Talk:Drosophila

message: At the beginning of this article this can be read: (Greek δροσος, drosos, "dew", + φιλα phila, "loving").  Actually, φιλα doesn't exist in classic Greek with that meaning. When creating scientific names, Greek roots are modified into Latin spellings and, sometimes, Latin morphemes (-a is a femenine suffix). The most similar word should be φίλη (phílē, which means "a female friend" or "beloved", not "loving"); -phila is just a scientific creation from  the verb φιλέω, philéō, "to love" + the Latin femenine suffix -a. - Piolinfax 13:25, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: On the etymology

message: This article should be merged with Drosophila melanogaster. --24.14.254.14 02:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because it deals with the genus Drosophila, not with the species D.melanogaster. Nina 20:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but considering that the genus Drosophila contains about 1000 species, much if not most of the material on this page is actually about D. melanogaster and should be moved there. We should mention somewhere that modern geneticists and molecular biologists often use the terms "Drosophila" and "fruit fly" sloppily to refer to Drosophila melanogaster. AxelBoldt 01:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the same problem with the page for the genus Arabidopsis and the species Arabidopsis thaliana.  I tried to fix it by changing the genus page.  I moved out everything about thaliana and used a bold text at the top to redirect to the model system. Much of the problem is that people mistakenly link to Arabidopsis (or Drosophila) instead of the respective species pages.  Then people start to add info assuming it is the page about the model system instead of the genus. David D. 20:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Similar article

message: Much of the information in this article was added on 25 Nov 2003 by user:Hopetocome (who seems to since have left Wikipedia); see . A very strange edit  by user:Quyenphung on 17 May 2004 added quotes around a number of Hopetocome's statements and added references. I strongly suspect these references to be bogus: unless Quyenphung and Hopetocome are the same person, how would Quyenphung know the exact sources for the quoted statements? Furthermore, some of the claimed quotes are even non-grammatical.
If anyone has access to any of the cited sources, I would appreciate it if they could check the veracity of the claimed quotes. AxelBoldt 04:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I just did a Google search and found that at least the references to Weigmann 2003 are correct (see ). So probably everything is fine. AxelBoldt 04:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References are suspect; suspecting sophisticated vandalism 

message: I think this page needs a serious overhaul.
First of all, I think it is wise to make a clear separation between the genus and the various species, and the first line should indicate that D. melanogaster is a different page. 
Secondly, the genus is highly paraphyletic, and taxonomic changes are expected. In this line, it should be better integrated with the higner levels ((sub-)family) as well as the subdivision in the genus (subgenera Sophophora, Drosophila and Idiomyia (next to 6 smaller genera) and lower levels). Cureently, there is no good published phylogeny, but a review of an article has been submitted that sums the current status of the genus. In that line, the list of species should be removed and replaced with a link to Taxodros, as that is the best and most complete overview of all species. A seperate section can be made for those species that do have a seperate page on wiki. Else, we could just dump all species on the list, but the taxonomic changes in the genus are pretty frequent, so that requires a lot of maintenance. 
There is a tremendous amount of information on this genus available, but the current status is just a poor representation. I would opt for seperate headers for general information about morphology, ecology, physiology, behavviour, etc etc etc in so far it is genus level information, not melanogaster. --KimvdLinde 02:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a cleaned up version for the time being at User:KimvdLinde/Drosophila--KimvdLinde 04:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find long lists of red links to be less than helpful. It would be more useful to have a section that describes some of the diversity of the genus, links to the few existing Wikipedia articles for Drosophila species, and cites an authoritative source that provides a long list of species. (Good start towards such a revised section.) --JWSchmidt 04:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to the suggested version.....--KimvdLinde 04:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a general revision of the article.  It still needs some work, but it's getting there.  KarlM 07:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, an article does a proposal for change, and if others agree, it is followed. If it is not followed, it might not be accepted. So, it is slightly more difficult that just that. Just brushing aside the database of dr. Bächli as merely a database that juist publishes everything what is out there is incorrect. Only changes that seem to be stable are added to the database (pers. com. dr. Bächli). Om a different note, it is just a matter of time till the genus will be split in four major genera and Idiomyia will be a proper genus again. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Speaking as someone who works with Hawaiian Drosophilidae, I don't think there is much debate about which is valid: Idiomiya is not. The problem with it is that Grimaldi's classification was based on a morphological analysis, and had the Hawaiian Drosophila as a non-monophyletic grouping, with the crassifemur species group placed in with the genus Scaptomyza, and with the Hawaiian Scaptomyza as a non-monophyletic grouping. To the best of my knowledge, every single molecular study conducted since then has shown that the Hawaiian Drosophila are in fact monophyletic. Further complicating affairs, Grimaldi's Idiomiya is a radically different genus from the original Idiomiya, which initially included only a small subset of the picture-wings. MikeDunford 21:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would split the genus Drosophila, the taxonomical valid name will be Idiomyia. That Grimaldi's Idiomyia was radically different than the original is actually quite irrelevant, when it is established that a certain group needs a genus name, the oldest valid synonym of which the type species is within the group will become the genus name. This can and will require a redescription of the genus, which Grimaldi actually did. However, the genus Drosophila is a paraphyletic mess, which requires quite a big change in the nonemclature to resolve, and hopefully will be done within the near future. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, with regard to Idiomiya, except that the redescription is currently not attached to a clearly monophyletic group, and is itself in need of a redescription. With regard to the paraphyly of Drosophila, it is a huge mess, but I doubt it will get fixed any time soon, unless an exemption is granted to redesignate the type species for the genus. I've got a feeling that any attempt to remove melanogaster from Drosophila will result in much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but right now the type is funebris, and any possible redefinition would put funebris and melanogaster in separate genera. MikeDunford 22:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be needed to set funebris  and all other type speciemens aside by the ICZN, and mel has to become the new type. After that, splitting will leave D. mel with the correct name and saves a war among drosophilists. If you want more information, please, contact me off wiki, just follow the links --> -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General 

message: How come we have it as Musca funebris, even though it's a redirect to Drosophilia funebris?  Why are we not allowed to change it?--Mr Fink 05:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is because it was originally described with that name.  When the genus Drosophila was described, Fallén used the species Musca funebris as the type.  KarlM 07:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question concerning "''Musca funebris''"

message: I moved two of the three new pictures over to Drosophila melanogaster, since they're pretty much specific to it.  It's worth having one demonstrating eye mutants, since that's mentioned in the article, but it's really about the genus as a whole.  KarlM 07:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: I changed the first reference (bifurca = 6 cm sperm), and added another ref for "few giant sperm..." Flyguy649talkcontribs 06:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And yes, you read that correctly. 5.8 centimetres, not millimetres. Flyguy649 talk contribs 17:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sperm length 

message: Anybody know why the thumbnail for the eye color picture isn't showing up in the page?  If you click on the link the full picture displays fine, and it's encoded the same as it's always been, so I don't understand why it's not working.  KarlM 22:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a problem with WikiCommon's server.  It's one of those "Technical Difficulties" moments.--Mr Fink 22:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, you're quick at catching comments!  I just noticed the header about that and came back to delete my post, figuring no one would have read it yet.  KarlM 22:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Eye color pic not displaying

message: The term "picked-fruit flies" comes up with only about 15 hits in Google, several of which are just mirrors of this article.  Unless someone can find other evidence that it's actually common (in English; perhaps it's a translation of common usage somewhere else?), it should be left out.  I've certainly never heard it.  KarlM (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common names 

message: I've tweaked the taxobox, mostly using the trimmed version but with some modifications.  I work on Drosophila and IMO these are the taxonomically relevant ranks.  Below subfamily the ranks and mostly unused and will likely be changed around in the near future anyway; between Insecta and Drosophilidae the ranks are not particularly important for the discussion of the genus (I think they are appropriate on the Drosophilidae page).  If you have serious issues with it, let's hash out the reasoning here first and settle on a consensus.  KarlM (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Karl, I appreciate your input. The fact of the matter is that there is already a consensus. WP:TX is fairly clear about what ranks sre to be included, and as you rightly say, ranks such as Pterygota have no place in a species article. The insertion of large numbers of extraneous ranks is the personal quest of a single editor, and should not be given undue weight. --Stemonitis (talk)  06:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about?  There is nothing there that says what should or shouldn't be included.  Several of the ones you just deleted are useful (and much more so in the Drosophilidae article, where you also deleted them).   KarlM (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxobox editing 

message: I would like to encourage articles on other species of importance to studies of evolution in wild populations. For many years Theodosius Dobzhansky and his co-workers collected, bred and studied Drosophila persimilis from wild populations in California and elsewhere; Drosophila robusta, Drosophila ananassae, Drosophila  burchii, Drosophila melanica, Drosophila miranda, Drosophila  prosaltans, Drosophila serrata, Drosophila virilis, Drosophila willistoni, Drosophila paulistorum, Drosophila artificialis, Drosophila prosaltans have all made appearances in the evolutionary literature (see Dobzhansky T. 1970. Genetics of the evolutionary process. Columbia, N.Y.). From this perspective I would think an article on D. persimilis to be essential, and others, especially D. miranda and D. willistoni, highly desirable. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More articles on species of importance 

message: I would thank for linking here a past- homonymy with the Fungal Genus. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great thanks for distinguishing homonymy with a fungus 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Drosophila. 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/20051214205852/http://rana.lbl.gov:80/drosophila/ to http://rana.lbl.gov/drosophila/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130121085710/http://ccamp.res.in/fly-facility.html to http://ccamp.res.in/Fly-facility.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Drosophila. 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/20100527141042/http://rana.lbl.gov/drosophila/index.html to http://rana.lbl.gov/drosophila/index.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://rana.lbl.gov/drosophila/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm not saying that I care too much about it, but I was mystified a bit when user:Leschnei removed the link in the "See also" section regarding the adage about attracting more flies with honey than vinegar - Drosophila flies are also known as "vinegar flies"... get it? Sure it doesn't contribute direct information about the Drosophila, but it arguably does make the page more interesting and adds humor. Aren't you also trying to get people interested in the topics you're writing about? The link was inspired by the main French Wikipedia home page in their "Did you know" section about Drosophila...Smellyshirt5 (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little humor to the page. 

message: The section on 'use in genetic research' seems to imply that Drosophila is especially closely related to humans.  Surely it isn't, at least when compared with any vertebrate species, e.g. mice or monkeys.  Presumably what is really meant is that many Drosophila genes are similar enough to human genes for evolutionary homologies to be identified, but the same would be true of many other organisms.  If I remember the history rightly, Drosophila originally became popular in genetics research for practical reasons:  they reproduce quickly and in large numbers, they are cheap and easy to keep, and they show a number of visibly identifiable mutations, which made them good subjects for early 'Mendelian' genetics.  Then it turned out that they also have 'giant' chromosomes in some of their cells, which makes them easy to examine under a microscope. 2A00:23C8:7906:1301:2027:569B:16F4:269D (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship to humans