Talk:Lachryphagy

Big claim to investigate

Here, we read: For most ophthalmotropic moth species, tears form the largest part of their diet and they are not specialized to a single host species (Buttiker 1964, 1967; Banziger 1972, 1987, 1992). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Darth Stabro talk 02:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Filodes fulvidorsalis drinking tears from a human eye, a behavior known as lachryphagy

• ... that some insects drink tears? Source: Jones, Lance E.; Grimaldi, David A. (2022-09-15). "Revision of the Nearctic Species of the Genus Amiota Loew (Diptera: Drosophilidae)". Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 458 (1). doi:10.1206/0003-0090.458.1.1. ISSN 0003-0090.
  • ALT1: ... that some insects drink the tears of their predators? Source: van den Burg, Matthijs P.; and de Rueda, Javier Aznar González (2021-01-01). "Lachryphagy by cockroaches: reptile tears to increase reproductive output?". Neotropical Biodiversity. 7 (1): 276–278. doi:10.1080/23766808.2021.1953892.
  • ALT2: ... that some bee colonies may have specialized tear-collectors? Source: Bänziger, Hans; Burgett, Michael D.; Bänziger, Saengdao; Klaithin, Kanokwan (2024). "Bees that love tears: A review of Lisotrigona congregating at human and animal eyes (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Meliponini)". Journal of Melittology (121). doi:10.17161/jom.vi121.22447. ISSN 2325-4467.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Keurbos

Created by Zanahary (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 18 past nominations.

꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC).

• Reviewing... Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Created from redirect in the last couple days, long enough, meets basic policy requirements.
• Noting that the same citation doesn't need to be add two sentences in a row (WP:REPCITE), but this isn't a policy requirement.
• One of the most interesting Wikipedia articles I've read in a while. The hooks are great. ALT1 is hardcore and would be my first choice.
• All hooks are cited and verified.
• QPQ in progress. It looks like you haven't done checks in the article yet, and the nominator is waiting for a reply.
• Assuming you finish the QPQ that's in progress, this should be good to go. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks Thebiguglyalien! The QPQ is done. As for repeated citations, I find it's helpful for me while adding to articles to add a citation to the end of every statement that may at some point be rearranged or separated from its later anchor. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

GA review

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

Nominator: Zanahary (talk · contribs) 15:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: BorealFox (talk · contribs) 20:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I'm BorealFox and I've come to review the article on lachryphagy. Let's go over the 6 Good Article criteria.

1. Well-written: Yes! A simple but informative intro tells us the most important details (that this is about insects consuming tears, the harm it can cause, and related behaviors) before getting slightly more complex. Parentheses are used to add important context, such as noting that sodium is needed for moth reproduction. I think that even someone unfamiliar with the topic would be able to read and understand all of this.

2. Verifiable, no original research: Yep, great job here too! I think the longest span without a citation is 5 sentences (in the "Feeding positions and conditions" part). Most sentences have a citation, and some have two or three citations. Many of the citations are from articles written in the last 5 years, making this a pretty up-to-date article, and the older articles cited (like the one from the 70s) are still relevant and used to back historical claims (like feeding on a horse's tears). Maybe you could add a few citations in the introduction, other than that this is good!

3. Broad coverage: Very, very broad! You were able to find five different groups of insects that engage in this behavior, divided across 4 categories, and each section also discusses what hosts they prefer (ranging from humans to anoles). You also included relevant details such as the risk of disease and the feeding positions taken by moths. A nitpick would be that the section on flies is short compared to the one on Lepidoptera, but that could easily just be because there aren't as many studies done on flies.

4. Neutral: Well, it's kinda hard to insert any sort of slant into an article about bugs that eat tears. I don't think anybody is getting into violent arguments over preferred hosts. I would say this article is pretty neutral, with no overt positivity or negativity indicated.

5. Stable: Looking at the talk page, doesn't seem to be a lot of drama aside from a claim that needed investigating back in April (it looks like that was cleared up though?). Again, I don't expect this to be a topic that invites edit wars, so we're probably good on this one.

6. Illustrated: The article excels here! There are plenty of images of different invertebrates (moths, butterflies, flies) feeding on tears from various hosts (humans, turtles, crocodiles). I also like that you included videos, one embedded (of the fly questing around an eye) and an externally linked one (of a moth drinking antbird tears). I also appreciate that you found video of a bird's tears being consumed, since, as you included (and sourced), that's an extremely rare phenonmenon. My ONLY complaint here would be that you should add an image (just one) to the section on stingless bees. Four long paragraphs and no image, after several well-illustrated sections, feels a little off.

All in all, very good! My advice would be to add an image for the stingless bees section, insert some citations to the intro, and you should be all set!BorealFox (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @BorealFox, thanks! I am working on getting stingless bee photos from Banziger. I may not be able to edit for a bit due to ambiguity about cell service in this country right now. I will be able to update you in the next few days. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:16, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @BorealFox! There are presently no freely-licensed photos of stingless bees in the taxa relevant to this article, and per MOS:LEADCITE, the lead does not need inline citations, as its summarized material is cited inline in the article body. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Good to know! I do wish there was a picture to add to the stingless bees section, but since that's not possible I guess it's not an issue. It was kinda nitpicking there anyway. Article should be good then! BorealFox (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Note to self

2008 source with AFAA Hawkins photo implies something about ungulates being essential to the evolution of lepidopteran lachryphagy. I think it's that one; otherwise it's the Banziger source with the baby hippo. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:38, 28 March 2026 (UTC)