Talk:Calliphoridae

This level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Insects Mid‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Diptera Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Diptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of flies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DipteraWikipedia:WikiProject DipteraTemplate:WikiProject DipteraDiptera articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Calliphoridae received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 21 March 2008. Further details are available here.

Untitled

You´ll find some blowfly pictures in the German wikipedia. One of the genus Calliphora and another of the genus Lucilia. If you want them for your article feel free to use them. Kind regards Soebe 14.05.2004

Article name

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)) Jessica Moore[reply]

Check any entomological text and you will see that blow fly is two words. It is a true Dipteran - a real fly. Only non-dipterans (whitefly, dragonfly, mayfly) are written as one word. This helps identify to the reader that the latter are not real flies. To state otherwise is a disservice to readers. Trfasulo (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Musician

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)[reply]

Pronunciation

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)[reply]

Redirect

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)[reply]

New photo

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)[reply]

I wouldn't if I were you. The current one shows the hairs on the back of the fly, and, your one is a top - down view, and the wings block out the view of the hind legs. Your one looks to much like housefly. Listen --FREAK 08:39, 21 june 2006 (UTC)

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Any objections if the current "Close-up of the head of a blow-fly" photo in the article is changed to this one? It's a different variety of blowfly (mine is an Aussie blowfly, while the original is a dutch blowfly), but I my photo is much higher resolution, and I believe it shows more details. --Martybugs (talk) 06:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

current image
proposed image
tighter crop of proposed image

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)[reply]

Fair point - I've added a closer crop above. Martybugs (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The photos that this group picked are outstanding. It is great that you were able to find such close up pictures to demonstrate to the reader what the blow-fly looks like. The article is also well written and very encyclopedia-like. In reading this article I would not know this was a class project.--Raebeam (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South??

"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)[reply]

South of United States it would appear:

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. [1] Jens Nielsen 22:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Q: Can blowflies transmit disease to humans????

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).[reply]

Personal attacks removed

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)[reply]

improved sanitation

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

not removed, just reworded. things like "your home" sound just out of place. 67.78.235.101 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transitioning

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)garza_j_e —Preceding comment was added at 23:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

updating the page

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)[reply]

I think you used a variety of pictures making the article more interesting. The last sentence in the first paragraph of Development is a very effective fact that many people probably don't know. Under Food Sources, the examples of flowers that the Blow-fly is attracted to are very useful. I believe the the one interesting myth insert was fascinating. The one thing I might look at is your sentence under Disease. Maybe try and add a little more and maybe an example. Thanks. --Jordanmurphy (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

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)[reply]

Clarifications

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)[reply]

Disease

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)[reply]

New Research

Good article! As I was reading about the blow fly and certain diseases that it can transmit, I noticed that the section available for discussion about disease was quite limited. I am listing a website that has some research on some of the deadly diseases that the blow fly transmits in sheep and its long term effects on agriculture and livestock. If you would like to use it, it may be able to count as some current research! http://www.nr.gov.nl.ca/agric/animal_diseases/domestic/pdf/blowfly04.pdf Lamanda14 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 10 April 2008

Peer Review

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))[reply]

Great article guys, just want to let you know that in the section about control methods all you have is cultural and physical control. Where as in today's ideal IPM situation you need to add advances and proper chemical and biological control for how to deal with these flies in and around the home. Other than that, very informative. Lebl37 (talk) 05:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, great article, the photo resolution was detailed enough to show the minute differnces to distinguish the blow fly anatomy from the average housefly. Additional photos showing larval instar stages would be informative especially if they are depicted in their natural environment.(Carrion)Txdevine1 (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Cool Article! I really liked all the pictures, the links in the paragraphs, and the section about genus and species in North America. The only thing that I have to suggest is about the economic impact section. It was very short and I wanted to know more about the effect blowflies can have on livestock. What do they do to the livestock? Where is it a threat besides Australia? What are we doing to stop it? Has research yeided any promising solutions? Add more numbers, statistics, facts about this section. Hope that helps. Great job, good luck!Mdurrum09 (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet pictures. PS references should be linked as a Title and not as a url.--Amandamartinez06 (talk) 07:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest removing the subheading of Improved Sanitation and just keeping your paragraph under the heading Pest Control. I would also re-word the introductory sentence to say: In order to reduce the number of blowflies entering the home, a number of procedures can be adopted, such as improving sanitation and using sprays or poisons. The following paragraphs under the Improved Sanitation sub-heading would benefit by being combined to one, cohesive paragraph. I think the the Genera/Species section would benefit by putting your information in a table format so that the page isn't so long and the information is easier to read. Good page overall. Alexxmacc (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really liked the pictures too! Sitting down to research a subject that has cannot contrast its core with some visual references are boring. I liked how you were orginized and detailed. Who knew the blow fly was so interesting? DanielIsbell 1200 April 16 2008

I think your article is very important to Wikipedia and Forensic Entomology because this family includes so many pertinent species. However, I believe you could revise a few things to improve your article. As a recall, there was no emphasis on the fact that they proceed through a "holometabolus" development. With all the details on its anatomical characteristics, pictures highlighting these could be helpful. Furthermore, in the section "Forensic importance," it might be important to mention the instances when Calliphoridae are not the first insects present at the carrion (bad weather, buried). Also, in the section "Pest Control" you should either combine it all into one paragraph OR include paragraphs describing control through sprays, and poisons (as it seemed was your original purpose from the introductory sentence). Finally, you might want to include paragraphs entitled "Conclusion" and "Current Research" as Professor Brundage mentioned in her article rubric; this rubric is posted on our project page on Wikipedia. Good luck! --Amb8786 (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The photos in this article were awesome and made it interesting to read. My only suggestions are to maybe add pictures of the larval stages and under your "maggot therapy" section, give an example of a fly that eats healthy tissue. Overall, fantastic job! Hando09 (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend going in and editing the words you have linked that are now showing up red. They do not direct you to another page so you should probably just unlink them or find an actual page to link them to. Other than that it looks really good! Hietpas08 (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoyed the photographs in your article. The information was thorough and easy to find. My only problem was with your references. There was a lot of URL references that were not correctly cited. Also on your paragraph about myiasis I was wondering where your information on “blow fly strike” came from cause it was not included in your references. Jword 09 (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list in the section: Genera and Species in North America is a really smart idea. This is very helpful in any further research done by students or others looking for quick information. Good job. Also, the Forensic Importance section has a lot of links, which is really good...relates it to many other topics, which is helpful when doing research. Very good use of pictures, makes the page interesting and encourages reading the article all the way through. Altogether a very informative page. Really good job guys! Kellyorr1 (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most everyone else good pics. I also really like the opening paragraph, a few quick facts to grab your attention for the rest of the article. Jdritchey4 (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was awesome and very well written. It's very a great deal of time and effort was spent on researching everything. I especially enjoyed the pictures.(Lice2008 (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Redirect, taxobox image

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)[reply]

Screwworms

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)[reply]

Rename

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: moved ÷seresin 08:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blow-fly → Calliphoridae —The text of page is about the entire Calliphoridae Family and as noted several times in this talk page the "common name" Blow fly is one of a number of names applied to members of this family but is not used for the entire family. --Kevmin (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support — it is bad enough to have to disambiguate "blow-fly", "blow fly" and "blowfly" without the additional complexity of "blow-fly family" occupying one of the ambiguous base names. --Una Smith (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I know very little about insects but I will take your word for it that the name of Calliphoridae is not equivalent to blow-fly. What I'd do then is make a stub article on blow-fly to indicate which species it applies to, much like raven WRT birds. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support These are a wide array of common insects with a good many names, so support as per nom. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Superfamily

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]