Talk:Calliphoridae

message: The move of this from "blowfly" to "blow-fly" seems rather pointless, as both, plus "blow fly", are correct, and in common use. Also, according to [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common ==
PhaeniciaPhreak 00:22, 16 Jul 2005 (PST)
I feel that by including "blowflies" when explaining common names implies that it is correct.  Usually in entomology you combine the begining of the common name with the word flies only when that insect is not part of the order Diptera.  An example of this is whiteflies, which would be condsidered less correct if written as white flies.  I suggest that it just be removed as to not add confusion.  (165.91.10.141 (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: How 'bout an article on the musician Blowfly too?
: Go ahead and write it.  You'll have to write a disambig page to & put the appropriate template at the top of this page. Jimp 07:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musician 

message: I've removed this "(pronunciation: cal-li-PHOR-ri-dee)".  This is meaningless as a pronunciation guide.  What's needed is an IPA transcription.  Jimp 07:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: The subject "blow fly" (which really should not be hyphenated) should redirect to Calliphoridae.
All blow flies belong to Calliphoridae, but not all Calliphoridae are commonly known as blow flies.
I agree completely and try to figure out how to do this, but I cannot figure it out? Would someone who knows how, be willing to do this? Alli5414 (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: Does anyone mind if I change the taxobox photo to this one? I think it is much clearer than the current one, and doesn't have the reflective background. I will change it in a day if there are no responses. Thanks --liquidGhoul 07:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Listen"? Anyway, you can see the hair on the back of my fly, and it has much better focus on the hair on the abdomen. Also, the same number of legs can be seen on both photos. They both have the back legs obscured (acutally, I just noticed you can see the legs through the wings in my photo, and not in the other). --liquidGhoul 12:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed it. Your objections don't make any sense, the only way I can figure it, is if you mixed the photos up? --liquidGhoul 14:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: While the resolution is better, it's not really a close-up of the head, is it? It shows the whole fly, so if you make the swap, you'd have to change the caption - or can you do a digital zoom and crop? It may be that the zoom-crop trick is how the original photo was created, and then we'd have to see which one looks better when the head takes up an equivalent image space. Dyanega (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point - I've added a closer crop above. Martybugs (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'd say that photo is an improvement in quality - no reason not to go ahead and make the swap now. ;-) Dyanega (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New photo 

message: "The Primary Screwworm (Cochliomyia hominivorax) once a major pest in the South, has been eradicated through massive release of sterilized males."
The south of where? Can someone correct this? --Chris Wood 16:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: New World SWF is confined to the Western Hemisphere and occurs in tropical and subtropical areas of Central and South America as far south as Argentina. Previously, it occurred in the southern United States, but has been eliminated from that country and most of Mexico by a major sterile insect release method (SIRM) campaign.   Jens Nielsen 22:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspected it meant the southern United States. It seems to be a recurring problem that Americans sometimes forget to qualify what they write about their own country or people, forgetting that other countries and people exist. --Chris Wood 10:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes (sigh!), it happens all the time. It is in particular a problem in biology-related articles, as most of the literature focuses on the species of a particular area. For example, in none of my own books on insects, plants, or mushrooms is there any information on whether individual species occur on other continents at all. Makes it pretty hard.
 Jens Nielsen 10:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  South?? 

message: I am working in an office where many dead squirrels have been found in our ceiling. Now there are dozens of huge flies. Landlord doesn't seem too concerned and the bosses don't care because the flies are not in their offices (which actually have doors).
They have removed a few of the dead animals. Obviously not all because the flies and the smells keep coming.
The whole situation disgusts me, as well as my coworkers.
Can blowflies transmit any kinds of disease to humans?? I am very concerned about this as they are constantly buzzing around us and landing on our persons, desks, papers, etc.
Is there anything I could do on a legal level, citing this is an unhealthy environment? Unsanitary at least?
Someone please enlighten me...thanks
Grossed Out —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.80.147.241 (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q: Can blowflies transmit disease to humans???? 

message: There seems to be little need or purpose served by allowing the numerous personal attacks posted here by User:AzLehrer and his sockpuppet accounts ("Pandur" and "Condor"; see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/AzLehrer) to remain; the bottom line is that the academic community has rejected Lehrer's proposed classification, and WP follows the mainstream - especially in matters of taxonomic classification, where WP cannot accommodate multiple competing ideas. The edits by this editor violate WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN, WP:SPS, and others, and really don't need to be given continued exposure here. Readers interested in seeing these insults can do so by viewing the page history prior to today's date. Dyanega (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal attacks removed 

message: this sounds strange
Improving the sanitary levels within, and outside the home will go a long way to destroying the habitat in which the blowflies thrive.
In order to reach this goal certain rules of thumb should be followed. Firstly, ensure that all scraps of food – especially fruit, vegetables and meat – are discarded properly. It’s preferable to place these scraps into a sturdy dustbin or trash can with a tight fitting lid; by storing those in this way the vessels are less likely to be knocked over by scavenging animals, thus not exposing the contents to the elements and even more, the blowflies.
Secondly, it must be noted that the bins should be situated as far away from the premises as possible. This will limit the chance of other pests entering your home - once they realize they can’t get at the contents of the said bins.
Additionally, cleaning methods should be put into play when combating this particular kind of pest. Not only must care be taken in ensuring the inside of the bins are regularly cleaned but more importantly their outsides and the immediate area surrounding too.
it sounds like a how-to guide, and not very encyclopedic. also it is not sourced. 67.78.235.101 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 10:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the actual wording of WP policy, there is no literal requirement that every statement MUST be sourced; the key clause in the policy is in terms of whether or not the material is subject to challenge. In all honesty, the above passage is just plain sanitary common sense, and there is little if anything in it that can be shown to be inaccurate. In other words, this is a case where I would say a source would be nice, but it is not essential because I don't see why it should be challenged. However, you DO have a point about it not being very encyclopedic, and that is more of a judgment call. As it stands, the article is not so large or poorly-organized that the section in question really needs to be removed to reduce the clutter, and it also seems like the kind of information that readers might want to find here (and other editors might add back - perhaps worded differently - in future edits). On the whole, I don't think it's doing anyone a disservice to leave it in. Do you believe it really needs to be removed? Have you looked online to see if possibly you can find reliable sources that support this text or a re-edited version of it? Dyanega (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  improved sanitation 

message: I thought your article was very informative. There just needs to be more flow to it, especially between facts in the introduction. Minor changes such as the one I made to the egg color under development should help. Good job!Garza j e (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transitioning 

message: As students in forensic entomology, we have been assigned a group project of creating or editing a Wikipedia page on a topic related to the class. We originally had hoped to find lots of information on Calliphorinae but were unsuccessful. We hoped it would be okay if we took our research and what we have learned in class and updated your page. We are new to Wikipedia and want to do everything correctly, so please help guide us in this assignment as we seek to add more information to your current page. Thanks. Alli5414 (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  updating the page 

message: Many sections of the article don't appear to have citations at the end of sentences and you may want to consider adding these citations. It should be made clear what parts of the article were obtained from which sources. Great job overall on the article. Motoliyat (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Perhaps on the disease section, it could be explained exactly how the fly transmits dysentery and how it is a vector.  Simply saying that the fly is a vector does not clarify for the common reader how the transmission of the disease transpires. Otherwise, awesome pictures, and keep up the good work. Csb14 (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifications 

message: Great article, one thing I would be intrested to hear more about is which diseases and bacteria specifically Lucilia are associated with. If you add a link to Lucilia illustris it might help readers to find out more about Lucilia's involvement in medicine.Hold323 (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disease 

message: Howdy! loved the article, very informative. The pictures were just down right amazing, very detailed. Maybe more info on the Calliphora vicina and the Cynomya mortuorum could be added for further clarification as to why these 2 specific flies are of importance to forensic entomology. overall good job on the research, the pictures and the article as a whole. Thanks and Gig 'Em (DivoTheAggie (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: All of the epithets "blow fly, blow-fly, blowfly, greenbottle, bluebottle, green bottle, blue bottle, cluster, carrion, et al flies should redirect to Calliphoridae. Organisms are most accurately classified according to the binomial system, not the colloquial, capricious and controversial common names, which are anything but common. This has been mentioned before but never accomplished. Redirects according to spelling whims are silly and counterproductive. Blow-fly. Really? Is that the accepted scientific designation for these creatures?
Taxobox images should show as many characteristics of the creature as possible. Images designated "quality" images do not necessarily represent the qualities required for taxobox use. The current Australian sheep blowfly image is well-cropped and shows a complete dorsal view of an entire fly. Nickrz (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect, taxobox image 

message: :The Primary Screwworm (Cochliomyia hominivorax) once a major pest in southern United States, has been eradicated through massive release of sterilized males. See Sterile insect technique.
:The primary screwworm (Chrysomya bezziana) is an obligate parasite of mammals. This fly is distributed throughout the "Old World", including: Southeast Asia; tropical and subtropical Africa; some countries in the Middle East; India; the Malay Peninsula; the Indonesian and Philippine Islands; and Papua New Guinea. [15] The fly is an agent of myiasis, which is the infestation of tissue on a living mammal.
:The secondary screwworm (Cochliomyia macellaria) has become one of the principal species on which to base postmortem interval estimations because its succession and occurrence on decomposing remains has been well defined. The secondary screwworm is found throughout the United States, the American tropics, and in southern Canada during summer months. This species is one of the most common species found on decomposing remains in the southern United States
Are both hominivorax and bezziana called the "Primary Screwworm"?  As it's not capitalized, is Chrysomya bezziana A primary screwworm and C hominivorax THE Primary Screwworm?  The section is confusing.  Rojomoke (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screwworms 

message: 09 sept. 2010
Superfamily SARCOPHAGOIDEA Rohdendorf, 1964 - No synonym Oestroidea - nomen falsum ap. Pape (2001)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.146.184 (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Mr. Lehrer, you're wrong on both counts. Sarcophagoidea is credited to Macquart 1834, but Oestroidea is credited to Leach 1815. Sabrosky's catalog makes this clear. You demonstrate an inadequate understanding of the scientific literature, as well as the Code, both of which you should remedy prior to making further edits in Wikipedia. Also, sockpuppetry is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and if you persist, you can be blocked. Dyanega (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Superfamily

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Calliphoridae. 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/20080411095829/http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/Diptera/people/FCT_pdf/FGNAMES.pdf to http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/diptera/people/FCT_pdf/FGNAMES.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) 18:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Calliphoridae. 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  tag to http://zoo.bio.ufpr.br/diptera/bz703/Yeates%20%26%20Wiegmann%201999%2C%20Congruence%20and%20controversy.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060506134546/http://www.nearctica.com/nomina/diptera/dipb-c.htm to http://www.nearctica.com/nomina/diptera/dipb-c.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080310173527/http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/livestock/secondary_screwworm.htm to http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/livestock/secondary_screwworm.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019165440/http://www.noahcompendium.co.uk/Novartis_Animal_Health_UK_Ltd/Crovect_1_25_ACU-_w_v_Pour-on_Solution_for_Sheep/-27942.html to http://www.noahcompendium.co.uk/Novartis_Animal_Health_UK_Ltd/Crovect_1_25_ACU-_w_v_Pour-on_Solution_for_Sheep/-27942.html
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) 10:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified