Talk:Tsetse fly

This section holds the discussion of the contents of the main page and relevant references.

tsetse fly is niether male nor female....like a earthworm... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.61.99.176 (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Re: your question on Talk:Tswana language. Both Tswana and Sotho belong to the Sotho-Tswana branch of the Bantu languages; they are relatively closely related (which means that they will have a lot of vocabulary in common and will more or less sound alike). Thus it is quite possible that both Sotho and Tswana have tsetse for 'fly'. Next monday I'll be able to check "Setswana: animals and plants: ditshedi le ditlhare", Cole (1995), and I'm sure the answer will be there.

In any case, a number of other Bantu languages have roots that are similar in sound for (various species of) fly. Bukusu, for example (Kenya, Mount Elgon area) has ee-ci for 'small brown biting fly'. Swahili has n-zi (also nzi-nzi) as a general word for fly (the Swahili word for tsetse fly is mbungo). Shi (DRC) has een-zii for 'fly'. Myene/Mpongwe (Gabon) has tɛzi. I think it's quite probable that this root is somewhat onomatopoeiic. I vaguely remember Ewe (a non-Bantu language spoken in Ghana) having a similar word for tsetse, but I'd have to check that. To be continued! — mark ✎ 10:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. First, we certainly can assume the word is onomatopoeiic. Second, the T'wi and Fante languages of Ghana definately use tsetse, as the same people do in english but, from a historical standpoint, that's probably an imported word; I suspect Ewe may similarly have adopted the word. For historical reasons, the origin of of the meme 'tsetse' seems to have been in the southern cone, so it seems Tswana/Sotho are likely. I'll have to polish up this discussion for public consumption eventually. Thanks again. Acuster 15:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, since you seem knowledgeable in linguistics, could you suggest a better way to present the explosive 'ts' discussed in the second paragraph of the main page? I suspect there are linguist terms for the 'explosive' and probably good links into the wikipedia. Thanks, Acuster 15:39, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, here you go: the actual /ts/ sound of Setswana is an ejective consonant, more specifically the alveolar ejective affricate. 'Alveolar' indicates that the place of articulation is the alveolar ridge (the part that your tongue touches when you produce a 'ts'). 'Ejective' means that the glottis is closed and that the sound is produced using the air that is left in the mouth cavity (see glottalic consonant to find out how to produce one). Finally, 'affricates' are sounds that begin like a stop and end like a fricative (in this case, 't' and 's' together). Ejectives are relatively widespread in Africa (numerous other Bantu languages have them, as has the Afro-Asiatic Amharic of Ethiopia and several Khoisan languages).

The Tswana pronounciation of tsetse would be rendered in IPA as [ts’e.ts’e] (the apostroph signifies the ejective articulation, the period is the syllable boundary). Technically, both the ejective /ts/ and the English pronounciation of /ts/ are explosives in the sense that air is pushed out of the mouth cavity (another term for this is 'egressive'); but in this case, I think it's best to call it an ejective. Hope this clarifies it a bit! — mark ✎ 22:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cole (1995 p. 173) indeed lists Tsétsé (adding that he attested the word in the Tawana, Ngwato, Kwena, Ngwaketse and Southeast dialects of Setswana). He specifically mentions that "[f]rom Setswana, English has adopted, among others, (...) tsetse-fly." (Cole, p. 11).

Reference: Cole, Desmond T. (1995) Setswana - Animals and Plants (Setswana - Ditshedi le ditlhare) Gaborone: The Botswana Society. — mark ✎ 14:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How do the speakers of the various African languages differentiate the diffrent flies? Do they have names like River Tsetse or Sickness Tsetse? Hatchet Winged Tsetse?

This is an Outline of the article, with suggested changes.
  Headings end with a colon, everything else is numbered and indicates 
  a suggested edit or a note.

• Introduction:
  • Tsetse are:
  • Tsetse of interest because:
  • The word:
  • Tsetse are like...but different: +like house flies +distinguished by four characteristics, 2 are readliy visible
  • Tsetse fossil record:
• Biology:
  • Intro:
  • Morpho:
    1. Disection technique---with a diagram showing how to get ovries out and count ovarioles.
  1. Anatomy: Add external and internal anatomy. With diagrams.
  • Lifecycle (i.e. Development):
    1. Development of the sperm
    2. Development of oocytes
    3. Copulation and Sperm Storage
    4. Ovulation
    5. Embryonic Development
    6. Larviposition
    7. Puparial Development
    8. Emergence
    9. Teneral Growth
    10. Mature Adulthood
  • Metabolism:

 & Also edit Metabolism page and/or create Metabolic pathways

• • 1. Overall metabolism: food; body composition; excrement; gas exchange; summary
    2. ?metabolic pathways/biochemistry?
    3. ?Focus on flight metabolism, energy output.
  • General Biology: delete section; move info elsewhere.
• Systematics: (Re-organize)

- Picture

• • Systematics problematic
  • Placement of the genus:

 + Animalia -> Insecta -> Diptera
 + Brachycera -> Cyclorypha
 + Glossinidae -> Glossina
 + 3 sub-genuses

• • The list of species: Change to a table. Check against Leak, 1999

 & Also consider Fly,Diptera

• 1. History of discovery and naming
  2. Genetics:

 + sequencing effort by: http://bioresearch.ac.uk/browse/mesh/D014370.html
 + article  http://www.mrc.ac.za/mrcnews/sep2004/tsetse.htm

1. Tsetse Ecology: ADD THIS! (see comment in the current text)

• 1. Habitat & niche
  2. Behaviour (inc. movement)
  3. Distribution
  • 1. Orographic
    2. Geographic
    • 1. Mapping
      2. RS/GIS
      • 1. TALA
        • 1. Tala mapping page
          2. http://ergodd.zoo.ox.ac.uk/livatl2/tsetse.htm
          3. http://ergodd.zoo.ox.ac.uk/livatl2/tsespgp.htm
  1. Trophic relations
  • 1. Hosts
    2. Predators
  1. Population Dynamics
  2. Disease Vectors
  3. Role in conservation

1. History- ADD THIS!

• 1. Pre-History
  2. History
  3. Discovery of the flies by european science
  4. Implication as vector

• Tsetse as vectors of trypanosomiasis:

 & Also edit:
   trypanosomiasis
    -remove redirect to sleeping sickness
    -add animal tryps
    -add american tryps
   sleeping sickness
    ?add organization (sectioning) to article?
    -discuss movement/development/reprduction within hosts
    -remove gratuitous plug for SIT, talk about med/ent campaigns.
   trypanosoma
   trypanosome
   nagana
   sura

• • Human African tryps
    1. Add estimate impact
  • Tsetse vectored animal african tryps
    1. Add estimated impact and methods of evalute 'land that could be opened'
    2. lower productivity of trypanotolerant cattle reference

• Tsetse Control:
  1. add discussion of issues and problems which could be applied to each control strategy.
  2. Add history
  • Control Techniques:

 + Add a presentation for each- History, Evaluation, Current use status

• • • Slaughter:
    • Land clearing:
    • Pesticides:
      1. Tied to the history of pesticides
      2. Early inorganic pesticides
      3. The organic pesticides and campaigns
      • 1. Aerial campaigns
        2. Ground based campaigns
      1. Modern pesticides
      • 1. Pour-ons
    • Trapping:
      1. Community based campaigns.
    • SIT

 & Edit:
   Sterile atomic fly
    +Suggest renaming b/c not current or scientific: what kind of a name is that? What could it become?
   irradiation
    +add discussion of reproductive sterilization
   sterilization
    +add non-surgical removal of reproductive capacity
   International_Atomic_Energy_Agency
    +add the problem with advocacy for atomic use in a development setting
    +add a section on criticism/harm
    +add a budget and cost-benefit evaluation
    +add a discussion of accountability

• • • Actual Projects: Historical and ongoing
      1. Southern Rift Valley Tsetse Eradication Project, Ethiopia: SREP web site

1. Research Organizations: ADD THIS.

1. Control Organizations: ADD THIS!

1. Specimen Collections: ADD THIS!

• Resources: (reorganize)
  • Books:
  1. Research Literature
  2. Web Sites:
  • • http://www.tsetse.org/
    • IZIKO Museum Page
    • http://www.roberth.u-net.com/tsetse.htm
    • http://www.uen.org/utahlink/activities/view_activity.cgi?activity_id=3023
  1. Images:
  • • http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/Tsetse/tsetse_gallery/index_tsetse_gallery.shtml

1. Organizations: (move above)

• 1. PAAT: http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/paat/home.html
  2. Joint PATT/ICPVT http://www.fao.org/AG/AGA/AGAH/PD/PAAT_L/default.html
  3. ICPVT: http://www.icptv.org/home.html
  4. TALA: at oxford
  5. ICIPE: in nairobi

• References: redo in footnote form

The older usage is antiquated and redundant, see the second paragraph of the current page for details. We don't talk about jaguar mammals no need for the redundant fly. The usage of tsetse fly is a classic example of the early incomplete incorporation of a foreign word. Part of the role of an encyclopedia is to clarify the meaning and usage of words and ideas—the suggested move would serve in that role. —acuster 22:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, because "tsetse fly" is the most common usage. —Michael Z. 2005-03-31 23:59 Z
  • common really depends on who we are talking about. It would be true of the British public but less true, in my experience, of Ghanaians or of scientists. We certainly don't have any good data. Acuster 17:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Using the google test (which is not perfect, but it is something) to get a rough idea of what common usage might be, I got about 62,500 results for "tsetse fly", about 33,100 for "tsetse flies", and about 126,000 for "tsetse". Jonathunder 02:36, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
  • Heh, but that only leaves approx. 30,000 which had tsetse and not either of the first two (assuming perfect overlap and other generous considerations). :-) Acuster 05:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that would imply "Tsetse" alone is not the common use. Should I change my vote? (Of course, the google test is not perfect, for a number of reasons.) Jonathunder 05:09, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
  • Oh, please keep your support. It's all I currently have! Your reason should primarily be that the single word is more elegant, modern, easier to write (/me suddenly imagines how many fly/flies it would have taken to get through the past ten years with the other usage.), and generally better. Acuster 05:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - My own google test (just typing "tsetse" in) results in a page full of sites noting it as a Tsetse fly, including numerous encyclopedias. violet/riga (t) 23:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Most of those sites are tivial and some are copies of the old wikipedia entry.— Acuster 18:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Tsetse fly is simply the most commonly used term. If it is a 'classic example of incomplete incorporation of a foreign word', so be it — Wikipedia should be descriptive, not prescriptive. — mark ✎ 23:18, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So far:

• Anti:3
  • common usage - The widespread and possibly dominant usage is to juxtapose the two words.
• Pro:1
  • redundant- Tsetse now means Glossina and no other organism. To call them flies as well is redundant.
  • trivial- Any search for either term will pick up the other.
  • lacks elegance- The repetitive use of fly/flies in a long text makes writing ugly.
  • political- The use emerges historically in texts that are deeply racist including outright spews against africa (Glascow who starts his book on tsetse "The Africans have produced nothing...") or, more subtley, units of measure such as the fly boy day in reference to the black african employees doing the actual work. The redudant grammar is, to me, deeply and fundamentally part of that same tradition.

Hey everyone, I'm still learning the ropes here at wikipedia so I'm unclear how to navigate the project's politics to resolve my personal requirements with the desire of the community. A concensus is slowly emerging for keeping the term "Tsetse fly" but I'm incapable of reconciling myself to this, for political, aesthetic, and other reasons.

The only resolution I can see is for me to

1. move most of the material that I have recently added here to Glossina
2. reduce this article back to a brief entry

This resolution has the side benefit of letting me make the article as scientifically rigourous as I want it to be without worry for the lay person's attention span. (Ideally, the two articles would eventually become well tailored, complimentary entries but that's beyond the scope of my current ambition.)

I regret not being able to use the Tsetse namespace because I find it more elegant than using Glossina. I'm also a bit disappointed to be trumped by people who have not contributed to the page itself but such it goes—a trivial price compared to working within the system of the project as a whole.

— adrian ✎ 22:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've commented on this points at your Talk page. — mark ✎ 23:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. With the move not being supported I have taken it off WP:RM. I sympathise with Acuster because he has worked hard on this article and therefore offer to rename it should more support be drummed up in the future - just let me know. violet/riga (t) 09:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i wanted to make an extra cell for parasite reservoirs, but i never get into this HTML. m.20050429

Hello,

Thanks for trying to contribute but please take a little more care with this page. I have reverted your edits for the reasons detailed below (confusing layout, incomplete information, incorrect table construction, adding to an already large table). Your edits are truely focused on the nature of the disease rather than the fly. Affected animals relate to the economic importance of the vector whereas the reservoir species are not directly related to tsetse but more to the dynamics of the disease. I would encourage you to edit the Trypanosomiasis page instead.

Your edits use a confusing layout. The use of the slash symbol "/" does not make the table any more understandable.

Your edits only targeted two rows out of the whole table. Adding this partial information makes the entry less "encyclopedic". It's better to leave partial information out in order to maintain the clarity of the information which is present rather than trying to cram into the entry a whole lot of disjointed pieces of information.

The table, as you have left it, was not correctly formated. Perhaps this is what your comment above was intended to mean. Please, if you are going to participate, take the time to communicate clearly what you are doing. I really can't be sure what your comment above is supposed to mean.

The table is already large, possibly too big, and your additions do not help the situation. I would suggest designing a new table to convey the information you are trying to get across or, as suggested above, that you expand another entry such as Trypanosomiasis or create a new page, such as Animal Trypanosomiasis (Nagana)

For now, I have reverted your changes. Acuster 00:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello acuster (and others ?),

Thank you for Your intense work on this article, i think its already an excellent one.

avc> Thanks, and thanks for your interest.

• I still think that the relation: glossina species / natural host - "accidental" host - reservoir host is fundamental for the understanding of tsetse ecology (and so for disease epidemiology also), but I agree we can add this table later when probably more facts are gathered from newest sources. Meanwhile I have put some older data on the german site.

avc> Yes, this is important. Belongs in the not yet existing 'ecology' section.

I have a lot of questions and remarks:

• First, I find the coloured graphic most misleading. A short time visitor will keep this picture in his head and loose his precaution with tsetse who are looking much more colourless.The pic might have motivated someone at http://flexicon.doccheck.com/ to include the photo of a normal fly as a tsetse ! See colourless pic on the german wikipedia page, please.

avc> I'm not too worried. The colour graphic pre-dates my contributions and I suspect it's standard for species pages.

• The size of a tsetse ?

avc> "large" :-) Actually, one would wish we had data on this for every species but no. I can't even place them in order although I have come up with a working hierarchy of the common species in the literature. Their sizes range from that of a small house-fly to that of a large horse fly (although horse flies are less thin and elongated than tsetse.

• The life span of tsetse ?

avc> Females are known to have survived 270 days in the lab but the average longevity in the wild is probably much shorter. There are some new articles by John Hargrove that I need to read to be able to make a good statement about the life span. No one knows for sure so we have to do experiments and try to figure this out which is quite hard, one of the hardest questions about tsetse and critical to understand the change in numbers of the populations.

• I would like to know, if a blood licking tsetse also sits with her wings folded. - If so, it should be expressed. By the way, left wing on right wing or the other way ?

avc> yes. The resting position is assumed whenever they are not flying. Don't know which is on top and if that is always the same in every species, but it's a question that has occurred to me. I'll ask around.

• I have opposing informations how tsetse get attracted to / find hosts!

german wiki says by visual sight only ! http://flexicon.doccheck.com/ says olfactory/ Co2, Azeton, Octanal only !

avc> We are not sure. A current model (Hargrove and Packer, 1993, Bull Ent Res. 83:29-46) sets this up in two ways. First they make see a host nearby and fly to feed on them directly. Second, they may fly around, find an odour plume and fly upwind to the host. It seems like both are possible and therefore both probably happen. In what ratios, and what other methods of host finding exist, we don't know.

• It is mentioned on the german zebra wiki, that they got their stripes by evolutional selection,

because tsetse cannot see them with their facette eyes, so i would like to add the frequence/ number of facettes of the tsetse eye.

avc> That sounds like a nice, but probably false, idea. Probably if you see zebra at dusk in the dry season in the grasslands, the stripes are perfect cammouflage. The question about eyes probably belongs on the general insect page or on a separate page because the compound eye of the insect is fascinating. I've never seen any info particular to tsetse. "lots" ;-)

• I read somewhere, that tsetse are very elastic insects, hard to beat eaven by the tail of an animal.

The force to hit a tsetse should be described.

avc> The elastic part is generally about their 'teneral' state---just after they emerge from the ground as new adults. Until they feed, they are very soft and have other characteristics that are 'elastic'. That they are hard to kill with an animal tail only makes sense since that's one thing they have been dealing with for a few million years. The force to kill a fly? It's the same as for other flies. A fly swatter will kill a tsetse. They are big flies and so it takes a good hit but they are not particularly different from other flies.

• Please i am very interested about the symbionts, because this is the case also found in the

vectors of american trypanosomiasis, and they have a virus also.

avc> I don't know much about this yet. I've seen lots of pieces but have not yet tried to understand how they fit together.

• Do tsetses have deseases, parasites and natural enemies ?

avc> Yes. Birds, ants, fungi, and other things eat them. However, there is not a lot understood about this yet and I have not yet gotten a good feel for this. Belongs in the 'Ecology' section which I hope to write.

• From (German) Meyers Lexikon 1909:

"Tsetse.... are most abundant in the rain season, but always on strictly bordered, often only some hundred meters wide streches, between them there are completely tsetse-free tracts. They ..... stiching particularly at an overcast sky and humid air." Is this still confirmed ?

avc> No. You have to understand that before 1909 moving around Africa was *hard.* Scientists tended to work in one particular area. That sounds like a description of "riverine" flies which do indeed stick closely to the rivers. Will be part of the 'ecology' section.

• If there is a reliable repellent for humans, it should be mentioned ( DEET ? ).

avc> Well, the colonial brits believed that wearing nice, clean, pressed, very white (the only important part) suits would reduce their appeal. I picture this somewhat ironically as the conclusion of a different historical period full of its presumptions, biases, race relations, economic disparities and other complexities. I don't know of any substance that acts reliably as a 'repellant' but a physical barrier (well manitained mosquito net) will always work. There are large campaings to spray houses with DDT throughout the continent against mosquitoes and probably this also kills tsetse but I have no idea if it repels them.

Thank you, m. 20050507

avc> Thanks for your interest. Adrian Custer, August 6th 2005, Valldemossa, Spain.

Thank you for your extensive answers. I will answer later. For now I want to document usefull links here, which i would like to read if i had more time. nearly forget this one:

• His books are well written: http://stevefrank.org/ Immunology and Evolution of Infectious Disease
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi search for glossina.
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pmc search for glossina.

--213.7.155.173 04:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

• Jeffrey Waage has made the zebra/tetse theory around 1980, because zebras are infected not so often

like other wild animals:

• (bad) graphic: http://www.abiturloesungen.de/bio/bygk01/a2_4.gif (stripes only in tsetse areas)

• http://www.devbio.com/printer.php?ch=1&id=5 with reference:
• Waage, J. K. 1981. How the zebra got its stripes: biting flies as selective agents in the evolution of zebra coloration. J. Entom. Soc. South Afric. 44: 351-358.

• Waage,J.: The evolution of insect/vertebrate associations. Biological Journal of the Linnean

Society of London 12 (1979) 187- 224.

• Waage,J.: Curse of the vampire: The evolution of blood- sucking insects. Antenna 4 (1980) 112-116.

m.--213.7.155.169 23:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

That blurb about "tsetse fly" being "a redundancy" was cute, but wrong. There are many kinds of flies in this world, and most of them are named in English with a descriptive name + "fly", e.g. "blowfly", "housefly", "horsefly", "mayfly", etc. Thus "tsetse fly" is a good English name for this African insect, and "tsetse" alone is not at all likely to "become dominant" outside of the research community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.39.182.234 (talk • contribs) .

No, I think it is right. Translated from Tswana, "tsetse fly" means "fly fly", which is redundant because "fly" is repeated (they are just in two different languages). It's like saying "pizza pie", redundant because "pizza" comes from an Italian word meaning "pie". Schzmo 21:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

The text seems to state that there are three instars and also that there are 5 larval stages. which is correct? 194.151.165.92 10:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

avc: hello. there are five stages total: three instars (two full and one partial) *inside* the female parent and then two more instars (the rest of the thrid, fourth and fifth) inside the puparium.

Have parasitoids been identified - is their literature ? - What other natural enemies ? nematodes, spiders, ruminants ? greetings from the part time nerd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.58.163.231 (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC).Reply

I've removed the reference to the Neil Gaiman stories in the fiction section. That "sleeping sickness" was Encephalitis lethargica, and nothing to do with trypanosomiasis Rojomoke (talk) 10:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I came across this article http://www.johanfoto.com/Site/Pages/WorldMagazine.html which claims that the tsetse fly has a particular preference for biting . . . and that the preference for large areas of dark hide is postulated in the article as one reason why zebra has such prominent markings . . it confuses the tsetse fly.

I notice that the WP article does not contain any reference to this and the Zebra reference. I am reluctant to add the reference as I am no expert in these matters, but I wonder if there is someone who is more expert than me can either confirm this is a likely thing or believes it is possible and thinks the article might benefit from its mention. --Tom (talk) 06:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I found a very good website that has information from a 1999 study on the distribution done by the FAO and DFID. I'm not sure if their maps are in the public domain, however, but you can look at them here: http://ergodd.zoo.ox.ac.uk/livatl2/tsetse.htm

I created a range map and uploaded it, based on the distribution found on this map created by the above website:

http://ergodd.zoo.ox.ac.uk/livatl2/images/alltsespno.jpg

If, in the future, permission is granted to use the above map instead of the one that I created (or other professionally created map), please replace it.

Mba123 (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is tik tik a common name for this fly? I have looked at many articles about this fly and have tried to find a reference to it being called "tik tik," which is certainly possible is some areas, but I have found nothing to verify it. I took this out of the article because of poor wording and lack of verifiability. Someone other than me and also questioned its validity with a fact tag previously. Recently, all the instances of tsetse have been replaced with "tsetse or tik tik" in some cases messing up page formatting, but still not providing the requested source. It is fine if this is a common name for this fly. But so far we only have Wikipedia saying so. The argument cannot be circular. What I suspect, however, is that the editor is also not reading talk pages...

If tik tik is indeed a common name, it can be mentioned in the article. I don't think it needs to be mentioned every time the word tsetse is used, and it shouldn't be included on link pages because it breaks the links (there is no page called tsetse or tik tik). Please provide a source.

Mba123 (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I suspect some of the names are anglicizations of indigenous names to make for easier pronunciation, so there are likely to be several pronunciations of the same name. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Exactly. Since this is a pretty common pest in the area where it lives, I can only imagine there must me several such variations pronunciation by different groups who live with this pest. So, I can't see how it would be productive to list them all. Perhaps mentioning the fact (if it is true) that such differences exist. I don't have a reference and I looked for one before I removed this one, but couldn't find one. So the burden of proof is on the person who insists on calling it a tik tik, correct? Mba123 (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've checked the history of the article. To my surprise, I found that it had some rather nice sections about morphology, löife cycle, et cetera, in 2005, which simply were not replaced by anything comparable. A closer check showed that about 20% of the article was removed in a number of consecutive vandal edits, in April, 2008. You may view the before-and-after.

I'm sure some relevant editing has gone on in the last three years, but since the lost material in general neither has been restored, nor replaced by anything of equal worth, I'm going to reinstate the entire vandalised sections. I hope that some "regular editor" of this article checks out whether this leads to any minor duplication or inconsistency. JoergenB (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Good work. I find this kind of thing quite a bit, and the problematic years appear to be 2005-2008. Viriditas (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's only the second time I've found anything similar in this scale; but I'm not searching systematically for it. The other similar incidense also occurred some years ago. You may very well be right: In the last years, vigilance against vandalism seems to have been higher and more efficient.

If this really is a problem in a larger scale, I suppose that one might employ some kind of automated check for large scale and lasting decrease of the length of articles, who formerly were longer for a long time. I've no idea of how to implement this, though. JoergenB (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The edit history from the last three or four years bear withess of a few edits in the same direction by a few editors, who seem to share the opinion that any dating of geological strata as older than a few thousand years must be erroneous. In one case, there was an explicit insertion of the "information" that the older dating is wrong, since the earth is only five to six thousand years old.

I do understand that these matters are very close to the heart for some believers in the literary truth of some genealogies in Genesis; but, still, the referenced source simply states that the fossile beds in question were put down 34.07 million years ago, and by Wikipedia standards, this is what we should claim in the article. I therefore would like any watchers of this article to keep their eyes open for renewed attempts to modify this dating based on Genesis rather than the quoted sources. JoergenB (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Already back in 1932, Dickie was writing about the impact of the Tsetse in African History. McKelvey's article in 1973 was just one of many relating the fly to historical developments. More recently, historian Donald Wright has given the insect quite the space in his latest book titled, "The World and a Very Small Place in Africa: A History of Globalization in Niumi, the Gambia." A section on this topic would make this article even better. I will help if there is interest to collaborate. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 23:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I just added a section to the bottom of the main page regarding the Tsetse fly's effect on early state formation in Africa. It is a very interesting topic when you consider that the author's hypothesis is that a tiny fly may have altered African history and development for hundreds of years. I linked the source of the information, and would like to note that anyone who is interested in finding out more should check out the environmental determinism page for similar theories. Kevinmccarthy25 (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Interesting, but even tinier things have altered the course of history. JuanTamad (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

On reviewing the FAO map [1], I have to agree that the range extends less far into the South than I believed, and that "tropical" covers the distribution by about 99%. Sorry about that. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I will also expand upon the range in other sections, as it is not a static distribution, and it is impacted by climatic, ecological and environmental issues, but it is important to understand the human settlement and poverty issues of tropical Africa to place the range of the Tsetse fly in an understandable context for a general audience.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:648:8503:4467:9C40:6138:A33B:2DB7 (talk) 09:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Tsetse fly. 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/20050409122056/http://www.africa-union.org/Structure_of_the_Commission/depPattec.htm to http://www.africa-union.org/Structure_of_the_Commission/depPattec.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120227040712/http://www.mosquitocatalog.org/files/pdfs/045050-0.pdf to http://www.mosquitocatalog.org/files/pdfs/045050-0.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070606225734/http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/pmbu/lttrn/ to http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/pmbu/lttrn
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130104081354/http://www.nzitrap.com/index.htm to http://www.nzitrap.com/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090301142911/http://ergodd.zoo.ox.ac.uk/livatl2/tsetse.htm to http://ergodd.zoo.ox.ac.uk/livatl2/tsetse.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cabi-publishing.org/bookshop/BookDisplay.asp?SubjectArea=Hum&Subject=Public+Health+and+Communicable+Diseases&PID=1406

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) 05:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the edit made around February of 2019 with the reference “Inventing Africa”. The reference is just an article from an early 2000’s magazine, hosted on a university website. The information added from the article appears to be largely unsubstantiated claims and the article only has a couple references to obscure publications without note. Dzrrat (talk) 13:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Was skimming this page and also felt something wrong with it, added at least some better citation needed tags. Also I really think the paragraph about this in the opening section should be removed, it doesn't belong there at all even if they were actually verified claims--188.86.44.219 (talk) 12:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I removed {{More footnotes | article | date=June 2009}} after over 11 years. Given the number of citations, I assume a lot have been added since then. This article needs a few more but the problem is mostly remedied. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply