Talk:List of Asilidae species

none of item is exist & not notable

 * 1) Could you let me know how many item exist will this list not be deleted?
 * 2) There are many list in the same style like this. Please see also in Category:Taxonomic lists (species) for notable issue. Thanks!--Cheers! (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In order to create a list article, either the whole items of the list should be existed or consider a reference for each item. But in this list, there are many red links which have no references to specify if they are really "Asilidae species" or not. That's inconsistent with WP:V.
 * So all of them should be deleted or a reliable reference should be added to them. ● Mehran Debate● 05:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: I verified the reference again, I didn't download the CSV file before, so I removed the PORD tag from article. Thanks ● Mehran Debate● 05:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Corrections needed in use of brackets for species authors
The brackets for author names carry a specific meaning in zoological taxonomy: they are meant to indicate that the species in question was later moved to another genus in a subsequent publication.

For example: Efferia candida was first described and named by Coquillet in 1893 and is still placed in Efferia nowadays, so the correct entry for it is Efferia candida Coquillet, 1893 without brackets. On the other hand: Macquart originally described Efferia albibarbis in 1838 but with the name Erax albibarbis, and this species was moved to Efferia only later (by Martin, 1962). In this case the brackets are needed and the correct entry for it is indeed Efferia albibarbis (Macquart, 1838)

I have updated the species list for Diogmites accordingly and am now prepping a new page for that genus (as well as for Prolepsis), following the format of the current page of Efferia.

Obviously it will take a big effort by many more of us, to go through all the other genera in List_of_Asilidae_species and remove brackets for those species authors who originally described a species in the genus where it remains today.

GBIF uses the round brackets correctly and is pretty dependable as a comparison point (though it does contain quite a few spelling errors for species names). It also is reasonably up to date on new species added recently to genera, so if anyone is planning to add species to any genus then it would be great if you can check the species author brackets along the way, and remove them where appropriate. Pdeley (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)