Talk:Spotted lanternfly

"Treatment may control a pest"

"Treatment may control a pest" The Philadelphia Inquirer, August 28, 2019, page B1.

Article says that two fungi can kill the spotted lanternfly.

Sorry, I am unable to do more with this information.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

GA nomination

I am considering cleaning this article up and submitting it to a GAN. Are there any major, outwithstanding issues that need to be addressed? Please list any suggestions below and please refer to Wikipedia:Good article criteria for any questions about content. I plan to have it ready within the next few weeks. Etriusus (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Spotted lanternfly/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 23:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I will undertake this review. Should have comments here in the next few days. Esculenta (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, here are some initial thoughts. I tend to be a nitpicky reviewer, and some of my comments might go beyond the bare minimum GA-criteria, so take these as friendly suggestions rather than obligations! I haven't looked at sources yet; will do that in a later read.Esculenta (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Esculenta, I have finished the first rounds of edits. I tried to incorporate your recommendations as best I could (If there was any issue, I put a note below). I know that not all of them were necessary but the article looks substantially better with all the new content. I also reorganized a couple of sections to cut down on excessive headers. For the images, I added a different template for aesthetic purposes and incorporated 4 images. For the links, I gave it a solid attempt but there are likely 1 or 2 I missed. I will likely need to C/E this a little bit still to iron out all the nuances but that will have to wait till tomorrow (as it is getting late in my part of the world). Please send any more feedback on the article if you have it. Etriusus (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done Lead

•  Done the well-known countries shouldn’t be linked per MOS:OVERLINK
•  Done host, introduced should be linked, as well as the names in the author citations in the taxobox

I think I did this properly, may need clarification. The phrasing was a bit strange.

•  Done the redlinks of the two mystery predators are jarring and make the lead less reader-friendly by introducing extra Latin words that few will understand. What kinds of pathogens are those?
•  Done currently, too much emphasis is placed on invasive pest in the US aspect. The lead says nothing about, for example, its life cycle or what it looks like. It should be a better balanced summary of the article contents. (see WP:LEAD)

Made an attempt, cut down on the invasive section substantially, and made it more general. Added basic life cycle and host information.

•  Done this sentence has some grammatical problems: “Ongoing pest control efforts have sought to limit population growth and prevent further spread due to the threat L. delicatula possess the United States' and Canada's grape, fruit tree, and logging industries.”

 Done Taxonomy and/or Systematics

•  Done section currently missing; should have something here to meet GA criteria #3a ("it addresses the main aspects of the topic")
•  Done if it was originally Aphaena, why is it now Lycorma?
•  Done what’s the story with those subspecies? Who published them and when? Are they still considered taxonomically valid?
•  Done what does deliculata mean? Why was that epithet applied to this species? How about jole and operosa?
•  Done any story with the synonym Aphaena operosa Walker, 1858? Who says this is a synonym? (a citation should be in the "synonyms_ref" parameter in taxobox)
•  Done has any molecular phylogenetic work been done with this species? Do we know its closest relative(s)?
•  Done might want to mention it was originally collected by George Tradescant Lay, and maybe a few words about what White said about it for interest. For example, he discusses the difficulty in capturing them, and mentions a resemblance to Aphaena variegata (is that still a valid species?)

Added a taxonomy section. I tried to hit most of the points on here as well as I could. There was limited information I could find. Technically, the name change from Aphaena to deliculata was descriptive since the subfamily is Aphaeninae and therefore still related fairly closely. I did find a year and also confirm that the subspecies are still valid (L. Deliculata is a collective term for the species as a whole).

 Done Description

•  Done ”The spotted lanternfly is originally native to parts of China, India, Vietnam, and Taiwan.” - shouldn’t be in the description; rather it should be in a separate section or subsection where its native range is discussed (see comment below)
•  Done ”and measuring about 25 mm (0.98 inches) long and 12 mm (0.47 inches) wide.” its a bit jarring to have a measurement described as “about”, and then give two significant figures in the convert output; try 25 mm (1 inch) long and 12 mm (0.5 inches) wide
•  Done ”It was originally described by Adam White in 1845 as Aphaena delicatula with habitat outside of Nankin, China.” this should be in the missing taxonomy section
•  Done ”Adult lanternflies have a black head and gray-brown forewings adorned with the eponymous black spots.” I don’t understand how the word “eponymous” fits here.
•  Done suggested links: abdomen, valvifer, distal, gravid
•  Done no mention of the orange antennae? the hemelytra? How many spots on a wing? (all this info available in White's original description)

since the spotted lanternfly is a true bug, the forewings and hemelytra are the same thing.

•  Done ”In traditional Chinese medicine, the spotted lanternfly is believed to be poisonous, and is used topically for relief from swelling.” should not be in a description section; link TCM
•  Done in general, the links throughout should be tightened; there are several duplicate links, and some instances where a linked word should have been linked earlier (e.g. host)
•  Done are there other insects with which this species might readily be confused? How different is it from the other members of its genus?

I found a few anecdotes here and there but nothing that is encyclopedic enough to add. I've settled on a happy medium of listing its most closely related species in the taxonomy section.

 Done Host associations, Life cycle & others

•  Done suggested links: photosynthesis, molting, metabolite, overwintering, fitness
• ”Whether the lanternfly can complete its life cycle on any host other than A. altissima is unclear, and further experiments are planned in the US.” this is sourced to a 2009 Korean study (I think; it’s the next following citation), suggesting perhaps these experiments have already been done?
•  Done fix ”L. delicatula has been theorized to be capable of maintained a small population in the region although no specimen have yet been discovered.”
•  Done ”The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture has been recommending based on information from PennState Extension:” reads awkwardly. I think the entire first paragraph would read better if it wasn’t numbered, but instead converted to smooth prose.
•  Done links: insecticidal soap, sticky trap, vector
•  Done the abbreviation PDA should be introduced on first use of the abbreviated term
•  Done ”Unfortunately, in lab settings” The first word is editorializing, which should be avoided in encyclopaedic writing.
•  Done Dryinus sinicus and Ooencyrtus kuvanae should be linked, and it would be nice to know what kind of pathogens they are (insects? fungi? predaceous Tardigrades?)
•  Not done”it is being investigated in South Korea” not really correct wording for a publication that appeared in 2016

While yes this one study was done in 2016, the implication is that the research is still ongoing, as implied by the conclusions section of the sourced articles.

•  Done Japan is mentioned in the second sentence of the lead as a place where it has been introduced, but is not mentioned again in the rest of the article.
•  Done the external links section is longish and should be culled; some links are already being used as sources, and at least 1 returns a 404; some of them might not meet WP:ELNO #1
•  Done so the insect is native to China, India, Vietnam, but the article is mostly slanted towards its global existence outside of these countries. Do the Chinese/Indians/Vietnamese also view this insect as a pest, and have they suffered economic losses from it? Any interesting cultural depictions or symbology?

Done to the best of my ability. There is relatively little evidence, and what exists is somewhat contradictory, that the bug is even native to countries outside of China. I've fixed the other sections to reflect this.

•  Done the lead says the insect is native to parts of China, India, and Vietnam, but the article does not tell me these parts. China, in particular, is a big place.
•  Done And then someconsider combining the two similar infestation pictures into a double image (see template:multiple image, which would leave room for another of the excellent images available on Commons (e.g. this)

Looking good! I took the liberty of doing some copyediting and added some links, but feel free to revert anything you don't agree with. Since you asked for more feedback, I dug into some other sources to see what might be missing. The www.cabi.org seems to have quite a few details about its description, distribution, biology and ecology that aren't in the Wikipedia article and maybe should be; please have a look. What do you think about adding some stuff from these sources? Esculenta (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Esculenta, thanks for all the extra content. I will begin adding it to the article within the coming week. Is there anything else that needs to be done for the GAN? Etriusus (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

•  Done doi:10.1111/j.1748-5967.2008.00188.x? This has some interesting taxonomic history, the meaning of its Chinese and Korean vernacular names, and more information about its introduction in Korea, etc.
•  Done this source doi:10.1093/ee/nvz166 discusses the most effective traps to catch them
•  Donedoi:10.1016/j.jip.2021.107689 indicates another two species of fungi that can infect the insect
•  Done using “detection dogs” to find egg masses during overwintering doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0250945
•  Done what do you think about adding Figure 1. from doi:10.1093/ee/nvab107 this work into the wikipedia article? It perfectly illustrates the sizes of the life cycles, and it's public domain because its US-government created.
•  Done use of infrared thermography to detect spotted lanternflies in the field doi:10.1007/s10340-021-01338-7
•  Done a detailed biomechanical study on how these insects fall, land, and right themselves! doi:10.1098/rsif.2021.0367
•  Done the modelling used in this study doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-400798/v1 suggests that the insect has potential for range expansion in Australia

Hi Etriusus, we're getting to the end. Here's some more comments. Esculenta (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Esculenta, Done. Kicking the article back to you.Etriusus (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

•  Done the taxobox indicates that the species has a “temporal range” dating back to the Ypresian, which is sourced to a paper on fossil ants. I can’t access this paper; could you please check to see if it actually supports the temporal assertion? If so, it should probably be mentioned in the article as well.

Found a substantially better source, swapped them out. I underestimated the Herculean task this would become, lol. The original article sorta worked but I found something much more concrete.

•  Done the subspecies are now mentioned in the text, but it doesn’t say what characteristics these taxa have, nor if they are currently used or still considered taxonomically valid. The authors of the subspecies should be given in the taxobox.

So I cannot find any sources explicitly describing the physical differences between the subspecies. A few sources imply that it may be based upon distribution but since the native range of Lycorma delicatula is difficult to map due to its rapid expansion, I have elected to not include it for the sake of avoiding confusion. Taxobox is fixed.

Also, do you want me to explicitly state that the subspecies are taxonomically valid, or did you just want me to double-check? I added an extra citation that says they were valid, and the classification was reviewed and kept validated in 2015.

That's good, thanks. Esculenta (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

•  Done I think the description should mention the size difference between adult male and females. What does the posterior end of the male look like? How much of its 1-year lifespan does the insect spend in the adult stage?
•  Done there's some details about reproductive biology in the Cabi site that should be included, eg., courtship & copulation; eggs undergoing diapause, then requiring 2 weeks of warm weather; longer-overwintering eggs having better synchronous hatching & better hatch rates

Cabi link: [[1]] (this is for my own reference) Etriusus (talk) 05:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

•  Done many of the citations lack important bibliographic details, like publication date, authors, etc. I added these for the “Taxonomy and discovery section” per here; could you check the rest?

I offer a couple of final nits as I promote the article:

• ”In 1863, the species was reclassified as Lycorma delicatula delicatula, with two additional subspecies described:” the taxobox suggests that Lycorma delicatula operosa was described in 1858, not 1863
• "systemic pesticides" should gloss a definition for this; had to search around a bit to find out what this meant

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose is fine; article broadly meets standards of MOS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Sources are reliable, and appropriate for this type of article; several were checked against the statements they supported with no issues found.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article has broad coverage with appropriate level of details.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Yes

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Yes

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images have licenses making them available for use in this article, they are used appropriately, and have useful captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Article passes GA review. Good work! Esculenta (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the spotted lanternfly has been used in traditional Chinese medicine to treat swelling since the 1100s? Source: Western Farm Press (10 November 2014). "Spotted lanternfly – a new threat to grapes, stone fruit?". Western Farm Press. Penton Agriculture Market.
  • ALT1: ... that the spotted lanternfly is native to China but is invasive in the United States, South Korea, and Japan? Source: Burne, Allan (17 March 2020). "Pest risk assessment: Lycorma delicatula (Spotted lanternfly)". Biosecurity New Zealand. ISBN 978-1-99-001754-4.
  • ALT2: ... that the spotted lanternfly struggles to thrive and complete its lifecycle unless it forms a host association with Ailanthus altissima (Chinese sumac or tree of heaven)? Source: Uyi, Osariyekemwen; Keller, Joseph A; Johnson, Anne; Long, David; Walsh, Brian; Hoover, Kelli (17 October 2020). Ranger, Christopher (ed.). "Spotted Lanternfly (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae) can complete development and reproduce without access to the preferred host, Ailanthus altissima". Environmental Entomology. 49 (5): 1185–1190. doi:10.1093/ee/nvaa083. ISSN 0046-225X. PMID 32725170.
  • Comment: This is my first time using DYK-helper, lets hope it works. Only 1 other DYK so QPQ is not applicable.

Improved to Good Article status by Etriusus (talk). Self-nominated at 04:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC).

• Hi Etriusus, review follows: article promoted to GA on 27 January; is well written and cited inline throughout to reliable sources; only checked a small sample of the sources but found no issue with overly close paraphrasing; ALT0 checks out to source cited here plus Wang et al (2018); for ALT1 I couldn't see specifically in the article where it says the lanternfly is invasive in these areas, could you give me a pointer? ALT2 is mentioned in the article and, to the extent of my limited biology knowledge, appears to be supported by the journal cited; no QPQ is required as user has only one DYK credit - Dumelow (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Dumelow, here is the line from the paper: "Lycorma delicatula is reported to be invasive in South Korea, Japan and the USA" Page 8. If you'd prefer a different source, there is no shortage. Etriusus (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Etriusus, sorry I should have been more specific. I can see the line in the paper I just can't spot where the Wikipedia article states that it is invasive in these countries. Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

No problem Dumelow, here's the sentence from the lead: "It has spread invasively to Japan, South Korea, and the United States." It is also mentioned by country in the "Distribution" section: In the US, In South Korea, and In Japan subsections, respectively. Etriusus (talk) 11:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Etriusus, I guess I was looking for a specific statement that "lanternfly is considered invasive in xyz". I suppose it can be inferred from the statement in the native range section that it "is originally native to parts of China, with some evidence of it being native to parts of India, Vietnam, and Taiwan" and then later discussions of its presence in these countries - Dumelow (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Promoting the main hook (ALT0) to Prep 1 – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Adults die with freezing temperatures

What do people think about adding in a sentence indicating that adults usually die after the first or second frost in winter in climates where it gets that low https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95376-x Corevette (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there text you're specifically citing about overwintering in the paper? I only see one mention of winter, and it's just that adults laying eggs into early winter in some instances. Might be better to pull directly from overwintering studies on this subject if anything is going to be added. KoA (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

"Potential benefits" section

The entire "Potential benefits" section is sourced only to an article published on the Atlas Obscura website. Much of what Atlas Obscura publishes is user-submitted content and should not be considered reliable per WP:UGC. However, Atlas Obscura also publishes staff-written articles. I think the articles posted under https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles (which include this cited source) are staff-written, but I am not sure. My gut reaction is that this "potential benefits" section seems a bit dubious or at least undue. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@BarrelProof I looked into it. There is reliable evidence that bees use honeydew excrement to make honey. That being said, I agree that it is WP:UNDUE to give it a level 1 heading. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 21:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Length but no wingspan?

Could someone knowledgeable add this important description variable? 2604:2D80:8E81:9100:E922:4147:B407:8668 (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Predators?

Encountered this yellow-billed cuckoo feasting on lanternflies a few days ago. Word on the street is that while the standard food source for lanternflies -- the tree of heaven -- supposedly makes them taste bad to most birds, in their introduced areas they may be finding new food sources and/or birds may be adapting to recognize them as plentiful, slow-moving snacks. This cuckoo ate probably 20 by itself in the time I was watching it. Is it worth adding one of these to the article? (Photo, not my unsourced word on the local ornithology/entomology streets).

• 
• 
• 

— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites, it's worth keeping an eye on but I haven't seen it come across in any literature. These are excellent pictures, I see one's on the yellow-billed cuckoo article. Giving it a quick review: Wasps, Dustywings, generalist predators (e.g. cardinals and spiders), Chickens all predate on lanterflies, its been a few years since the GA review for this article so it needs some updating. I'll file it under 'I get to it when I get to it'. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 18:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)