Talk:Mite

I don't believe this belongs in the category "pesticide" So I will remove the reference.

Is there a way to keep mites off of you? I stuck my hand in a Starling's nest, and I got a bunch of mites...

thanks, --e. 01:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

5% permethrin cream by prescription only in USA or over the counter in Canada- anonymous

Don't put your hand in starling's nests. - anaon  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.13.166 (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply 

Yes, benzyl benzoate can really help. Sulphur is also useful, eg: 10% sulphur soap. Food grade diatomaceous earth also helps. A good IGR and knockdown painted on your house walls every 2 weeks or so until they are gone. Mites that infest humans are very hard to get rid of.

1.41.43.196 (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have just added some information about sulphur - the ancient remedy for mites. It should probably be noted that tea tree oil, neem oil, orange oil, eucalyptus oil and lavender oil are also known agents of mite destruction and repelling. In addition, alcohol, including methylated spirits, also kills mites. Rinsing the microfibre clothes in ammonia (15% to 20% NH₃ to total volume of water used) is one of the few ways to effectively kill mites on microfibre mop heads and microfibre cloths.

It should also be noted that mites are extremely difficult to clean up. One of the few ways to clean a house is to use microfibre cloths to wipe walls, ceilings and any hard surfaces. Just about anything else won't actually pick the mites up.

It should also be stated somewhere here that standard pest control knockdowns such as Delta Force Plus^[1] is only 80% effective and mite populations can quickly adapt. In addition, Insect growth regulators such as Starycide or Nylar are used to control a mite population. You can kill two birds with one stone by mixing an IGR into your mop bucket and wiping your walls with a microfibre mop. The mop picks up mites from the wall, the IGR peter pan's them, and the water drowns them. Always have two microfibre mop heads - leave the second one in the bucket and swap them. That way the mites get more time to die in the mop bucket.

If you buy a knockdown with deltamethrin then getting one with piperonyl butoxide helps for mite control.

49.178.3.93 (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

The fastest ways to get mites off your skin are:

• Hot shower - preferably with sulphur soap
• Dip a baby wipe into eucalyptus oil, then wipe across your skin. The mites will be stunned and picked up. You may need to use more than one wipe to get them all. Tea tree oil also works
• Cover your skin with benzyl benzoate. The mites will either leave or die. Some people apply this daily for months to get rid of bird mites.
• Cover your skin with petroleum jelly. The mites will be smothered. Note that this won't kill them instantly. It can take 10 to 20 minutes for them to die die die.
• Cover your skin in baby oil.
• Hot bath - preferably with epsom salts, tar based bath oil, or similar. The hotter the better - no cold water.
• Cover your skin in powdered sulphur. A very long time ago people used to smother their skin in sulphur, wrap rags around, then sleep. You can also walk around during the day with sulphur in your pockets and on your skin
• Smother your skin in Deep Heat - Only if DESPERATE .. or if you have been bitten too much and can't sleep for the pain.
• 80% deet products^[2]
• Nit products

Any of the above to be executed with due care for your health. Seek medical advice. This information is only given as a guide. Anything you put on your skin you are potentially absorbing into your body. Be careful with any type of poison and avoid long term use of chemicals if you can.

Also note that Telfast and other similar drugs can be useful in controlling the reaction humans have to bird mite bites.. however it is not recommended. Use sparingly if at all. See a doctor.

There are various healing and soothing creams and ointments markets for psoriasis, baby rash and skin rash which can really help deal with the damage caused by bird mite bites.

Does the number 45 000 refer to the number of identified species, or the total number of species anticipated to exist (out of which we seems to have found 5 %)? \Mike(z) 10:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, please, this needs clarification! --345Kai 23:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Done; 45,000 refers to the number of named species, there are many many more undescribed. IronChris | (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Everyone- I need to learn more about the Mite currency (an old form of currency from maybe 2000 years ago in the Middle East). I am not sure how to do it, but there needs to be some reference to this old currency here so that Mite (the insect) is not the only option for the users. Also, It doesn't appear that an article on Mites (currency) exists. Thanks.

Edit: I just found a reference to the mite currency in the Greek lepton article. Thanks.

Any experts out there? This article is close to a stub.

Why do there have to be pictures? Ugh, I have those things in me right now, thank you very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.89.42 (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Haha, I know. It's very easy to get skeeved out by these things. KenFehling (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Anyone care to add information on birdmites? There is some scary information on birdmites.org and not sure how much of it is true, as it is commercially backed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.77.54 (talk) 05:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC) agreed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.34.161.130 (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Quite a bit of it is true, unfortunately. Bird mites are hard to kill, hard to control, resistant to most pesticides and can ruin your life. Another problem is lack of recognition. Very few experts care to study the problem, and most will adamantly state that bird mites (and other mites) can not infest humans - usually quoting nonsense about mites not being able to bite through human skin and not liking human blood. Both of these assumptions are wrong. Fortunately this attitude is changing, slowly.

Ivermectin may help. See birdmites.org for a start on combating this problem. Shanspirations for a second. A cure was found a long time ago - benzyl benzoate. Acts as both an insecticide and as a repellent. Combined with diatomaceous earth and sulphur along with the same precautions and solution for treating scabies bird mites can be controlled and eliminated.

1.41.43.196 (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Borax, lye, sulphur, alcohol, ammonia and menthol have been used for centuries to deal with mite infestations. Lye and ammonia are used to clean the environment where mites live which walls, ceilings, floors; alcohol is used as a contact poison to kill mites; sulphur in powdered form is used as a repellent and contact killer, in the environment sulphur is dusted onto walls and into cracks, for humans sulphur is dusted onto the skin and covered with clothes to trap in the sulphur and force contacts with mites; borax is either spread around the environment as a powder or mixed with water sprayed onto the environment including walls, ceilings and floors to contact kill and build up layers of poison. Menthol crystals are evaporated to form a gas toxic to mites.

The main issues with these chemicals are:

• Sulphur has a recognisable irritating odour, may stain clothes and is slow to act; on the positive side sulphur can last a long time
• Lye is an irritant which must be used with great care and can damage skin; on the positive side lye is cheap and easy to use
• Ammonia can irritate air passages and damage human skin
• Alcohol evaporates too quickly to be anything more than a temporary measure against an infestation; on the plus side kill rate is very high and at rates which do not damage human skin
• Menthol crystals are expensive; on the positive side menthol crystals can be placed into a container to kills mites where mites are infesting human clothes, books or other objects
• Borax dissolved in water must be continually applied in layers to ensure contact with mites; on the positive side borax is cheap, and when mixed with water can be sprayed in all areas of a house including carpets to kill mites and form a protective barrier against an infestation with little side effects on humans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.147.30 (talk) 06:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Had an infestation of bird mites in our house (originated from a bird dying in a dryer vent), and it lasted for months. Could feel them crawling on us immediately after a shower and had bites across my upper chest, shoulders, and back. Put diatomaceous earth on everything, wrapped upholstered furniture in plastic and washed all clothing and bedding daily. Used menthol, lavender,and more. What helped the most was using an enzyme cleaner (we used Kleen Green Naturally) to spray all walls, floors, furniture surfaces and our bodies after showers. Experts consulted at the time were of no help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.221.79 (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

There is a listing a treatments at: http://www.AfterMite.com

The problem with focusing on just a few treatments is that bird mites adapt and can double their population within a week. If they have burrowed into your skin, you need to attack them Internally as well as Externally. There is a great deal of info at AfterMite.

Some of these are so small they would only be a few cells wide; so does anyone have any idea how many cells they've got and how big they are. Some live in/on insects as parasites. From the data given if a bee was a long as a human, some mites would be as long as a bee (ie about 100x shorter in length).

So if typical animal cell is a about 0.01 mm across, how many cells can it fit in (or are they much tinier cells than average)?

I've just tried to add a link from this page to de:Milben. But I can't, because Milben is already linked from Acari. I don't have time to figure out the details of yet another wikisomething. Does somebody want to figure out how to make this work? GyroMagician (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Before starting to expand this article, I put it through the Earwig copyvio detector and got worrying results, so I sought advice from the Copyright problems noticeboard. I asked "How can I tell whether the article is copying the websites concerned or vice-versa?" Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is the response I received -

• Re: the Flickr match, our article text appears to predate the Flickr upload, so we're good there. Re: the .gr match, the site looks dodgy which immediately set off alarm bells for a likely backwards copy. If you look in the history of the article, you can see that the en.wiki text evolved to the text of that website -- this diff and the subsequent diff (and possibly other diffs as well). So we're good there. The PRweb match is just a spam link at the bottom of the article (which I just removed) so we're good there too. In short, you can go ahead and expand the article without worrying about the potential copyright violations identified by the Earwig copyvio detector. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 12:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
• No pictures of eggs or larvae? Also some images showing behaviour could be nice.

Image added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• The intro seems too short for an article of this length.

I have expanded it a little. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Little on evolution here. When did they evolve? Anything on fossils?

Paragraph on fossils added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Since mites are not a natural group, how are they defined? That seems like a pretty important oversight. It seems to be size, though this isn't specifically stated, you simply say that mites are tiny, not that it defines them.

It seems to me that the mites are all the members of Acari with the exception of the ticks. But as can be seen from the Phylogeni/Taxonomy section, there is no agreement as to the exact relationships between the groups and whether Acari is polyphyletic or monophyletic. So this article is about Mites rather than a taxonomic entity. The defining characteristic is the body being divided into two tagmata, the gnathosoma and the opisthosoma. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

If that is their defining feature that sets the apart from non-"mite" acarians, this should be mentioned explicitly. But it seems ticks have the same feature, so it would be good to get this cleared up. Merriam-Wesbter simply defines them by their small size and the fact that they infest things.[1] So what sets them apart from for example ticks? FunkMonk (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for taking on this review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• "Raubmilben" Why use a German term?

Gone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• You could state how many million years ago all the various geological ages listed are.

Dated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• You have both a section and a subsection called phylogeny. Why not call the parent section "classification" or such?

Evolution it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• "is polyphyletic" Term could be explained.

Glossed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• If mites as a group is itself unnatural, saying "it is not a precise taxon" may be an understatement.

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• "although some species lack an anus." How does this work?

(cough) They don't live long, and the (ahem) waste just stays in the gut for the short period before they shuffle off this mortal coil. Said so, with ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Am I wrong, or do they not have distinct heads? If so, could be stated explicitly.

Added to lead/head section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• I'm not sure if unnatural groups should have taxoboxes. Not sure what the standards are, but maybe I'll ask at the tree of life project. See for example antelope or pachyderm.

Agree, there's one for Acari which is a separate article. Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• "become protonymphs" How does that differ from a nymph, and when does it become a nymph?

Nymph is sufficient. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• As noted in an earlier review, I don't see any good reason why "diversity" should be distinct section; it includes info about behaviour/ecology and habitat, as well as info that would belong under taxonomy. It would probably be best to move the info to more fitting sections.

Merged. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Why is there an external link with photos of a specific kind of mite? Seems redundant and arbitrary.

Gone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• "Insects are sometimes infested by parasitic mites. Examples are Varroa destructor, which attaches to the body of the honey bee, and Acarapis woodi" It doesn't seem logical that you mention insects first, and then give examples where you mention the mites first. You could instead start out with "Some parasitic mites infest insects" or similar.

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• "The phylogeny of the Acari is under dispute and several taxonomic schemes have been proposed for their classification." Needs source.

Rewritten and sourced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• "Some are thought to be parasites, while others are beneficial symbionts. Mites also parasitize some ant species, such as Eciton burchellii." No source.

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• The two paragraphs under Ecology lack sources.

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Many paragraphs under Medical significance lack sources. Medical sections especially need very careful sourcing.

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• "Mites also hold the record speed; for its length" A mite, so not sure why it should be plural.

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• "living in the soil or aqueous environments and assisting in the decomposition of decaying organic material, or consuming fungi, plant or animal matter, as part of the carbon cycle." This looks like it belongs under ecology.

Having considered moving this, I left it in the "Relationship with humans" section because it explains in what way the majority of mite species are beneficial to humans. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Unlike the rest of the article, Medical significance consists of many single sentences. Would look better if they were grouped in paragraphs.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• " by Robert Hooke" Present him.

Glossed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• "They are an enormously successful group" Only stated in intro.

Gone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• "includes the commercially important" Only stated in intro, and you could also explain why it is important somewhere.

Beekeeping section added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• I think it looks pretty good now, so passed. FunkMonk (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC) Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is one of the most popular pages in Wikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicine's scope. Very few editors watch WT:VET's pages, which means that questions may not be answered in a timely manner. If you are an active editor and interested in animals or veterinary medicine, please put WT:VET on your watchlist. Thank you, WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I noticed many language links are missing in the sidebar (e.g. French, Spanish, German). Seems to be because Wikidata has different entries for Mite and Acari. I don't know how to fix this. 82.5.226.54 (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't think this is fixable. Wikidata only allows one-to-to correspondence between an article and wikidata items, which determines the interlanguage links. This page would have to be linked to Acari (Q19137) to pick up a more comprehensive collection of interlanguage links. You can see the interlanguage links at the Acari redirect. I don't think this can be solved without a change in Wikidata structure or coordination of article names between different language Wikipedias. @Peter coxhead: any thoughts? —  Jts1882 | talk  10:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Jts1882: unfortunately, the same thoughts as always, since this is the same old problem. Because Wikidata only allows 1:1 correspondence between articles and its items, when Wikidata has more than one item to which an article could be linked, all that can be done is to make a choice: we can either link this article from Acari (Q19137) or from mite (Q2441993) but not both. Personally, I would change to Acari (Q19137), since this is what the taxonbar uses.

Now that Wikidata allows links to redirects, I assume it would be possible for the Wikimedia software to pick up other language links by finding what redirects to this article and finding what Wikidata item they are linked from. However, this depends on the redirects being genuine synonyms (either taxonomic or general), and wouldn't be right for cases like species redirects to genus. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Peter coxhead: I agree that Acari (Q19137) would be better for interlanguage links. I did think of that change, but didn't want to upset the logic of the mite article linking to mite (Q2441993) and the Acari redirect linking to Acari (Q19137), especially after the fight to get Wikidata to allow linking of redirects.

When I was writing the code for test interlanguage link taxonbar, I did wonder if there was potential for a gadget for "extended interlanguage links". But how to get the appropriate wikidata items? One can look for redirects but, as you indicate, how to pick the right ones? Check for synonym properties? I suppose it would be possible to get the wikidata items from the taxonbar. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Jts1882: yes, it's tricky, because it depends on editors, either at Wikidata or here, correctly setting up the taxonomic synonyms. Here you'd need to see {{R from alternative scientific name}}, I think. In theory you could use the properties of the Wikidata item, but these are not often set up correctly or helpfully in my experience. For example, wikidata:Property:P694 would have to be taken into account, but this rarely present when it should be, and the reverse seems to be indicated by "subject has role" replaced synonym (Q15709329) "of". I doubt that the results would be reliable in many cases. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

One approach would be to check redirects with badge "sitelink to redirect" or "intentional sitelink to redirect. So Acari redirects to mite and the sitelink for Acari (Q19137) has the badge "intentional sitelink to redirect". This is something Wikimedia could use.

For a potential gadget the easiest might be to get the |from= parameters from the taxonbar using the API (e.g. search hastemplate:taxonbar insource:/axonbar *\| *from *=/ the current page).

Anyway, I don't think this too useful. It wouldn't help a reader searching for interlanguage links and we already know how to get the information. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Greetings, today I asked for Arthropods expert help at Apalotacarus article - Check taxon, de-orphan article. Posted here hoping to find someone with knowledge about this subject. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply