This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Insects: Hymenoptera Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects 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.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Hymenoptera task force (assessed as High-importance).

The 1st paragraph desperately needs rewrite. Is the taxonomy of this suborder that controversial or unclear? Needs an expert, which I'm not. I just photograph them. Thanks. Nickrz (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a word search in the article and did not find "venom" mentioned. However, since their wasp, bee, and ant cousins are well known for being dangerous, if they are indeed benign, then this needs to be positively confirmed. Linstrum (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see this comment is from 2014, but no sawfly is venomous. The stinger is a derived character first seen in wasps because it evolved from the ovipositor seen in sawflies. Burklemore1 (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sixteen months late, thanks for the confirmation! Linstrum (talk) 07:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to expand this article so it can meet GA criteria. Once promoted, all insects of the order Hymenoptera will be at GA or higher. Burklemore1 (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should further note I will commence this expansion once I am done with Termite in my sandbox. Burklemore1 (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'll work on this one instead. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what happened there. And was it all subgroups rather than all insects? I don't even see a GA for Hymenoptera --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some improvements but it is far from being GA --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Goodyear, yeah, I mean the subgroups within Hymenoptera. Bee is GA, Wasp is GA and Ant is FA. Thank you for the improvements. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It will be good to see more insect groups up to a good standard. I'll lend a hand here. (All the insects might take a bit of time...) Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the contributions! I'll have to start expanding the description section and add some information about its life cycle and reproduction. Burklemore1 (talk) 12:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Am putting together a cladogram. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great addition, I'll start doing some fixes and expansion. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good now. What do you think still needs doing? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the statements I have said on my talk page, but I will go through them quickly. I will try and get the parasites section complete now. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 05:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When all the comments are resolved, that should be about it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for taking this on. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks both of you, I missed the action here for some reason, not quite sure what happened. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• First and foremost, I don't think the notes are all too necessary since they just define abbreviations. It'd be simpler just to wikilink "†" to Dagger (typography)#Modern usage and "spp." to species on first mention

Yeah, I believe a user who expanded the taxonomy section added these in, not sure why. I have removed all notes, but I have added "Extinct taxa are indicated by a †." just above the superfamilies and families list for clarification.

• In the lead, change, "...within the order Hymenoptera (ants, bees, wasps and sawflies)," to something along the lines of, "...within the order Hymenoptera alongside ants, bees and wasps." (Optional)

Your suggestion makes sense, the current sentence does seem redundant (we don't need to say it is in the order again).

• wikilink "superfamily" in the lead

Linked.

• In the lead, change, "...has existed from that time to this," to, "...has (existed/persisted/continued) into the present"

Done.

• In the Etymology section, change, "The suborder name Symphyta derives from..." to, "The suborder name ''Symphyta'' derives from..."

Done.

• In the Etymology section, change, "Sawflies are also known as wood-wasps," to, "Sawflies are also known as ''wood-wasps'' " (optional)

Done.

• Are Hymenoptera aculeata, Hymenoptera apocrita, and Hymenoptera phytophaga binomial names, because they're not italicized on first mention and they are on second mention?

I read the source and it shows these names were italicised, so I would assume so.

• In the Phylogeny section, wikilink "venation" to Insect wing#Venation

Linked.

• In the Phylogeny section, change, "...date back to the Middle or Late Triassic," to, "... date back to the Middle or Late Triassic," and do the same for Middle Jurassic and Cretaceous

Linked

• In the Phylogeny section, change, "these statements indicate a humid and warm climate," to, "this indicates a humid and warm climate," or, "these are indicative of a humid and warm climate"

Done.

• Instead of putting "The cladogram is based on Schulmeister 2003" above the cladogram, put it in the caption
• In the Taxonomy section, change, "...are indicated by a |†," to, "...are indicated by a dagger (†)" (optional)

Done.

• In the Taxonomy section, wikilink Alexandr Rasnitsyn

Done.

• In the Description section where it talks about the differences between them and caterpillars, since it starts out with, "...can distinguish the two:", you have to separate the reasons with either commas or semicolons. Alternatively, you could just replace the colon with a period and merge that sentence with the one before it where it starts out with, "The larvae of sawflies are easily mistaken..."
• wikilink currawong, honeyeater, and fantail

Done.

• In the Behaviour and ecology section, "Sawfly and moth larvae formed one third..."

Done.

• Change the caption of the picture of the larva in the rose in the Behaviour and ecology section to something like, "Rose stem sawfly (Hartigia trimaculata) larva in a rose stem"

Done.

• In the cladogram in the Taxonomy section, why is "Apocrita" in all caps?

Perhaps Chiswick Chap has the answer to this question!

• duplinks
  • Apocrita (twice in the Phylogeny section)

Done.

• • Tenthredinoidea (once in the Taxonomy section)

Done.

• • Mesozoic (once in the Description section)

Done.

• • Tenthredinidae (once in the Distribution section)

Done.

• • Xyelidae (once in the Distribution section)

Done.

• • Orussidae (once in the Distribution section)

Done.

• • Batesian mimicry (once in the Behaviour and ecology section)

Done.

• • Parasitoids (once in the Parasites section)

Done.

• • Diprionidae (once in the Relationship with humans section)

Done.

• In the Parasites section, change, "more than 40 species known to attack them," to, "more than 40 species are known to attack them"

Done.

• In the Parasites section, "possibly collect and expert their natural enemies"

Done.

• In the Life cycle and reproduction section, change, "...with some emerging in just a couple months, to others in 1 – 2 years," to, "...with some emerging in just a couple months, and others in 1 – 2 years," or, "...emerging anywhere between a couple months to 2 years"

Done I think.

• In the Life cycle and reproduction section, remove, "As previously mentioned"

Done.

• In the Life cycle and reproduction section, change, "The larva live in sycamore trees and does not..." to, "The larvae live in sycamore trees and do not..." or, "The larva lives in sycamore trees and does not..."

Done.

• In the Life cycle and reproduction section, change, "Once inside, upper cuticles disc separates and descends..." to, "Once inside, the upper-cuticle's disc separates and descends..." or, "Once inside, the upper-cuticle discs separate and descend..."

Done.

• In the Life cycle and reproduction section, make sure the entire second paragraph is either singular or plural (for example, the entire second paragraph uses either "larva" or "larvae", but not both even in different sentences)

Did some changes.

• In the Relationship with humans section, "Sawflies are important economic pests of forestry..." when you say "important" it implies its beneficial. Try using "major" instead

Done.

• In the Relationship with humans section, change, "...pests of forestry, where species in the Diprionidae such as the pine sawflies, Diprion pini and Neodiprion sertifer cause serious damage..." to, "...pests of forestry. For example, species in the Diprionidae, such as the pine sawflies( (/, ) Diprion pini and Neodiprion sertifer( )/, ) cause serious damage..."

Done.

• In the Relationship with humans section, change, "...the rose sawflies Arge pagana and A. ochropus defoliate..." to, "...the rose sawflies, Arge pagana and A. ochropus, defoliate..."

Done.

• Ovipositor is wikilinked for the first time in the Relationship with humans section, when it should be wikilinked in the Etymology section

Seems ovipositor is already lnked in the etymology section, but I have delinked the one you mentioned.

• Mimicry is wikilinked for the first time in the Relationship with humans section, when it should be wikilinked in the Behaviour and ecology section, or not at all considering its referring to Batesian mimicry specifically which is already wikilinked multiple times

Done.

• In the Relationship with humans section, "...can be sprayed with a number of chemicals, including maldison, dimethoate and carbaryl if removing larvae..." add a comma before "if" since the listing of chemicals is an interrupter

Done.

• add the |language=German parameter to ref no. 1

Done.

• ref no. 2 has a free version at http://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3703.1.12/4282

Thanks, added in.

• remove the url for ref no. 14 because it doesn't lead to a full version of the article

Done.

• add the |language=German parameter to ref no. 25

Done.

• for ref no. 46, add the |year=2014

Done.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sawfly. 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/20150924092616/http://www.royensoc.co.uk/sites/default/files/Vol06_Part02b.pdf to http://www.royensoc.co.uk/sites/default/files/Vol06_Part02b.pdf

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) 20:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Woodwasp" redirects to Horntail. "Wood wasp" and "wood_wasp" redirect to here. They should all redirect to "horntail". 03:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The sentence " ... The larvae of some species have anti-predator adaptations such as regurgitating irritating liquid and clustering together for safety in numbers ... " needs something added to the end something similar to : "leading to a common name, 'spitfires' ". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E448:D401:8D0A:BEC2:3FCB:6135 (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Parasitism" was just added to the taxonomic diagram, but are there not parasitic/parasitoid lineages outside that branch? IAmNitpicking (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The other groups eat leaves or wood. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parasitism was not recently added, it has been there for many years. In my recent edit, I thought about removing it as its not in the source and not all descendants are parasitic (e.g. Aculeata). However, more recent studies and reviews do label that branch. Peters et al (2017) call it "parasitoidism".

On the subject of recent edits, I added the labels (Vespina and Unicalcarida) because they are in the source (Schulmeister's 2003 paper and her website). Moreover more recent work like Peters et al (2017) also use those labels, so they have passed the test of time. So I think they should be restored. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt that scientists widely call the clade parasitic, though "parasitoidal" would in modern but ORish terms be more accurate. The two recent clade name labels (as I already remarked) make no sense without a complete set, which aren't available in the source; further (as I already also remarked), the labels (let alone a putative complete set) make the tree inconveniently wide to read on many devices. If we did have a source for a complete set and decided to use such labels, then we could use "U" for Unicalcarida and "V" for Vespina, etc etc, with a key beneath the tree; but I frankly don't think a set of obscure, unlinked clade names (whose meaning is no more than "this is the name given to this node in this tree") will help any readers; the few who know the names already don't need our help. Chiswick Chap (talk)

If adding two labels, only one of which widens the cladogram, is a problem for display on some devices, I don't see how a complete set would be an improvement. I think we should follow sources on what labels are important, which is why those two are appropriate. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least we agree on not needing even more labels, thank you. I can't for the life of me see any point in drawing attention to one of the nodes in the tree at the expense of a lot of similar, equally interesting nodes. The usual name for that is WP:UNDUE, if not WP:NPOV if some author has an axe to grind about some particular label. On one point we can be quite clear: the article must be neutral and even-handed. Schulmeister 2003 does not give any reason why she and we should be specially interested in Unicalcarida. If there is such a reason, in other sources, then that reason should be plainly stated in the article text, and cited, at which point it would make sense to put it in the tree: but not until. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]