Template talk:Diptera families

Updating this classification

I believe this would be a reasonable source to go with (published 2011) for the higher level classification - quite a few changes need to be made - https://static-curis.ku.dk/portal/files/182118915/Pape_2011_Order_Diptera_Linnaeus.pdf @Dyanega: @Paine Ellsworth: @Lavalizard101: @Simuliid: Shyamal (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

While I am fine with the revised classification, I have two concerns: (1) there are a LOT of fossil families listed, and listing all of them could potentially greatly confuse things. Some lineages whose extant membership is extremely small would suddenly look like very large and diverse groups. Fossil taxa are also a bit prone to shifting and reclassification, so it would require some extra care to stay on top of that. Also, most of these would be red links without a lot of new editing effort. (2) For some of the large families that are "split" in this classification, such as the former Mycetophilidae, bringing the WP articles into line with the classification is going to be rather difficult because many of the existing references and descriptions are going to be rendered outdated, as they will almost always refer to the older broad family concept and not the new, more restrictive concept. This will necessitate some very careful editing, and (based on how poorly aligned the various Sciaroidea articles are at present), people are not being very careful with their editing, and many of the existing articles are already in conflict with one another or internally inconsistent. Again, I'm not saying that we shouldn't go ahead, but it's going to mean a lot of work for someone. Dyanega (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and updated List_of_Diptera_families. As suggested, I have kept out the fossil-based families under just the two groups - Nematocera and Brachycera. It also involved resolving a few names and adding Ulurumyiidae and Strongylophthalmyiidae - some major differences are that Pape et al. use Panthophthalmidae rather than Pantophthalmidae. I hope the changes I have made are ok. Shyamal (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I had not noticed the "Panthophthalmidae" spelling. I'm reasonably certain this is a typo, since the type genus is Pantophthalmus, and have contacted Thomas Pape directly to establish this with certainty. Dyanega (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dyanega: Another oddity was the absence of Mythicomyiidae in the Pape list. Not sure if they placed it under Bombyliidae. Shyamal (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Shyamal:I heard back from Thomas Pape; he wrote "In that paper on Diptera within the Linnaean tercentenary, I somehow happened to change the correct spelling "Pantophthalmidae" into the incorrect subsequent spelling "Panthophthalmidae". The wrong spelling is still in use, but by no means prevailing." - so it was indeed an error, as I suspected. Dyanega (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I have run through all the extant families and updated the taxoboxes to use the automatic system following the Pape classification. Given the uncertainty of family and superfamily placements, I wonder if it might not be better to keep this index to families template stopping at the infraorder level. Shyamal (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Even the Pape classification has gotten out-of-date for certain lineages, and I had been trying to get some of this ironed out recently; a paper of particular importance was one by Wiegmann et al., but it's been hard to ascertain whether all of these changes have been supported or refuted by later research. I've talked to Thomas, and apparently several of the things in the classification were simply adopted uncritically, and how prudent that is remains to be seen. Atleast in the case of Empidoidea, there are definitely more recent papers that reject the Pape/Wiegmann classification, so some caution may be needed. Dyanega (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)