A fact from Lorryia formosa appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 August 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods articles
The females of the species use an asexual form of reproduction where the growth and development of embryos occurs without fertilization by a male, a process called thelytoky.
The article states that the female can give birth to developed embryos and calls the process thelytoky. The actual general process is known as parthenogenesis (literally virgin birth). The process is differentiated as thelytoky where it is only the females of the species who are born via parthenogenesis. Is that the case here? Are the males born diploid or haploid? We should be more specific here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.214.160 (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A digitally colorizedscanning electronmicrograph of a yellow mite (Lorryia formosa), a common agricultural pestofcitrus trees around the world. The magnification in this image is approximately 200x, as specimens are generally less than 250 µm long.Image: Eric Erbe/Chris Pooley, ARS
From WP:COMMONNAME: "Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." In the scientific literature, from which nearly all of the information in this article is derived, the species is known by the scientific name. Sasata (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the very first two sentences of the policy you cite, this article should be at the scientific name. The later examples given on that page are of species that are better-known by their common names, and have a greater representation in the literature under the common name; that does not apply here. Sasata (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If policy itself weren't enough, here's another compelling reason to name this species per the scientific name: reduce confusion with other "yellow mites": Sasata (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Polyphagotarsonemus latus is the broad mite, not yellow (so, as far as I see, Lorryia formosa is the only species to bear pure Yellow Mite name). The question is do reliable sources use Lorryia formosa instead of Yellow Mite? If yes - I'm gonna retract. Twilightchillt20:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Polyphagotarsonemus latusisalso known as the yellow mite, and the jute yellow mite, see for example
Title: The yellow mite, Polyphagotarsonemus latus (banks) - a serious pest of mulberry under nilgiris hill conditions.
Author(s): Rajalakshmi, E.; Sankaranarayanan, P.; Pandya, R. K.
Source: Indian Journal of Sericulture Volume: 48 Issue: 2 Pages: 187-190 Published: DEC 2009
Title: Preliminary screening of jute germplasm against yellow mite, Polyphagotarsonemus latus banks.
Title: Management of yellow mite, Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Banks) (Acari: Tarsonemidae) infesting chilli (Capsicum annum L.) in gangetic alluvial plains of West Bengal.
Author(s): Sarkar, H.; Surajit Mahato; Somchoudhury, A. K., et al.
Source: Journal of Entomological Research Volume: 32 Issue: 2 Pages: 127-130 Published: 2008
Title: Efficacy of new acaricides, botanicals and bioagents against yellow mite Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Banks) on chilli.
Author(s): Ismitha, M. S.; Giraddi, R. S.
Source: Indian Journal of Entomology Volume: 68 Issue: 1 Pages: 31-35 Published: 2006
I could go on. A search of "yellow mite" in the ISI Web of Knowledge pulls up 143 hits, most of which aren't Lorryia formosa; the majority refer to Polyphagotarsonemus latus. So the use of yellow mite is this case is confusing (not to mention contrary to policy). Sasata (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... and to specifically answer your question, the sources used for this article may mention the common name, but generally use the scientific name throughout. Sasata (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with Sasata. As he has shown, not only could "Yellow Mite" refer to several species, not just this one (meaning, if/when the others have articles, yellow mite would perhaps be best as a dab page) but this species is known by multiple common names (though, of course, most commonly referred to by its specific name.) J Milburn (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
