Talk:Fontanellar gun

Inaccuracies

The statements that this is somehow restricted to North America are entirely incorrect. It needs a complete review and possibly redirect to the article on termite where this should be a proper section. Shyamal (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It's badly written and obviously partial, but the topic is certainly notable as an anti-predator adaptation, not just a part of termite. I'd say it deserves fuller and better treatment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not feel strongly abot the merge but feel that the use of the term "gun" in a N.Am. context is what seems to glorify the topic. Funny they don't talk about the slime guns of Onychophora. Shyamal (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's obviously ridiculous, as is the N.Am. stress and the lack of attention to all other species. However good sources are available if you feel like helping. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally the term "fontanellar gun" occurs twice in Google Scholar search, once in 1974 (in a amateur lepidopterists journal Psyche) and the other mention is a recent paper which may have got the term from Wikipedia. E O Wilson mentions a fontanellar "gun" (quotes his) in his Sociobiology (2000). I do not think the term is notable, it may just be catchy. The correct technical term used by termite experts including Krishna Kumar is "nasus" for the external structure and the gland is called the "frontal gland" (from frons, rather than fontanelle which is actually a vertebrate-centric term). What we have here is a US-centric neologism. The termite article which has been taken to GA by User:Burklemore1 seems to be quite accurate and concise on this aspect. Shyamal (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, "nasus" isn't a synonym for the "gun", and "frontal gland" isn't exactly one either. The term has been used in reliable but non-Scholar sources such as National Geographic, and Wilson's endorsement of the term is of course significant. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's two other sources that use the term.

• Comprehensive Insect Physiology, Biochemistry, and Pharmacology: Embryogenesis and reproduction

I think this is one of those situations where the term has been established and, even if it's a bad one that others hate, it's too late and has already been made significant. Unless another term comes to refer to the same thing and eclipses this usage, there's not much we can do. I, for example, really, really hate the name of the Central Dogma and even the creator admits that the use of the term "dogma" was incorrect and he didn't actually know what it meant. But, it's too late. Already an established term.

As for the rest of your discussion, apologies on just saying North American termites, the sources only spoke of those, with the Psyche one even saying that it is unique to the species, so I followed with what it said.

But I don't agree with the removal of all the descriptor information on the functionality of the gun and the methods by which it kills its targets. I feel like that is important information to have in the article. Sentences like "Attackers generally die within one or two days. Termites can fire their gun repeatedly." are just badly written, lacking detail and do not benefit our readers at all. Silverseren^C 16:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Shyamal: Chiswick Chap said they weren't going to be involved in this discussion and that I should speak with you. Silverseren^C 18:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid I am not too interested in debating this article. I would rather see improvement in key articles like termite. Shyamal (talk) 10:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, if no one is going to discuss this, then i'm just going to return the text to the previous state (while keeping the reference improvements and the change that points out its involved in termites in general, not just North American ones). Silverseren^C 23:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Reason

@Silver seren Is there a reason why this topic should have its own page when barely anyone reads it (1 pageview every couple weeks) and this page and the merge target are both stubs? Anthropophoca (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Anthropophoca, the Nasutitermitinae article is a stub, sure, but this one is not. Heck, you can see up above that other editors have rated it a C class. And that's without trying very hard to find further sources and information to add to this article. Page views are also irrelevant. I have gone ahead and modified the section in the other article though to have a main link back to this article. Also, you did the page views link wrong, you're linking to this talk page, not the main page. This is the link you want. And if you compare it to the Nasutitermitinae page, this page actually gets more page views than that one. Silverseren^C 16:36, 21 September 2025 (UTC)