Talk:Austrosimulium ungulatum

There is a contradiction re the beech gap in the Distribution section: "... the habitat is suitable. It has been proposed that A. ungulatum does not occur in this zone due to unsuitable habitat." Nurg (talk) 09:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

I meant the habitat is suitable for beech forest. I've clarified on this. AxonsArachnida (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

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

Nominator: AxonsArachnida(talk · contribs) 08:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

Reviewer: Esculenta(talk · contribs) 03:30, 5 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi again, I'll review this, with comments coming in a couple of days. Esculenta (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

Awesome, thanks. AxonsArachnida (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Esculenta Thanks, I've gone over your comments below. AxonsArachnida (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

Spot checks

I checked all statements cited to the main source (Craig et al.) and a couple others. Esculenta (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

• "The holotype is stored in the New Zealand Arthropod Collection." The source says "Type in the collection of the Cawthron Institute"; I assume that's an older name for what is now the NZAC? Might be good to make that explicit. (And/or also cite Craig et al. p.151)
  • I clarified on this and added citation.
• "the only biting Ceratopogonidae is Leptoconops myersi," can't see this in the source on p.19, and can't find the word "Leptoconops" anywhere in the source
  • Added ref.
• minor accuracy issue: "Their bodies are predominately black coloured with silvery hairs." Craig et al. describe a "silvery pruinose appearance" (a sheen/dusting), not "silvery hairs" (p. 149).
  • Clarified on this.
• article says "the larval body is continuously even in diameter", which reads as uniform thickness along the body. Craig et al.'s wording ("thicker thorax and anterior abdomen") seems to be the opposite: it says there's a noticeable thickening at the front (and they even flag it as a distinguishing feature vs other species). Perhaps I'm misunderstanding?
  • The citation was missing a page number. On page 150:"body markedly even in diameter along length". Since you've pointed it out, I think they mean "generally even in diameter", since if you look at their image of the larvae there's only slight changes in thickness compared to the others (as far as I can tell).
• the clause "Gill filaments do not have horn at their base" is placed in the larval description, but Craig et al. use "gills ... lacking black-pigmented horn" as a pupal gill character (see the pupa section on p. 150, with figure references), so as written it implies a larval feature that the source is not describing; this detail should be moved to the pupa paragraph or reworded accordingly.
  • Shifted to pupal subsection
• "There is no accessory sclerite." Craig et al. (2012) are inconsistent on this point: the larval diagnosis on p. 149 says "accessory sclerite absent", but the detailed larval description on p. 151 describes the anal sclerite complex as having an "accessory sclerite ... pointed"; as written (and cited to p. 151) the statement "There is no accessory sclerite" is therefore not supported and should be corrected, reworded to match the p. 151 description, or explained with an explicit note/citation to both passages. Note–I'm not an insect expert so it's very possible I'm making amateur comprehension errors in regards to sclerite morphology!
  • Really good spotting there. So take a look at figure 440, which has the accessory sclerite labelled, then look at figure 449 (A. ungulatum). It looks absent, but to me it looks like there's a slight bump. I think when the authors say "accessory sclerite is absent" perhaps they mean "accessory sclerite is almost absent"? This also lines up with the sclerite being pointed and not flared. Perhaps we should just omit it?
    • In my opinion, yes: it's highly technical and low value for general readers.
      • Removed.
• "whereas the semicircular sclerite" this is supported, but on p. 149, not p. 151
  • Added page 149
• "The fabric of the cocoon is thin and coloured brown, having two thin projections at the end. These projections curl at their tip." the source says the fabric is coarsely woven (is this equivalent to "thin"); are the "2 elongate processes anterodorsally" the same as two thin protections with curly tips? If so, judging from image 155, I'd call these "slightly curved", rather than curled (implies coiling tips)
  • Reworded to "roughly constructed. Yep, you're correct about it curving rather than curling.
• "Reportedly, they are the most common species in the South Island." and "even though the habitat is suitable for beech forest." Can't find these assertions supported by the source text on pages 83–85
  • For that first sentence I can't find where I got that from either. It's bugging me because I'm certain I read that somewhere, but can't seem to find it. I'll omit it for now and re-add if I can ever figure it out. For the second sentence, the explanation of what a beech gap is isn't in there at all. I added this explanation since there isn't a link for it on Wikipedia yet. In case you don't know "beech gaps" are a weird phenomena in NZ forests where gaps in beech tree distributions exist without obvious reason. They're pretty well documented so I didn't think a ref would be neccessary (sorta like how you wouldn't ask for a ref to explain every anatomical term). I can dig up a ref if desired though.
    • I didn't know about beech gaps until I read this article, and looking at the available literature, they are Wikipedia-notable, so I recommend a redlink (redlinks encourage article creation!).

Continuing:

• possibly useful links: described, instar, sternite, beech, pH, isopod, parasitised, nematode, salivary gland; link vector earlier
  • Added links to everything except salivary gland since that page only focuses on humans
• "The females consume blood for nutrients to produce eggs." reads awkwardly. Maybe "Females take blood meals to obtain nutrients for egg production."
  • That works.
• "They are one of three species ... that bite humans often, and are notorious for biting humans prolifically." is repetitive ("bite humans" twice, plus "often/prolifically"). Consider tightening to one clause: "It is one of three New Zealand Austrosimulium species that commonly bite humans, and it is notorious for intense biting outbreaks."
  • Added.
• "well shaded streams" -> "well-shaded streams"
  • Fixed.
• Cawthorn Institute -> Cawthron
  • Fixed.
• "In other countries, "sandflies" is used for biting Psychodidae or Ceratopogonidae, but "sandflies" is unambiguous in the New Zealand context as there are no biting Psychodidae and the only biting Ceratopogonidae is Leptoconops myersi, which is not well known enough to have a common name in popular usage." Suggest "Elsewhere, "sandfly" often refers to biting Psychodidae or Ceratopogonidae. In New Zealand, however, the term is used almost exclusively for simuliids because there are no biting psychodids and only one biting ceratopogonid, Styloconops myersi, which is little known in popular usage."
  • I went with your wording.
• predominately -> predominantly
  • Fixed.
• "covered in whitish granules" although I haven't seen the species myself, I would assume that the pruina only looks granular when examined with magnification; perhaps "covered in a whitish, dust-like coating" better reflects what a naked-eye observer would see?
  • Yeah, that sounds good. Added.
• "Filaments of the gills lack horn..." repeats "Gill filaments do not have black horn..." shortly after
  • Oops. Fixed.
• the "beech gap" sentence reads a bit awkwardly and repeats "gap" three times
  • Removed one of the "gaps"
• "appear to emerge on a daily basis" -> "appear to emerge daily"
  • Fixed.
• fix "weeks after hatching. roughly"
  • Fixed.
• a minor thing, but I wonder if "prolifically" is the correct choice of adverb in "and are notorious for biting humans prolifically." and "They bite humans prolifically," In ordinary scientific/encyclopaedic writing, "prolific" most often means "producing a lot" (offspring, papers, etc.); that's the default sense most readers carry. The "plentiful" sense exists, but it's less common, and the adverb "prolifically" is even less common in that "plentiful" meaning. In the distribution sentence, "prolifically" reads like the species is breeding there, not simply abundant.
  • Reworded.
• perhaps this article could be used to flesh out the short "Predators and parasites" section?

• Images: both images are appropriate and have Wikipedia-compatible licenses. While I'm here, I remember reading from Craig et al. there's there's a few sculptures of this creature around NZ (i.e. more than the two mentioned in the article currently).
  • There are! I vaguely remember seeing one in Buller gorge (upper westland area) a couple of years ago. There aren't any photos unfortunately.
• The fish Galaxias vulgaris also eats the larvae of this fly
  • Added

Ok, the article is pretty close, so I'll put it on the standard hold. Esculenta (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks @Esculenta. The only thing I havent done yet is looked at the reference you suggested for predator/parasite section. CABI seems to be holding the article hostage and I haven't been able to find a way to access it. Do you have access by any chance? AxonsArachnida (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

It's a book chapter from "A Review of Biological Control of Invertebrate Pests and Weeds in New Zealand 1874 to 1987"; had a look around (Anna's Archive, Zlibrary), but didn't find anything. Ok, I think the article meets the GA criteria, so will promote it now. Cheers, Esculenta (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC) Reply