Talk:Velvet ant

Stings

I believe you mean the most painful sting, not bite. BTW I've heard that the tarantula hawks such as Pepsis have even more painful stings. See for example http://www.desertusa.com/mag01/sep/papr/thawk.html Tjunier 14:55, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have removed the statement. — Pekinensis 17:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was stung once. It hurt, but I have had worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:B4A5:D97:BCD3:AA7D (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"Unknown composition " ? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33970306/ 195.166.151.134 (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Wingless Wasps

How does the velvet ant relate to the Australian blue ant? Living in the south-eastern US, I've seen velvet ants. They make an audible noise when distressed, and can appear red or orange.

(not the above poster) I can confirm the sounds; we used to call them 'eep ants' when I was a kid. We'd catch them with a stick or something and pin them down to make them go 'eep eep eep'. Their stingers are huge, a third of an inch or so. The only ones I ever saw were red or orange. Fortunately, I never got stung by one... --StarChaser Tyger (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Type of wasp??

the statement "are not actually ants, but a type of wasp" is not really correct, Mutillidae are neither wasps nor ants. Suppafly 04:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, but "wasp" in the broadest sense is any member of the order Hymenoptera. Ants are a type of wasp, as are bees and sawflies. Even in the most restrictive sense (as is adopted here in WP), only those three lineages (ants, bees, and sawflies) are ordinarily excluded - everything else in the order is a "wasp". Dyanega 22:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense, wasps are the vespoid members of the hymenopterans.

Dyanega is exactly right, if it is not an ant, bee, or sawfly, members of the Hymenoptera are referred to as wasps. I think that you would find the superfamily Vespoidea would exclude many insects that you would call a wasp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orthocladius (talk • contribs) 14:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Panda Ant

Surely their coloration is a reference to the RED panda, not the giant panda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.31.254 (talk) 01:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

They specifically said that only the black and white varieties are referred to as panda ants. --137.150.110.239 (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

association of sexes

I am an expert in Mutillids, among other things, and have even co-authored papers describing the association of males and females - it is ENTIRELY accurate to state that it is almost impossible to associate the sexes, regardless of whether one is an expert or a non-expert. Accordingly, the recent edit which suggested that only non-experts would be confused was incorrect. After over 200 years of research by experts, some 90% of the world's mutillids still remain known from only one sex or the other. Dyanega 17:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This topic contains information regarding sexual dimorphism that appears to contradict itself in the same sentence. "They exhibit extreme sexual dimorphism; the males and females are distinct enough in their morphology that associating the two sexes of a species is very challenging unless they are captured while mating." This is very confusing and makes it very unclear if you can tell the sexes of this animal apart. 73.189.143.166 (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

A "high" level of sexual dimorphism means that the sexes of the same species are difficult to identify as members of the same species, unless, as stated, they are actually observed in copula. It does not refer to difficulty in distinguishing males from females. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orthocladius (talk • contribs) 14:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I read the so-called contradictory section, and found it non-conradictory but abundantly clear. Therefore, I turned to the page side with some curiosity. Obviously the non-registered user did confuse "distinguishing sexes" from "distinguishing species". I read the section once more, and (like Orthocladius, as I understood) still found it clear and unambiguous.

However, I suspect that "...associating the two sexes of a species..." was misunderstood by 73.189.143.166 (talk · contribs), and therefore also may be misunderstood by others. Our articles are not often writing about species identification in terms of "associating" some of a collection individuals of a family or genus with other specimens in a smaller group. Now, the mental picture I get is of a number of flying males with some (but not extreme) distinction between them, and a number of wingless females, also with some distinguishing mark; and the baffling question: Which males should be associated with which females?. In other words, for a given pair of one mail and one female specimen, there is no trouble at all to see which one is the male and which one the female; but (unless they are cought mating) in general it is very hard to see if they belong to the same species or not. If the insects of one sex are much more different from those of the other sex than from those of the same sex but different species, then indeed this could be a rather difficult problem.

The uninlogged user, and possibly others, may not get this mental image, but instead read "associate" as if it were synonymous with "distinguish". We might rewrite the section in more words, perhaps more usual than "associate", and explain the problem in a more concrete manner. However, a longer section in itself may increase the chanses that some other readers misunderstand.

Conclusion: I see no factual problem at all here; but perhaps the probability of misunderstandings might decrease slightly if the "associating" clause is replaced with a not much longer text in simpler words. I'll attempt it. Feel free to revert it, if you think that the result is less clear or more ugly than the present text! JoergenB (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Range

Their range information seems to be somewhat misleading. I live in Middle Tennessee and we certainly do not have sandy soil. As a matter of fact, red clay is the predominant soil type. I just got off the phone with my county extension office and he says they are indeed native here (at least the species I found, the eastern red velvet ant). Alex (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm in eastern Memphis, TN and saw my first Red Velvet Ant yesterday. She looked like a giant ant, bright orangish red with a small amount of black stripping. I tried to get my phone out to take a picture but she moved too fast. I had a broom in my left hand and was trying to steer her but she still managed to escape into the dense jungle. I say she; from what I read, it was wingless, therefore a female. 2601:3C0:4080:18B0:6031:EFA3:4A7B:C34D (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Possible citation for difficulty pinning?

Does this link satisfy the citation needed for the difficulty pinning?

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151014-superpowers-of-the-near-invincible-velvet-ant

   In line with that, when insect collectors try to pin down a dead velvet ant, they often miss because the pin glances off and pierces their finger.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrauenza (talk • contribs) 04:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC) 

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mutillidae. 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/20110902230354/http://insects.tamu.edu:80/fieldguide/cimg344.html to http://insects.tamu.edu/fieldguide/cimg344.html

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: 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) 03:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Wingless wasps

Aren't all ants technically wingless wasps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:102:A4C0:3902:3092:430E:A113 (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

There are all sorts of different wingless wasps, as wings have been lost - independently - many times in Hymenoptera. Queen ants and male ants have wings, as well, so the lack of wings is not, strictly speaking, a defining feature of ants. Dyanega (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)