Talk:Caelifera

Er...

Not to offend any writers out there on this topic, but it's, well, pathetically short. There is some, but not enough info to actually give this page any high level of usefulness. Sorry.

Well, I agree so I've made a start, hope it looks a little better now :) --John-Nash 15:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow! This is a lot better!--DSX 14:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The need for this page

This is a widely-accepted taxonomic level and has its own page in French, Italian, Spanish, Polish, etc. "Grasshopper" is a useful page, but it should not include Tridactyloidea, Tetrigoidea, etc. Roy Bateman (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Roy Bateman, you are being very uncivil. I told you to wait for other opinions one making your reverts but you continue to do so. If you keep reverting you will be edit warring and be reported. LittleJerry (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

LittleJerry - "uncivil" is a bit rich coming from the person that deletes most of my writing. Roy Bateman (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

This continues the discussion at Talk:Grasshopper#Taxonomy - which I think is more useful here, since it is linked to the article explaining the major subdivisions including 'grasshoppers' (if LJ will stop deleting it). The word "consensus" has been much used, but seems to me that the scientific consensus is very clear - (i) the term Caelifera is a valid taxon and internationally recognised as such and (ii) the term "grasshopper" is not synonymous with Caelifera and therefore it is inappropriate to turn the latter into a redirect page. This creates a situation that is both taxonomically and logically false. If Caelifera means "grasshopper" then 'pygmy mole cricket' effectively becomes 'grasshopper': or are there any reputable references that suggest this should be the case? Roy Bateman (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The "Encyclopedia of Etymology" says, regarding Tridactylidae: "These very small insects ... are grasshoppers despite their common name: pygmy mole crickets." [1] Are there any sources which suggest something different? Power~enwiki (talk) 05:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

That said, I'm not sure why the Grasshopper page needs to have such a focus on taxonomic issues, and support having a stand-alone page and possibly moving almost all the content in the Phylogeny section of Grasshopper here. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Power~enwiki this was discussed on the grasshopper talkpage. The article was not "focused" on taxonomy. It is just one section. You proposal was tried by Roy without consensus and he only degraded the quality of the FA article. See this post and this post. LittleJerry (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Power~enwiki - having this page on taxonomic issues (a bit geeky, but sometimes rather useful) is precisely what I originally proposed, although I probably handled it rather clumsily. There are many examples of this approach in WP, e.g. cocoa (the crop) differentiated from Theobroma cacao (the plant). Interesting reference, but "These very small insects ... are grasshoppers despite their common name: pygmy mole crickets." strikes me as being slightly nonsensical - and I argue has been created by a self-feeding recent narrative, especially online, derived from "Caelifera are grasshoppers". Older texts (e.g. Ragge) simply have them down as pygmy mole crickets. I haven't even started to discuss the extinct suborders, two of which are more related to the latter. Roy Bateman (talk) 06:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I found this paper which states "They [pygymy mole crickets] are considered to represent the most basal lineage of the true grasshoppers (Flook et al., 1999; Flook and Rowell, 1997), and despite their common name are not closely related to true crickets or mole crickets." LittleJerry (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Just as dinosaurs are considered to represent the most basal lineage to birds - but we use different words for them. Thank you for the reference. Roy Bateman (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Roy Bateman. Please provide one source which limits the naming of "grasshoppers" to Acrididea. If you do, I will make changes to the grasshopper article. The articles you are citing seem to only confirm the legitimacy of the clade. LittleJerry (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The clue is in the name! - see updated article - I am fairly sure American texts were similar to Imms, but don't have access at the moment.

"Sauce for the goose ..." - I suggest we also need sources for the vernacular names (I have made a start): I have come across "monkey grasshoppers" in my travels, but never heard of "gaudy grasshoppers" (pyrgomorphs were often called "stinking grasshoppers" when I was working in Africa) and I don't have any refs. for them. Orthoptera Species File is very useful, but looks like another Wiki to me. Roy Bateman (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Himk

Vhjj 2405:201:5500:D168:100F:3482:E31A:9AC8 (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)