Talk:Drosophila melanogaster

message: Quote: "Genetically speaking, people and fruit flies are very similar. About 61% of known human disease genes have a recognizable match in the genetic code of fruit flies, and 50% of fly protein sequences have mammalian analogues." 50-60% shared genes does not, genetically speaking, make humans and fruit flies very similar! Recommend deletion or re-wording.
I agree, I'm looking for a reference to the genetically similar to humans.., can somebody provide one please?
:Here is a genome comparison tool you can play around with: Taxonomy Plot. In the page I linked to, you can see a search for human proteins that have similar corresponding proteins in Drosophila and the mouse. BLAST is a standard algorithm for comparing protein sequence similarity. I set the BLAST sequence algorithm cutoff high (3000) so that only the most conserved proteins are shown. Note that while there are 285 mouse proteins with BLAST scores above 3000, there are only 6 for Drosophila. The one gene that I selected in the plot (the circled diamond) codes for a large cell surface protein that seems to function in cell adhesion and/or cell growth regulation (it is called "FAT" because mutant larvae in Drosophila had over-grown tissues and were "fat"). If you go to the bottom of the page and click on "5240" you can see the protein sequence comparison of the Drosophila and human FAT proteins (32% identity). Note all of the sequence positions where the human and Drosophila sequences differ. Go back to the first page and click on "18905". Notice how the mouse and human FAT proteins are very similar (81% identity). Compared to a mouse, Drosophila is much less genetically similar to humans. If you did a similar comparison of human, Drosophila and a bacterium, you would conclude that Drosophila is much more genetically similar to humans than a bacterium. 
::I think the question is, is it accurate and important to say that fruit flies are genetically similar to humans? I mean, if we were to construct a list of "animals that are genetically similar to humans", where would fruit flies rank?  Would it be safe to assume that they're way down on the list, next to every mammal in the world and a good number of other animals?  Would it be better to say that the genetic similarities that fruit flies do have with humans makes them suitable (in some ways) for disease studies? FireWorks 21:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is important to explain why it has been useful to study flies. In evolutionary terms, about three quarters of a billion years ago, all of the types of genes required to produce a complex multicellular organism started to become available in a common ancestor to flies and humans. Flies and humans are both examples of the many types of complex multicellular organisms that can be produced. Many of the key developmental processes that are used to produce any complex multicellular organism can be understood by study of the genes that control development of flies. The body segmentation control genes provide a good example. In contrast, study of the genes of bacterial cells will tell you very little about how to make a multicellular organism. It is true that study of fly genes has been useful for understanding some human diseases, but the study of mammals such as mice is more useful for the study of many human diseases and some developmental processes. For example, you could learn very little about the basic genetic controls for human sex determination by studying flies, but mice use a very similar system. Rather than just throw out phrases like "closely related" and "distantly related" you have to give some specific examples. --JWSchmidt 22:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm editing the same article on Finnish Wikipedia and I was able to gather some references for the statements, but the figures I got were pretty different: The disease-gene homology between man and fly (according to the Reiter et al article cited here also), is 77% and not 75% as stated in Drosophila melanogaster. The overall similarity of man and fly, which in here is said to be 44% I changed to about 20% in the Finnish version and referenced it (very poorly) using Venter's human sequence paper, which states the number of human-fly orthologous genes they found. Then I just divided the number with the total gene number to get the presentage. The 50% protein homology to mammals I couldn't source. Any suggestions on that (or disagreement on my changed numbers)? I might change the numbers here also at some point and reference them, if there are no objections. I'm only a bit unsure, if these kind of exact numbers or presentages are needed at all. --Albval 10:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic similarities to humans 

message: There are two sections that discuss mating rituals, one in the Life Cycle section and one in its own section, which has been tagged for lack of references.  I suggest that the two be merged in the Life Cycle section, or the latter deleted due to lack of verification. --Digitalgadget 05:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mating 

message: I believe this example is too specific. (it was removed without explanation and replaced). Perhaps using it as an example rather than the way it is right now where it has no context. I'll do this when I have a chance, unless there are strenuous objections. Flyguy649 05:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tinman gene removal 

message: Why does the article state that the Drosophila genome was sequenced in 1998 although the referenced sequence paper came out two years later, in 2000? Is that a mistake or am I just missing something? --Albval 10:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue is the reason why I tagged the article with . --B.d.mills 06:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked on PubMed, and the first publication of the Drosophila genome was in 2000, although it has since of course been improved upon. I'll change the article now. Regards, Flyguy649talkcontribs 16:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sequencing year / Contradict tag

message: Would this article, Maintenance of a Drosophila Laboratory: General Procedures, be useful to add to the external links section? Drosophila is not my area of interest, thought it best to ask. Zzorse 00:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia, not a how-to guide. So although the info in this link is useful to Drosophilists, people do not need to find that at Wikipedia. In fact, most Drosophila labs would probably have that protocol (or more likely, "Laboratory Culture of Drosophila," which it is adapted from; our lab does). Flyguy649talkcontribs 00:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External Link

message: In this edit, an anon changed "The eggs, which are about 0.5 millimetres long, hatch after 12–15 h (at 25 °C (77 °F))" to "...hatch after 20-22 h..." without comment.  I've assumed this is just experimentation and reverted, but could someone kindly confirm the true duration, ideally using one of the Ashburner sources?  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please check time for eggs to hatch at 25 degrees C 

message: Nope I don't think a split is a good idea currently. The article stands at 27kb, which would shrink a bit with some copyediting I am sure, and is smaller than most other biological Featured Articles. The vision section pertains to this organism and as WP is not paper, can be reduplicated elsewhere. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussing a split 

message: Where is the genome that decide wich eye colour the fly will get?   The great Darren shan fan  12:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Eye colour in flies is somewhat complex. The colour is determined by the levels of red and brown pigments in the pigment granules within the eye. Both pigments require the product of the white gene (on the X chromosome) to get into the pigment granules. The red pigments also require the product of the brown gene (on chromosome 2), while the brown pigments require the product of the scarlet gene (on chromosome 3). Many other genes (found on all chromosomes) affect the production or transport of these pigments. There is a good explanation of this at this blog link. -- Flyguy649 talk 13:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  eye colour 

message: What is the best way to capture fruit flies without hurting them, so that I can study there life cycle in an experiment?--HomeschooledGenius (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fruit flies (at least many Drosophila species) eat the yeast growing on rotting fruit. You can put some ripe banana in a cup or bowl covered in plastic wrap with small holes poked into it. The flies will smell the fruit and get in, but they aren't so good at getting out. After you get a few in there, the females will lay eggs. You can probably get rid of your captives and transfer the banana to some other convenient container with some fresh banana. In 10-14 days or so, you'll have a new generation of flies. -- Flyguy649 talk 13:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fruit Flies Experiment 

message: I think this article should include a section dealing with all the natural mutant strains of D. melanogaster, with respect to body colour, wings, hair, eye colour, etc, with images. Also artificial mutants should be mentioned.Proquence (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mutant strains?

message: Is it worth mentioning that there is a debate as to whether the species should be renamed Sophophora melanogaster and that there is a petition at the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to make the species the type specimen for the genus in order to retain the name at Drosophila melanogaster? Info at Dalton, R (2009) "A Fly by any other name" Nature 457 (7228): 368  . Sabine's Sunbird  talk 01:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A more recent article on the discussion - Nature  464, 825 (2010) |  Average Earthman (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  taxonomy 

message: This seems to be an important aspect of the species.  The normal XX female and XY male, but also XXY female etc... This is probably significant since non-disjunction is common and it results in different sexes(as compared with human non-disjunction)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.180.167 (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  drosophila sex chromosomes 

message: Just FYI to the maintainers of this page: the scientific name of this species my officially change.
http://www.iczn.org/content/drosophila-melanogaster-opinion-issued-case-3407
Either way, it looks like there is some interesting new information about this species that needs to be included in the article.
– VisionHolder « talk » 22:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It'll be interesting to see what happens. I suspect even if the taxonomists change the name, all the geneticists and others in the field won't. WP:COMMONNAME may apply, so if the species is renamed Sophophora melanogaster, it may be appropriate to leave the main article at Drosophila melanogaster. -- Flyguy649 talk 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential renaming of species 

message: no weight of Drosophila in article.--Ll0l00l (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  weight 

message: The current picture is in a file format (PNG) that cannot be displayed by programs to view stereo image pairs, it contains a black and white division line that should not be there and it's also asymmetrical (the part on the left is larger than the part on the right).
I propose to replace it with this one. Reason: it is an actual stereo pair, where the left half contains only information for the right eye and the right half contains only information for the left eye. Also, it is in a format (JPG) that programs to view stereo pairs with shutterglasses or head-mounted displays support just by changing the extension from JPG to JPS. Devil Master (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to replace the stereo image of the eye

message: Hi everyone, I fixed up the first paragraph of the Introduction section, as there were many run-on sentences that were a little unclear. I tried to make the language sound more professional. I was going to edit the second paragraph as well.. But it's a run-on sentence that contains some information at the end that I think is not within the scope of this article. Not quite sure what to do with it. I propose that the second paragraph just include the following information:
Flies belonging to the family Tephritidae are also called fruit flies, which can lead to confusion, particularly in Australia and South Africa, where the term fruit fly is used to refer to members of the Tephritidae family. 
Any thoughts?
Nawalani (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: The article lists a number of around 15.000, but the link to the NCBI says 15.581.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/?term=drosophila%20melanogaster
My proposal is to (a) use that number and (b) also make a direct link to that entry from within the article. Any objections to that? 62.47.246.47 (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Genes 

message: It would be good to make it clear to original habitat and geographic distribution of the species. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Where did they come from

message: Do the eggs really look like the "winged" cocoons (strange coincidence)? or this a mistake like those "ant eggs"?
Does [stage 13 (e)] really compare with 
[this]?
--Empro2 (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong image – or caption? 

message: This verbose new section, added by SLUlax414, can probably be synthesized in a couple of sentences and with properly formatted sources per templates in WP:CITE and details readily available on the web. It doesn't impress as important enough to justify its own section, but rather could be stated briefly under "Behavior and learning". Also, WP:NOTJOURNAL should apply. I'm putting it here for discussion and revision. --Zefr (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Polygamy section

message: There was really only one spot that needed to be fixed, and it was a comma splice.  This article is very well developed, well organized and well cited.  There are some sentences within the "Lifecycle and Reproduction" section that do not have citations after each sentence.  That is really the only thing that I can see that needs some work on, but I know that can be hard since the information probably was already there previous to your contributions.  You did a really great job connecting sexual selection to polygamy.  Good work! Anon330 (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New edits 

message: I could not edit your article since yours is removed in the actual page, so I am going to place my suggestions and edits on this talk page. Your article is well-organized and flows well. For the last paragraph, what I would suggest is that I would link the word “socio-sexual interaction” with Wikipedia page or place the definition of it so that people can exactly know what it is. Also, I suggest to add what DN1s and LNDs are even though you are already saying that they are oscillator neurons. You explain about what DN1 neuron is, but not about what LND is. I recommend to put briefly for the definition so that it is not too technical. In addition, I would add “for females,” in front of the sentence, “mating with multiple partners provides no advantage over mating with one partner, and therefore females exhibit no difference in evening activity between polygamous and monogamous individuals.” Without “for females,” it sounds like males mating with multiple partners have no benefits either. The overall information was good, and there was nothing to change for structures or grammars. Jihyek13 (talk) 06:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for future edits 

message: I have added my reviewed and revised version of polygamy to the article. I have rephrased the section and removed some unnecessary information. I hope that this addition will be concise and informative enough to remain on the page. I appreciate all of the feedback and criticism that I have received and thank everyone for their time and work! 24.107.15.74 (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polygamy Addition 

message: "Compared to these and numerous other exaggerated sexual traits, fruit-fly sperm are probably the most extreme example in the animal kingdom," finds Luepold. In the case of Drosophila bifurca, they are around 20 times longer than the male itself and thus transmitted as tightly coiled balls.
http://phys.org/news/2016-05-fruit-sperm-giant.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7604/full/nature18005.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stankot (talk • contribs) 13:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sperm 

message: Drosophila Chromosomes: In Drosophila melanogaster there are 4 homologous pairs of chromosomes: 2 pairs of large autosomes, ( one slightly smaller than the other pair), 1 pair of very small autosomes, and a pair of sex chromosomes. Females normally have two X chromosomes; males have one X and one tiny Y chromosome.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410D:3400:C5A9:D65A:9D40:AB41 (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  add chromosome number on main chart 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Drosophila melanogaster. 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://www.webcitation.org/5nDbhU1QX?url=https://dlib.stanford.edu:6521/text1/dd-ill/insekten6.pdf to https://dlib.stanford.edu:6521/text1/dd-ill/insekten6.pdf
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) 05:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I had added a macro image of Fruit Fly Pupa with the fly still inside the pupa. This change was reverted by Zefr on Oct 31, 2017. The reason being "low value". Its not clear to me how this is of low value. The image is of great quality and secondly, the image is of great value to the article itself as it provides detailed photographic information on the fruit fly pupa. So need consensus from folks if this picture can be restored in the article. The image I want to add is shown here. 
Sanjay Acharya (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting of Pupa Macro Image 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Drosophila melanogaster. 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/20090815020557/http://flybase.bio.indiana.edu/ to http://flybase.bio.indiana.edu/
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) 19:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Drosophila melanogaster. 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/20070207233537/http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?ch=9&id=87 to http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?ch=9&id=87
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924034953/http://www.ini.unizh.ch/~pfmjv/InsectCognition/science_300_495.fly-flight.pdf to http://www.ini.unizh.ch/~pfmjv/InsectCognition/science_300_495.fly-flight.pdf
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) 12:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello, as part of Salem College's Wiki Strom Edit a thon to advance women in the field of science and technology and Wiki Education project. We will be making a series of edits both in content and adding pictures with the help of some expert editor. Suggestions and improvements are welcome, there will be quite a bit expanded on this topic. Thank you all for such great content that has already been added! Rdinws (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic Mutations - Push from Wiki Storm Edit a Thon 

message: Although it may be true for the small number of mutations listed in the following section, the fact stated on the Drosophila page stating that male fruit flies do not show meiotic recombination is false. For the trait vermillion eyes (which is simply a brighter red than the wild-type red), the males are in fact the only ones to show recombinance. It takes two generations to see this trait appear when white virgin females are mated with vermillion eyed males. The first generation will show all females will have red (wild type) eyes and all of the males will have white eyes. This also displays the fact that vermillion eyes is a sex-linked recessive trait. When the resulting males and females from F1 are mated, only 1/4 of their offspring is predicted to have vermillion eyes, all of which are male. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that males do not show meiotic recombination. MUTATION INDUCTION IN THE MALE RECOMBINATION STRAINS OF DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER> Morgan.proulx (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for use in laboratories 

message: 1st: Food-based: 
The content was relevant, however, the sentences should be more concise. I understand it is the topic, but there is excessive use of the word aggression that can be limited. 
"The level of aggression associated with food is simply derived from the amount of food available and is independent of any social interactions between the males" 
--> "In relation to food, aggression levels is dependent on the amount of food available." I think you can also separate these sentences since it is long. 
- Is there a specific threshold? Or, does this threshold vary between locations? I also think the last sentence could be moved to right after "the independent of social interaction."
- the territorial marker is slightly confusing - Or, you should not that this was for when competition was still high (limited food)
2nd Paragraph: 
You should double check the subject-verb agreement as well as condense your sentences. 
3rd Paragraph:
I think you can remove the first sentence because sleep should connect back moreso aggression rather than survival and reproduction
The sleep paragraph does not seem relevant to the topic. Aggression is shown to be affected in one sentence. However, the majority of the paragraph moreso illustrates the functional role of sleep to survival and reproduction. However, the topic sentence of this section was detailed "another behavior for survival and reproduction is aggression."
Overall: 
It would be better if it detailed subtopics to be clearer. If this section is Aggression, then subtopics should be used to clearly explain it such as: 
Topic: Aggression
Subtopic: Behavior: 
-Explain the overall relevance and specify the behavior,
- talk about behavior in response to the stimuli (what supports vs against, sleep deprived - reduced aggression)
Subtopic: Neuroanatomy/Genetic/Molecular Mechanism 
-- specific genes relating to aggression (i.e. auditory)
-- octopamine agonist signaling
OR: 
1. Food
2. Hearing
3. Sleep Deprivation 
Furthermore, this section seems to revolve around the survival and reproduction more than aggression. This can be seen with the beginning of the 1st paragraph and majority of the 3rd. Section should contain more information just related to aggression. 
Hnguyc (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aggression 

message: Thank you for your detailed feedback. I wasn't aware that it seemed like 3 separate topics until you addressed it. Andrn10 (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Responding to peer review

message: Hello,
How does generating transgenic flies contribute to scientific advances?
Thanks,
EGN1772 (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transgenesis  

message: While reading the section 'Vision', I noticed that it did not mention anything about the white-eyed genotype and the blindness that occurs with it. Is this somewhere else in the page that I overlooked or should we consider adding information about it? Frostj1772 (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vision  

message: Hello  I added the text. I took it from Zhu & Han.
This effect is probably due to a reduced level of proapoptotic ceramide in the CDase mutant, given that a mutation in ceramide kinase (Cerk) causes the opposite effect (28).
Is this not correct? Invasive Spices (talk) 19 November 2022 (UTC)
:Hi,  That's what they wrote and that's everything else than clear prose. That's why I think you can't just cite a review. According to Dasgupta et al. (2009):
Ceramide kinase (CERK), a recently cloned lipid kinase, phosphorylates ceramide to ceramide 1–phosphate (C-1-P), thereby decreasing ceramide levels (13, 14).
:So the effect is if you knock out or knock down of ceramide kinase you end up with more ceramide in the system, and in the knockdown mutant (it just has less than 2% of ceramide kinase than the wild type) you have indeed cell death of photoreceptor cells. But not because ceramide kinase made more ceramide, but because ceramide kinase did not remove as much ceramide. So let's see what you wrote:
Ceramide kinase is found to increase proapoptotic ceramide activity by Dasgupta et al. 2009, and this increases photoreceptor cell apoptotic turnover.
:The first piece should be: "Ceramide kinase is found to the amount of ceramide." I don't see why Dasgupta et al. 2009 need to be mentioned in the text. It is not that we compare the results from different people, discuss their results specifically, or that we have to attribute a figure to them. The other thing is that Dasgupta et al. 2009 did not show that the increased ceramide causes cell death. In fact the cells do not die in mutant flies kept in the dark, so it does not make the cells die, directly. But it must have to do something the with screwing up the phototransduction cascade. In fact, these mutant flies are blind. Then the report of Dasgupta et al. (2009) gets a bit murky, as far as I can see is that ceramide accumulates in the cell membrane and disturbs the distribution of Pip2 and may also influence the PLC. However, they did not try to figure out what actually causes cell death.
:Just another note, I wouldn't call apoptopic turnover either, because that implies some cycle and thus cell regeneration, for that I would like to see a paper.
:Obviously, that too much ceramide leads to cell death with light is just some pathologic effect and thus is hard to say from that what is its physiologic function. My other problem was that this sentence you wrote did not really connect with the rest. I thought there was a way to integrate it via its regulation of Pip2 and the PLC, however since I looked at the paper again while writing this, it rather seems that what Dasgupta et al. (2009) found is just the effect of some pathology and the actual function ceramide kinase is then making ceramide 1–phosphate and the point is then whatever ceramide 1–phosphate does. -- Martin Gühmann (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ceramide kinase 

message: Drosophila 106.210.249.44 (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is successful of having major sections that covers the topic, but the leading section does not mention a brief description of the major sections. The content overall was concise with a neutral point of view. There have been recent edits on the article. Therefore, I believe the paper is up to date.Ajaslay (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biology 

message: Hi,
While a complete description of the nervous system is more than the connectome, information about the animal's nervous system is concentrated under "Connectome". A "Neuroanatomy" section with "Connectome" as subsection would be an improvement. Any objections? Thx, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology and document structure 

message: Hi everyone! The Drosophila melanogaster page is overgrown. Wikipedia recommends that articles be kept under 8,000 words to improve readability. This article has ~10,000 words.
This could be a touchy subject, but what sections have unnecessary detail, and could be shortened/split/moved to other articles? Ideas: 
Vision (there was a discussion about this, below, in 2005), Immunity, Aggression, Connectome, Adh gene mutation (doesn't fit in with classic genetic mutations section)
Do others agree? Thanks. The Tuthill lab (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article size 

message: I believe this is the same species that tends to infest bars and pubs in the early autumn fruiting season, feeding on spilt beer and other sugary substances. The article doesn't mention this at all Ef80 (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your suggestion. I added a bit about this in the intro. The Tuthill lab (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beer flies / bar flies