Talk:Spanish fly/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. Andrewa 15:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Spanish fly (insect) → Spanish fly – make the primary usage the base name JHunterJ 15:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support - The insect is the primary and original use of the term. WormRunner 18:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Note that I found one other article already in existence with a similar name, and placed the 2003 film at its most simple name (Spanish Fly). -- nae'blis 04:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Venomous?

Why would anyone add a "Venomous animals" category tag to this article? It sounds as though this creature does not produce any venom, nor is it capable of delivering venom in any way, but is merely poisonous and generally "not good to eat" (like so many other insects). I suggest this tag be removed. --Jwinius 15:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Porn

A friend told me to type flies in google images it kept coming up with porn saying "spanish flies" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.146.62.135 (talk • contribs)

...So what? --BorgQueen 23:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wart medicine

Cantharidin was used before the 1960's in medicine in the United States as a topical agent used for the treatment of warts and molluscum contagiosum in humans. In 1962 it "lost approval" by the FDA, because the regulations changed, requiring drugs to show that they were both safe AND effective, which none of the manufacturers were willing to invest the money to do. So it languished as a treatment modality until the late 1990's, when it was proposed that it be added to the FDA's "bulk substances list" for agents that were felt to be useful in medicine, and were safe otherwise. Since then the FDA has been allowed it to be compounded into a topical colloid or gel for application to warts and molluscum in a doctors office (usually a dermatologist). I use it in the office, and it does a pretty good job.

Cantharidin Revisited: A Blistering Defense of an Ancient Medicine. Lisa Moed, BA; Tor A. Shwayder, MD; Mary Wu Chang, MD. Archives in Dermatology. 2001;137:1357-1360. http://archderm.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/137/10/1357 Schools in Pharmacology. Journal of Drugs in Dermatology. (Date: 2/1/2006) Author: Scheinfeld, Noah http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-142575974.html Dermfellow 00:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment 1

Probably the wrong place to put this, but I'm a bit of a new person to this, so please forgive me. "The cantharides excreted in the urine irritate the urethral passages.". The urethral passages of what? and why? is there any chance of some sort of clarification here, perhaps even a citation of some sort? On a similar note what are the effective dose and harmful dose? At least tell ud [i]what[/i] the difference is! "amount required..." Well, amount required for what? Harming a person? Being an "effective dose" actually causing a priapism? Tell us for God's sake! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.153.13.68 (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"The cantharides excreted in the urine irritate the urethral passages.". The urethral passages of what? and why?

Well, the urethral passages of whichever animal ingested the cantharidin. Why? Because it's an irritant and blistering agent. As for the specific difference between an "effective dose" and a "harmful dose", it's the same as for sniffing lighter fluid or Windex. You really don't need to know. Just avoid it based on sense and reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.196.33 (talk • contribs)

In discussing any poison (e.g. arsenic) it is reasonable to note the exact level of toxicity or even quote the LD50. From this article I do not know if a crumb or a whole handful of is beetles required. This is particularly relevant to the section on Aqua toffana, as the other ingredient, arsenic has an LD50 given as many grammes and certainly not a few drops. Thus either cantharides is very toxic or the whole story about Aqua toffana is a fabrication or perhaps propoganda. The suggestion that Aqua toffana causes painlesss death is a bit strange anyway as its stated ingredients cause irritation and cramps. ~~JDN the Scientist~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.202.145 (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It is possible that two poisons are much more lethal in combination than seperately. --Klausok (talk) 06:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Aqua Toffana is mentioned [1] on an educational website, unfortunately it is apparently from a bibliography of characters for a novel and references a Tripod page (definitely non-authoritative) and a moved page from the University of Maryland. The Oxford Journal of Personal Medicine has a page that redirects to a pdf [2] article on Aqua Toffana of unknown age (though the seeming degradation of the ink would indicate it is rather old). I would dare say that aqua toffana is indeed a real substance, although I haven't read the two page PDF to say whether it's effects as described are consistent. More research is necessary before calling this section definitive. Alex (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Some potential changes

I've been kicking around some thoughts on edits for this page as it seems a little disjointed:

1. I've heard Spanish fly used as the term for what is taken as an aphrodisiac, but I wasn't aware of it Spanish fly being an actual common name of the beetle here. If that is the case, I don't see any sources specifically stating that.
2. Right now, the article appears to be a WP:COATRACK for cantharidin. Obviously cantharid beetles are closely related to the topic, but this article only briefly mentions the beetle, but discusses cantharidin much more even though we already have an article for it. A lot of this information could be moved over to cantharidin instead.

So here's a few options I'm looking at in a rewrite. If Spanish fly is indeed the insect common name, then we focus on the species here and keep most of the aphrodisiac, etc. content over at cantharidin. If it is not the common name, then I would look to have an article with the species name instead, and move Spanish fly content over to cantharidin and have Spanish fly redirect there. Any thoughts on any of the above? I'm going to do some digging on this soon, but I thought I'd see if anyone else was interested in these issues as well. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Discrepant citation moved here

The citation attached to the following statement is from a crowd-source answer site, and so is not authoritative; moreover, the citation is incomplete (it cites a web source without giving the URL), and to the extent the article can be traced—an "Answers.com" article was fund for Spanish fly—it does not contain content on the range of habitats of the insect. So, the citation is removed, but left here in case it is of use to anyone:

The L. vesicatoria beetle lives in scrublands and woods throughout southern Europe and eastward to Central Asia and Siberia.

Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Le Prof

Discrepant text moved here

The following text was inconsistent with the main article on the subject, so rather than allow different descriptions to remain, the main article, on Aqua toffana was untouched, and the discrepant text in this article, was moved to talk, as follows:

Aqua toffana, or aquetta di Napoli, was one of the poisons associated with the Medicis. Thought to be a mixture of arsenic and cantharides, this was reportedly created by an Italian countess, Toffana. Four to six drops of this poison in water or wine was enough to deliver death in a few hours.

The issue is the composition of the Aqua toffana poison, which here is said to contain cantharides, while at the main article, neither cantharides, Spanish fly, or the beetles are mentioned. If editors wish this to remain in, please place it first in the main article, and then in summary form (one sentence), here. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Article as of this date was renamed, to differentiate insect from natural product

Please place insect information here. Please place any information on the natural product (chemical compound, its activities, etc.), including preparations of it, at the cantharidin article. While some information on the preparation of powders, extracts, etc., from this one species can appear here, the general preparation of cantharides should appear at the cantharidin article. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Article title

Articles about species are normally named in Latin (in italics), unless they have a common English name, in which case that is generally used instead. It looks a bit odd using both. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The title is an abomination but is the result of a fairly recent move. I think the move was well intentioned though (see third thread above). It's worth differentiating the product (cantharidin) from the insect (Lytta vesicatoria). Spanish fly should be a dab page if this distinction is maintained. Plantdrew (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The title is an abomination and the page should be returned to its COMMON ENGLISH name at spanish fly. The chemical can maintain its own page with a hatnote link. — LlywelynII 16:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, sorry I hadn't seen your comments. There is already a dab page so that seems well taken care of. I've moved the article as suggested; a suitable hatnote is already in place. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)