Talk:Fly/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Maybe move the stuff on the act of flying to [FLYING-- Tarquin 11:35 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC) -- moved it to flight - Tarquin 12:55 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

"For the kids" paragraph about walking on ceilings... What do kids have to do with it? I suggest including the answer in the article, but getting rid of the "For the kids" Q&A thing that's going on. --64.228.82.89 05:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

"True flies are insects of the order blabla. Did you know that one in every 10 flies is gay, and that gay flies are something. Also female flies carry maggots palindrome." Ehhhh.... seems like a bunch of crap to me. Delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.18.52 (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

For The Kids section

I felt the same way as 64.228.82.89 and I reworded this section because it was too colloquial. Sp0ng 11:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Somebody told me a fly only lives for 24 hours, is this true? What is the life expectancy of a fly? Edward 13:47, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC) were do maggots live?

The life expectancy of a fly probably depends on the type of fly. Try looking up the specific species you are interested in. Jerdwyer

I've heard it's on the order of weeks, not days —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I've had one fly living in my bathroom, two in my kitchen, and two in my office for weeks now. The fact that it's always the same number of flies leads me to believe it's always the same flies. Thus, at least a few weeks. :-) 205.206.207.250 09:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

---

If flies have suckers, how do they inflict "painful bites"? Bastie 23:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Should probably redirect to Housefly

Not clear what the question is. Some flies (e.g. horse-fly) inflict painful bites, others (e.g. housefly) have suckers. What are you proposing we redirect? Jerdwyer

flys are cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.229.219 (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Attraction to light

There are many pages on the internet discussing how various insects fly around and into lights, but I was wondering if anybody has any theories on an observation I made last year.

I was in a room with a window at each end on a bright summer's day. A fly would crash into one of the windows and continuing to try to fly through it, but would then give up after a couple of seconds then fly across the room and do the same thing to the other window. This went over and back for some time until I opened a window and let it out. It was extremely regular in terms of time, and it would fly in pretty much a straight line between the windows.

Why should it give up on one window and try to fly towards to the other window? I expected that it would keep flying at the one window constantly. It was a large fly of some sort, and unfortunately I have no idea what species it was.

Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 12:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"Hey there's light over there" *bonk bonk* "looks like I can't get to it" *turn around* "Hey there's light over there"... not like a fly is going to have much short-term memory. By the time he's given up on the second window, he's probably forgotten all about the first. 205.206.207.250 09:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You expacted what,from a brain the sise of the tip of a pin.--Pixel ;-) 18:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Lord of the flies why is the song mentioned, but not the book by golding, on which the song is clearly based? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Proposed merger

It's been proposed a couple of times at Talk:Diptera that these two articles be merged, but it has never been carried out. I think the time has come. "Fly" (as covered by this article) and "Diptera" are essentially synonymous, and WP:NC(CN) states that we should use the common name. --Stemonitis 07:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Fully agree. Shyamal 08:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've merged the two articles now. I've been fairly severe, and some sections that seemed less relevant have been entirely removed, along with several pictures, and many external links and references. If someone's favourite section has been removed, then by all means reinsert it, if you can make a case for its inclusion. I think the references could do with a further clean-up; ideally, we would have only inline citations, and no unlinked sources at the end. --Stemonitis 11:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Origin, or trivial trivia?

I've always wondered how this insect got named. Rather ingenious, eh? Fly? Does anyone know how it came to be named, and if so, is it worthy of mention as trivia, or simply trivial? --Steam Giant 04:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

annoyences of flys?

i was wondering if there is a high pitched noise, a color, or mayble a smell that might keep the flys away? im asking this because im looking towards creating some kind og item that will keep those pesky flys away from my dog...i dont always have time to put the fly medicine on his years EVERY day.--user:Foxtails 3:12, 22 july 07

My pet fly- "It's not a gas mask" "←I swear" 174.22.124.250 (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)MAJIKNEMO

Nice Picture

Lol, very nice pic to use for the page. Mating flies, don't know if that's appropriate for the kids, eh? Couldn't you have chosen some random pic of a fly and used that one for a mating section? Dunno. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.45.116 (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

suggestion

Consider an explanation for the photo in the info box. Why is one fly so skinny (torso)? Are they mating? Polounit 02:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, who decided that a photo of an anorexic fly blowing his load into a fat-chick fly would make a fantastic infobox picture? Call my flyist, but fly-fucking just isn't all that appealing to look at. At least for me. Perhaps that photo might be better placed in the section on mating (if and when one is created)? Piercetheorganist 06:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

See sexual dimorphism and WP:CENSOR. The picture doesn't have to be attractive, merely informative. As it happens, the photo is a featured picture, and is an excellent illustration of a particular species of fly and of flies in general. --Stemonitis 08:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sticking to walls

Just how the heck do flies stick to walls anyway? O_o 205.206.207.250 09:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I bet they have sticky grips on their legs.--Rory666 08:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I came here to read about sticking to glass and found nothing. Add this information if possible. Pseudohuman (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This would not be the correct article for such information, because many fly species CANNOT cling to smooth surfaces, as they do not have tarsal pads like a house fly. This information should be in the house fly article, but not here. Dyanega (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was No move Duja► 14:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

---

At present, the title is patently incorrect. This page deals with Diptera, and (true) flies are only one group (Brachycera) of Diptera. The intro statement should start, for example:

True flies, mosquitos, and their relatives are insects of the order Diptera

The merge has created a major mess. Fly and flies need to redirect to Brachycera, and much of the text on the present page needs to go there too. Dysmorodrepanis 18:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the {{move}} template because the instructions at WP:RM were not filed completely. If you still want this article to be moved, please re-list this request at WP:RM with the instructions fully followed; this needs more feedback to get moved. -- tariqabjotu 20:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That was a consequence of the subst code breaking when parentheses are used in it. Dysmorodrepanis 21:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

These claims are simply untrue. Flies are Diptera and vice versa. Even "true flies" almost always refers to the whole of the Diptera. Common names for Brachycera are never very frequently used, and seem to include such vague phrases as "mid-order flies", "circular-seamed flies", "short-horned flies"; I have yet to see a single use of "true flies" for Brachycera. It may well be that some entomologists would prefer a world in which "true fly" was used for Brachycera to the exclusion of Nematocera, but that's not how the terms are used in the real world. There is thus no justification for this move. --Stemonitis 08:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

At least in non-English speaking countries, what you say is certainly not correct - try the interwiki links and check their taxoboxes and the terms used. A non-native speaker would almost certainly use "true fly" = Brachycera and not = Diptera, and this is highly confusing. Mossies and midges are precisely that and not flies, says Google. Be it by a move or by a reworking of the intro section, this needs to be fixed. Personally, I'd prefer "dipterans" replacing "true flies" - as per Google, "dipteran(s)" is more common than "true fly/flies" almost by an order of magnitude! "True fly", in conclusion, is a misleading term for which Google gives less than 100.000 hits worldwide, which is a bit meager.

Perhaps make Fly a disambiguation? Because no matter that some call Diptera "true flies", the article's title is "Fly" and not "True fly", so it is factually wrong regardless. Dysmorodrepanis 13:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that "true fly" is used less often than "Diptera" is just one more reason why the article isn't titled "true fly". "Fly", on the other hand, is much more frequently than "Diptera" and (when used as a noun) means exactly the same thing. There may be a few people who would prefer to use "true fly" for Brachycera, but I haven't seen any examples yet, and they are clearly in a small (and possibly negligible) minority. The terms "fly" (in its technical sense), "true fly" and "Diptera" are exactly equivalent, and WP:UE and other guidelines mandate the use of "fly" as a title in cases like these. There is no need to complicate the matter further. A dablink to flying may be appropriate (although it is already linked from fly (disambiguation) which is in turn linked from fly), possibly, but converting fly into a disambiguation page would add problems while solving none. --Stemonitis 20:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No move please. Attempts to make common names follow taxonomic structure can only cause confusion. I would suggest that Diptera=Flies is sufficiently valid and should be retained. Links to other taxonomic categories are reachable from this article in any case. Shyamal 06:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Duja► 14:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Reference

..is thinly disguised trivia. I have placed the trivia template here and intend to remove this section pending discussion or lack thereof.Nickrz (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm about as technical an editor of scientific articles as they come, but I'll confess I have no idea why there seems to be so little leniency given when there ARE legitimate cultural references - yes, I can see how it can get tiresome and trivial when all of the "cultural references" are to songs, TV shows, movies, or computer games, but what on earth is wrong with including things like "In Greek mythology, Myiagros was a god who chased away flies during the sacrifices to Zeus and Athena. Also, Zeus sent a fly to sting the horse Pegasus causing Bellerophon to fall back to Earth when he attempted to ride to Mount Olympus"? Likewise, there are some pop-culture references that are going to be impossible to keep OUT of articles, in this case the movie reference (if you delete it, editor after editor after editor is going to come along and re-add it). It seems to me far more useful to exercise a little judgment as to the merits of each individual bit of trivia - there is nothing WRONG with admitting that there are cases where science and culture intersect, and acknowledging such intersections can, if nothing else, help keep primarily scientific articles from being totally sterile; one of the best features of Wikipedia is the facility with which cross-referencing can be made, and readers can get a little more out of an article than "just the facts". What's wrong with learning that adding a fly to a trompe l'oeil painting was a common trick? Again, I understand the desire to reduce clutter and fluff, but not it is not true that all cultural references are trivial. I'd suggest removing the template, and simply removing the most genuinely trivial items. Dyanega (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I second Dyanega. I don't understand this sacred fire pushing Wikipedians to burn all trivia (or similar sections). If there is genuine and interesting content it should stay, period. What should go away is irrelevant content, but this is valid both for trivia and non-trivia sections. Most content of the "Cultural references" section in this article seems perfectly legit and interesting content. Please stop this anti-trivia bookburning. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Calm down. Nobody is burning anything but strawmen here.
Perhaps a re-reading of the wiki policy on trivia is in order: WP:TRIV Selected excerpts:
Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts.
Trivia sections should be avoided, but if they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined.
Such sections should not be categorically removed: it may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections; others can be grouped into a new section of related material.
A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and unselective list."

Another helpful wiki policy article is "Popular Culture". Similary, Handling Trivia

An effort at incorporating the important, relevant, and verifiable items into the main body of text could be made by those interested. I agree, there are interesting facts, but they should reside in this list only as a temporary measure. Nickrz (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone deleted the section over the Holidays, I've just restored it. Rather than deleting it, maybe someone who finds lists offensive can look at the Ant article to see an example of how one can edit a list of cultural references into a text format rather than simply deleting content. Dyanega (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reinstated the trivia template and deleted the most egregious of the trivia. I reiterate my original comments; Wiki guidelines are still the same. If the material is truly important and relevant, it should be incorporated into the main body of text or given expanded coverage elsewhere. Nickrz (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. See what you think. Dyanega (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well done! A worthy addition and enhancement. Thank you. (Give him a hand, people). Wait... you are Doug Yanega? I used to be a moderator (Nickrz) in General Questions at The Straight Dope message board many years ago when you first came on board there. Small world, hey? Nickrz (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Once a know-it-all, always a know-it-all. ;-) Dyanega (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

work this one out

As a kid i did allot of kid stuff :D.. I had a few flys in my bedroom one night and they got very annoying. So I caught one and held it in my fingers and spent a good few minutes looking at the detail in its eyes, as their design interested me.

Anyway, i had microscope and decided i was going to take its head off and stick it under the microscope for further inspection.

So I removed its head and it landed in front of its body, So then i let the fly go expecting it to die seconds later.

However, the fly picked up its head with its front legs and flew off.. I was in shock, disbelief... and I'd like to know how it managed that!!

Cool link

This is a cool link about fly: Gotcha! How to swat a fly, and know that it will die by The Independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.126.141 (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Walking underwater

Gentlemen, I have observed house files walking underwater.

If he feels he is a little waterlogged, he would rather follow a blade of grass underwater in attempt to get from island A to island B in a pond, rather than wait for his wings to dry out...

Maybe such behavior should be mentioned somewhere. Jidanni (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Washing face

Gentlemen, we all have observed house files washing their faces. Maybe such behavior should be documented. Jidanni (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Life Cycle...

...well, is it missing on purpose? There's a section about Maggots in Flies in Culture, but there is no section saying how long maggots stay as maggots, nor how maggots turn into flies, nor how long flies stay as flies, what the eggs look like, how big they are, etc. As far as I'm aware, it doesn't even say that maggots are the larval form of flies. I accept that various fly species are different in their development and growth, however, surely it would be helpful to state a few features of development that are common to all, or most, species?

And speaking of the Maggots section, I don't really see how the observation that maggots are extremely useful in forensic science, medicine, and fishing are considered useful references to 'popular culture'.

Thank you

Nonagonal Spider (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Lifespan? Someone told me flies only live one day and I didn't think that sounded right, so I came here, but didn't find the answer. How long do they live?

71.81.203.139 (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Taxonomy

i'm not a biologist, but i find the taxonomy,as described in the text, confusing. 'dipterans belong to the order mercoptidae (sp?)'. i thought diptera was the order. as i said, i'm not an entomologist, but neither are the majority of readers. i was looking for an answer to the question 'what is the second most numerous (speciose) order of insects?' recent pub quiz. the answer given was lepidoptera,which i questioned.Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Number of legs during the ages

According to Aristole, did the flies have 4 legs, and because of that no one even bothered to count them until the 1800's. That must be mentioned!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI47KuwaxTQ&feature=related

94.254.90.56 (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Made by Bobby Rancar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.252.180 (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Biggest fly?

Which is the biggest fly? __meco (talk) 07:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Good question, but talk pages are to discuss about the article, not the subject. You should ask the reference desk. --Cyclopia^talk 11:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, but I kinda figured that this would be interesting for inclusion into the article as well. __meco (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Gauromydas heros is commonly regarded as the largest fly; sadly, it does not yet have its own WP article.Dyanega (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

flys and regurgitation

I've heard before that a fly regurgitates every time it lands....is this known to be true???? 174.22.219.196 (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)curious

That story is about the house fly specifically - you might post the question on that article's talk page. I suspect it's bunkus, myself, because it would be a waste of saliva unless it was actually used for feeding, and even house flies will land for reasons other than feeding. Dyanega (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It certainly is bunk; flies often do regurgitate on landing, leaving one kind of flyspeck, but: they then suck up most of the fluid again to pick up anything dissolved in it; if no gain, try elsewhere. But they also have taste sensors on their forefeet, and of course they have antennae, so they don't have to spit on every single thing to try it for taste. Anyway, if you watch flies (even houseflies; I grew up on a poultry farm, so I had plenty of opportunity!) you will often see them land and take off again without any flyspeck from either end. What is more, you are right about landing for various reasons; male flies sitting on the undersides of light bulbs and the like, are mostly waiting for passing females. The flyspecks they leave are mainly from the rear end. JonRichfield (talk) 06:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Sarcophagid fly Portrait.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Sarcophagid fly Portrait.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 3, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-05-03. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 16:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The head of a flesh-fly, a family of flies. Flies have a mobile head with eyes, and, in most cases, have large compound eyes on the sides of the head, with five small ocelli on the top. The antennae take a variety of forms, but are often short, to reduce drag while flying. Fly mouths do not contain teeth or anything else that would allow them to eat solid foods.Photo: JJ Harrison

Why is it called Musca domestica? It looks more like a Sarcophagid! Whoops! Sorry; forgot to sign yesterday. JonRichfield (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Black Blackfly???

I have just changed the caption on a perfectly nice picture of an aristate fly (Muscidae? Dunno, I am no Dipterist!) from "Black fly" to "fly". As a two-word name it is of no value. The one-word name "Blackfly" refers to the Simuliidae, which this specimen emphatically is not. Dipterists welcome to enter any more specific caption.JonRichfield (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

How Long do Flies Live?

A bit of information that might be useful for this article would be how long flies live for usually. I can't believe that you created an entire section of flies in pop culture and didn't even have there lifespan. If a fly were to read this it would be offended.-James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.132.254 (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Flies in Culture

I have just glanced at this section and it is an outstanding first step. I think that it is worthy of explanding upon, should someone want to take on the task. For example, as opposed to merely listing literature such as 'Lord of the Flies,' it would be exceptionaly worthwhile discuss further the symbolism. The section should not be overly detailed, but I think that the section is quite valuable. Thank you.(Galaxycat (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC))

I have just reverted the bit about flies and Jewish propaganda. One does not demand the usual standards of academic care in such a section, but without a citation that really is too unencyclopaedic. JonRichfield (talk) 06:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Maggots and citations

I have removed the statement "Flies are reared in large numbers in Japan to serve as pollinators of sunflowers in greenhouses, especially the maggots", and invited the attention of the source to this talk page.

Reasons for removal:

The statement is too vague in two ways: What kind of flies? (I located a suggestion that it might be Calliphoridae, or perhaps Syrphidae), but really...!

And what exactly do the maggots do? It sounds like a funny activity for a Calliphorid maggot; explanation and citation needed!

Furthermore, not wishing to do anything as counter-constructive as idly removing a statement of possible merit when I could simply correct it or find a citation myself that would make good the text, I spent about an hour trying to locate support material. OK, so I'm stupid, but I drew a blank.

Bottom line, as FloJo might put it: I would be happy to assist with wording etc, but before I pass that lot I will need high quality citation. There are plenty of second-hand, technically nonsensical hearsay mentions in google, but nothing that comes even close to WP standards. I would be grateful for specific, biologically literate verification. JonRichfield (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Ways to deal with these things

There should be a section. 67.243.4.94 (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

True Fly Housefly?

Is the housefly a true fly? Please add in if so.

Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Unbalanced illustration

Nine of the 16 flies in the poster belong to family Syrphidae. There are no Nematocera and no acalyptrates. I understand the bias towards large, tame, colorful Diptera when taking pictures, but the composite does a poor job illustrating the diversity of Diptera.

Ideally there would be a photo for each of these major omitted lineages:

• Crane flies
• Culicomorpha (mosquitoes and relatives)
• Bibionomorpha (fungus gnats and relatives)
• Homeodactyla / Tabanomorpha (horse flies and relatives)
• Empidoidea (dance flies and long-legged flies, some of which are quite photogenic)
• Acalyptratae (we can pretend it's a single lineage for purposes of the poster)

I also doubt the ID Anthomyia pluvialis. The original photo is marked simply Anthomyia, which I do believe.

Vox Sciurorum (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I was just about to say much the same thing. The image is attractive but strongly biassed towards Syrphidae (Hoverflies). I'd agree with Vox Sciurorum that we should have flies from a wider variety of groups; I'd also wish for fewer species so the images are larger, say one Syrphidae, one Tipulidae crane fly, one Tabanidae horse fly, and one Empidae dance fly forming a more legible 2x2 image suitable for viewing on small screens and large. The purpose of the image is to support the article, and it can best do that by giving a visual idea of diversity. Alternatively, we could use a single species here, showing a dipteran with really nice clear features (halteres, antennae, eyes, mouthparts), and then showing diversity in a cladogram. That might be the best solution. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I've accordingly chosen a single hoverfly to illustrate key features of the order, and have made and illustrated a cladogram to show the diversity (and phylogeny) of the families. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)