidae are usually called "groundhoppers" (see your Grasshoppers of Europe). Aren't 2 out of 8 'exceptions', plus Tanaoceroidea & Trigonopterygoidea for which we only have scientific names (so 4/8), enough to just get the science right? My main points are (1) "grasshoppers" are NOT an internationally recognised scientific taxon and (2) that we need Caelifera (with appropriate links), especially since Ensifera have their own page. Roy Bateman (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion should centre on common usage: it cannot centre on taxonomy as common names are by definition not taxonomic names. Wikipedia policy is to use common names where they exist, plainly the situation here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Tetrigidae= "pygmy grasshoppers", Eumastacidae = "matchstick grasshoppers", Proscopiidae = "stick grasshoppers", Pneumoridae = "bladder grasshoppers", Pyrgomorphidae = "gaudy grasshoppers". Acrididae and Pamphagidae are the typical grasshoppers. Anyway, the fact that some species don't have "grasshopper" in their name does nothing to dispute that grasshopper and Caelifera are synonymous. Not all Coleoptera have "beetle" in their name. LittleJerry (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

(1) Who actually uses these names though? ... although I have heard of "monkey grasshoppers" for Eumastacidae - it seems to me many of the so-called 'common names' (on various pages) should be deleted if there is no reference.

(2) LittleJerry - I thought we had agreed to use talk pages in Caelifera and here - I have reported 3 reverts by you.Roy Bateman (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I did not agree to have your edits be the default. You have to have a consensus to split the pages. You are the one making major changes so you are the one who need consensus and by reverting before the discussion is over you are the one edit warring. Stick to the discussion on this talkpage. LittleJerry (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

As for Ensifera. I could easily argue in reverse and say that cricket and Ensifera should be merged because grasshopper and Caelifera are the same page. Hence WP:OSE. LittleJerry (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• In general, high level insect taxa have the page listed under the English language name (Diptera as Fly, Coleoptera as Beetle, Ephemeroptera as Mayfly). Where there is no vernacular equivalent, as in Lepidoptera, the scientific name is used. In this instance, if Roy Bateman thinks that there is sufficient difference between Caelifera and Grasshopper, he could expand the article Caelifera instead of having it as a redirect. However, he should not wreck the present article Grasshopper in doing so. By removing the "Phylogeny" section, he rendered it no longer comprehensive, a requirement for its present FA status. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I see no justification in rushing ahead with editing without consensus, nor in creating a WP:FORK at Caelifera. If we have to name this article Caelifera, so be it, but the world is pretty much agreed that Grasshopper is a good and proper name for the group, widely used and accepted by authorities of all kinds. Wikipedia policy strongly favours using common names where they exist, as stated at Names and titles (which cites WP:MOSand WP:Naming conventions (fauna)). The status quo before yesterday was appropriate and by the rules, and should remain. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I may have found a solution: if you really insist on "grasshopper" as a taxon, we have what appears to be the accepted clade Acridomorpha (see: EoL and OSF). If you can live with that: restoring Caelifera as page, replacing it with Acridomorpha and removing Tridactyloidea & Tetrigidae from here - we could all move on and get on with better things like 'filling in gaps'. For example, providing some content for Tanaoceroidea & Trigonopterygoidea would also be wonderful: volunteers? Roy Bateman (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'm good leaving things as is. As others such as Chiswick Chap mentioned already, Caelifera is often referred to as grasshoppers as a common name for better or worse, and we usually redirect a formal taxon to a common name when available even with the understanding that common names don't always mesh great with formal taxonomic names. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Kingofaces43: "often referred to as grasshoppers" doesn't mean it is correct - in fact we know that it is incorrect, since the logical consequence is that pygmy mole crickets are grasshoppers! I think there is a serious dander that WP will loose credibility if we allow these half-truths to just slip through. Roy Bateman (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• I object to LittleJerry persistently reverting my work on Caelifera to a redirect page: none of you have given produced a rational argument that a pygmy mole cricket is a grasshopper! Some of us have to teach Orthopteran biology (in my case to masters level) and this is just plain wrong. See comment by Cwmhiraeth above (if I appeared to "wreck" the phylogeny section here, that was not my intention - and for that I apologise). If this page is synonymous with anything, it is with Acrididea - a page that was set-up more than a year ago - not by me I hasten to add, but I have attempted to make improvements there recently. LittleJerry has been editing out all reference to this which IMHO is rather high-handed on his part - he also keeps threatening to report me - for what precisely? Accuracy matters. Roy Bateman (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, I am sure that those of you who refer to WP policy on encouraging English language names for pages are quite correct - but only when unambiguous surely - it seems to me that some of the Orthoptera pages illustrate the problem well ...

• starting with this page: the coding says "{Use British English|date=May 2015}" - yet the first line refers to 'katydids' (which I had to edit to include 'bush crickets' - but it should be the other way round surely).
• link to 'katydid' or 'bush cricket' and you are redirected to Tettigoniidae - the only sensible resolution of this issue.
• go to Acrididae: does "spur-throated grasshopper" mean Catantopinae or Melanoplinae? (there is also the spur-throated locust in Australia of course).

I suggest that this conversation moves to the Talk:Caelifera page - I will not be making any more edits here. Roy Bateman (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, the source you cite does not state that only Acrididea are true grasshoppers as opposed to groundhoppers. It only supports Acrididea as a valid clade.LittleJerry (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

This should be continued on the Talk:Caelifera page, with full explanation with refs. on the page itself - if LittleJerry will kindly stop deleting my work! Roy Bateman (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomenclature: Caelifera

Having promised not to edit more here, I felt it was necessary to clarify things a bit: no more now until the discussion is resolved!

It all seems rather unnecessary and I think that flawed WP policy is at the heart of the problem (your comments as above). I have also commented where "Diptera means flies" (no mention of mosquitos which are hardly trivial). Botanists do not have this problem because their guidance is different and suggest a discussion is needed on the policy talk page ... Roy Bateman (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grasshopper. 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/20161220162119/http://caspar.bgsu.edu/~mooi/Home/Publications_files/MvS_Behav05.pdf to http://caspar.bgsu.edu/~mooi/Home/Publications_files/MvS_Behav05.pdf

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) 06:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Relation to Caelifera

This article says that the grasshoppers are the insects that belong to Caelifera. To me, that means grasshopper and Caelifera are the same phenomenon. But there is a separate article named Caelifera. Caelifera has many more interwiki links. But this article is much better. Should the interwiki links be changed? --Ettrig (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The article says, correctly I believe, that "Grasshoppers belong to the suborder Caelifera. Although, "grasshopper" is sometimes used as a common name for the suborder in general[5][6][7], some sources restrict it to the more "advanced" groups.[8]" The least "advanced" group is the Tridactyloidea, the pygmy mole crickets, which hardly anybody calls a grasshopper. So to a rough approximation, Grasshoppers + Pygmy Mole Crickets = Caelifera. But your mileage may vary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I reread and find it difficult to understand what is meant by grasshopper. Does the article state that the grasshoppers are exactly the taxa listed in the infobox? (Tetrigoidea, Eumastacoidea, Pneumoroidea, Pyrgomorphoidea, Acridoidea, Tanaoceroidea, Trigonopterygoidea) --Ettrig (talk) 08:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

No, it says they're roughly those taxa. Grasshoppers is an informal grouping and no exact match is possible given the informal definition. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Infobox vs. Automated Taxobox

I was wondering why you decided to use an infobox for your introductory picture rather than an automatic taxobox, like the one for Caelifera? The automatic taxobox would allow you to display the upper taxa and then breakdown the various superfamilies and families.

If you can't use an automatic taxobox for some reason, you should think about changing the phrase "informal group" or rephrasing the entire first sentence. "Informal group" doesn't say anything but can lead novices (such as myself) on a goosechase. For example: "Grasshoppers are a subgroup of insects in the suborder Caelifera, which comprise several families and superfamilies. The word grasshopper is used informally but has no place in modern taxonomy." --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Informal says exactly what it is, a grouping without formal structure or status. As you're rightly noted, that means we can't use a formal taxon's taxobox. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

{{Paraphyletic group}} could be used here rather than a generic infobox. It allows higher level taxa to be displayed. Plantdrew (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to use the word "polyphyletic" in the definition, as in Grasshoppers are a polyphyletic group of insects in the suborder Caelifera. Or even Grasshoppers are members of a group of insects that do not share an immediate common ancestor but belong to the suborder Caelifera.

Upon thinking it over, my main trouble with this introduction is that we do not have a reversible definition of grasshopper. "Grasshoppers are an informal group of insects in the suborder Caelifera" does not tell us which insects are or are not included. Isn't having a full definition a requirement of a Wikipedia article? Of a featured Wikipedia article? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

No, the first sentence of the lead is never and should not attempt to be a full, comprehensive, legal, watertight definition, which would inevitably be complex and unreadable. Instead, it's a simple, short, first-encounter general overview of the topic, giving a hint as to what the subject is, how it might be defined, and what kind of thing it includes. That's already a tall order for a single sentence: making it full as well is simply impossible, and since that would conflict with readability it would also be undesirable. This is a general question, not really a matter for this article, however. And btw, specialised polysyllabic words of Greek or Latin etymology like polyphyletic are exactly what we should never put in the first sentence, and probably not in the first paragraph either if we can avoid it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: There must be some way of saying that a given insect is a grasshopper, is not a grasshopper or is or isn't a grasshopper depending on who you're listening to. If I was to say that all Acrididea (forgetting the sandgropers, mud crickets and pygmy mole crickets) were grasshoppers, what would I be missing? Are there grasshoppers who are not (or may not be, according to some experts) Acrididea? If so, what? Are there some members of Acrididea who are not (or may not be) grasshoppers? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Everybody who knows what the word means thinks the Acrididea are all grasshoppers, and many zoologists are perfectly happy to call all the Caelifera grasshoppers too. My point remains that this is WAY too technical for the first sentence. You're right into Plato's problem of defining a table, does it have to have four legs, etc etc. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: I'm sorry but I can't believe that this "debate" has been going on for so long – becoming a bit like Brexit :). I liked your infobox (as on the day it was a featured article). However if it is to be a taxobox, I have suggested an appropriate taxonomic placement - superfamily group 'Acridomorpha'. Besides the actual meaning of the name (i.e. ~morpha : ~like), references can be found on [the Orthoptera Species File here]. I have understood the authority to be Dirsh, 1966, but am prepared to be corrected on this (I don't have access to original literature here). I have ranked it as an 'informal group', since WP doesn't currently have 'Subfamily group' (as in OSF) as as a category. This taxon excludes the Tetrigidae, which in any case are called "groundhoppers", not grasshoppers in British English and are quite distinct both morphologically and in their habits (typically preferring damper places). I thought that we had now established that "Caelifera" is inappropriate and not synonymous with "grasshopper": as you have pointed out above.

Aren't there better things to be doing than arguing over a fairly clear scientific consensus, as represented in OSF? For example, there are literally thousands of tribes, genera and species under this heading that have yet to have WP descriptions, including quite a number of European and N. American spp. I had not intended to return to this discussion, but "grasshopper" is actually a useful link and a good page (by general consensus), but in my opinion marred by constantly altered and sometimes erroneous terminology at the beginning. Season's greetings to you and entomologists everywhere.Roy Bateman (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Flying

It's not clear whether all grasshoppers can fly, nor how well they can do it. There is one small reference, but not much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.63.53.152 (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Avoiding edit war: Relevance for common user. Main info first. Removing basic info.

@Ewulp: hi. As I have explained in detail in my edit summaries, the common Wikipedia user is who we, editors, have to keep in mind, and not specialists who might or might not look up Wiki. The lead must start with the most basic information, in order to answer those questions which come up first when normal people, aka Wiki users, hear a term they're not (fully) familiar with and come to the article for clarification. That is common practice in all modern encyclopedias, and should be even more so on such a popular tool as Wiki.

What is particularly in need of clarification for the common user about grasshoppers? For sure, the fact that locusts are practically the same, once grasshoppers are creating swarms and start behaving as a large social unit. Locusts is most likely what attracts most curious users onto this page, and it needs to be mentioned in bold right at the beginning, leaving the wikilink to appear very soon after. Just think of the cultural importance of grasshoppers (Bible, news, you name it): it grows exponentially when it's about swarms of locusts, NOT about individuals. English happens to have two separate words for grasshopper and locust; many other languages don't, and great many, if not a majority of Wiki users are not native-speakers, and the identity between the two is not known to them - and it's probably not known to many native-speakers either, I'm quite sure, in our kind of urban and technology-centered society and its education system.

The definition should always be the first topic of any article, once the name and its variations is clarified. Who are the grasshoppers? From a common user's point of view: how can I tell when I see one? As opposed to a taxonomist's or palaeonthologist's, etc. approach, who wants to know about evolution, first apparition in fossil records, morphology etc. The normal encyclopedia user needs to know it's an insect, and how to tell it apart from very similar ones. That's what, I'm quite confident, would concern a vast majority of normal users. Fact which definitely do not primarily concern the common user are that

• it belongs to the suborder Caelifera
• it's dating back to the early Triassic around 250 million years ago,

but I am sure that recognising in nature a grasshopper when seeing a very similar - and culturally widely known - insect such as the praying mantis, is very relevant. To be honest, that's why I came to the page: I've seen a huge mantis soon after hearing news about locust swarms, and wanted to know what's what and if they're one and the same. So I'm talking about actual first-hand experience. Just go to the first article I've linked to, the one about the mantis: it's from there that I've taken the queue about insects one commonly confuses grasshoppers with, and there it's also dealt with in the lead.

I did indeed make a mistake and pushed the essential information about it being a chewing herbivorous insect to the second (!) sentence of the lead, which I will try to fix right away. You, on the other hand, have completely removed my additional info, as opposed to just placing it elsewhere in the article, and it is relevant and otherwise totally ignored info, fully missing before my edit and again after yours. Not very constructive on your behalf.

Please, once I make the promised edit, don't go into edit-warring; it is especially not a constructive move when the edit summary only states that "it's better this way", full stop. Thank you very much for your understanding. Take care, Arminden (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't object to bolded mention of locusts in the first paragraph, though it seemed redundant as the same information is already in the second paragraph. The "they should not be confused with" bit seems misplaced—and is badly worded (see WP:NOTADVICE); in the Mantis article this matter is relegated to the second paragraph. There are many insects that can be confused with grasshoppers (certain crickets and katydids more closely resemble grasshoppers than do mantises IMO) but I don't think this is vital information for the second sentence of the lead section. Looking at late-model cars, I can tell you from my own first-hand experience that I can rarely distinguish a Toyota from a Ford from a Hyundai without looking for the nameplate, but the second sentence of Toyota Camry should not be "A Camry should not be confused with a Ford or a Hyundai" because this is not especially useful information. My revert of your addition of new, unsourced advice to the lead of an FA is not an edit war; your revert of that revert is the beginning of one. Ewulp (talk) 06:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The lead of an article is not supposed to be a general introduction to the topic, it is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the text. If your statement "Locusts is most likely what attracts most curious users onto this page" is true, I think they will choose to look at the page on Locust rather than that on "Grasshopper". I preferred the lead before the recent change, and the original version was approved by the folks over at FAC who reviewed the article for FA status. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The latest edit is less bad but remains faulty: "Grasshoppers should not be confused with different, but similarly looking, elongated insects such as the praying mantis, or stick insects (Phasmatodea)" is still unsourced, worded as advice, and contains the awkward "similarly looking". If something of this sort belongs in the lead section at all, I'd suggest "grasshoppers are sometimes confused with crickets, but they differ in important aspects", which is explained and sourced in the "Characteristics" section. Ewulp (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Folks, please stay real.

• 1) What other insect do you know that has one name as an individual and another one as a swarm?
• 2) What other insect do you know that has had, and still has, such a huge negative impact on people's subsistence? And has left such an imprint on humanity, from the Bible to this year's Horn of Africa?

Put the two together and you see why you cannot not start with saying right away that it's the same creature.

Why start with the suborder, of all things? If it were some obscure Amazonian insect that attracts, in the field and in real life, only specialists, fine. (Although, I'm being curious now, why the suborder, and not, say, the infraorder, which seems to be derived from the actual Latin name of the grasshopper, or the colour of its lower mandible, really?) Who in this world do you think has ever heard, or ever cared to hear, about Caelifera, if they're not a zoologist, better, an entomologist, or even better, a grasshopper/locust researcher? In honest.

Do whatever you want. I see that you enjoy interminable talkpage discussions over minute issues that also seem no-brainers to most people I know from the field of general education. I took back everything that could have been seen as subjective; but placing taxa in the first paragraph of the grasshopper article, rather than its identity with locusts, means there's no ground here for an efficient dialogue. Adios, and enjoy your toy. Arminden (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)