more a fault of interpretation mr shyamal in your answer one notices very well that you still made an error because you fix yourselves on the imaginary scientific value of rognes or of the americains by hating the objective value of the other authors and in particular of lehrer to better explain you the taxonomic situation of the kind bengalia s str i request from you do not consider that i insult certain characters of current taxonomy and to see reality exactly exposed by me no author who occupied himself more or less tangentially with bengaliidae admits that bengalia testacea r d is the species type of the bengalia kind only rognes which copied sabrosky which knew this group of dipterous in same measurement as rognes wrote with the collaboration of bibliographical and nonscientific impostors neal l evenhuis and f c thompson that this type is the nomen nudum b testacea indicated by duponchel thus which makes n l evenhuis j e o' hara t pape and a c pont are only of copy and to transcribe exactly the silly things of sabrosky without any proof or analyze scientific moreover because these authors are good friends with rognes it also added valid genus tests rognes but not validates species type but can you say which tests was made by rognes who knows nothing on bengaliidae which made the most stupid silly things in its work which does not know the morphological terminology of their genitalia male which mixes the drawings of the authors for the different species to make its new taxa which makes the photography of the microscopic preparations of the species studied by lehrer and deposited in the natural history museum of london and which affirms that those are clean taxonomic imaginations don't you believe my assertions then i recommend to you to read for a good documentation of your encyclopaedia work of lehrer of his review fragmenta dipterologica and and and work lehrer wei a new eastern kind of the family bengaliidae diptera bull ploughshare ent mulhouse thus you can understand that rognes is incomparable being unaware of which wanted to make taxonomic revolutions with the language devoted to its handicapped pupils of the school of stavanger norway where it works and with the mystifications of literature and information moreover you can consider only the work of evenhuis comp of zootaxa an authority in the taxonomy of bengaliidae constitutes because they never studied the species of the group and in particular because all the authors of zumpt and until lehrer consider that bengalia labiata r d is the species type of the bengalia kind if you want to mislead the readers you are free to depreciate your wikipedia bergamos seven