Talk:Oestroidea

Synonym
Oestroidea is a synonyme of Pape (2001) for the superfamily SARCOPHAGIDEA Rohdendorf, 1964 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.146.184 (talk) 09:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Or vice versa. Note that the principle of priority does not apply for higher taxa in zoology. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Stemonitis, you are a stupid botanist, who does not know the taxonomy of dipterous. For that, you must leave the corrections made in the definition of the superfamille. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.146.184 (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Look, you can insult me all you like, but I think you will have to accept the insights of Messrs. Yeates and Wiegmann, who did, after all, write the book on Diptera phylogeny. Their work, published after the work you seem to be citing, is perfectly happy to use the superfamily Oestroidea, as have all other dipterists as far as I can see. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You can ignore the insults; Sarcophagoidea is credited to Macquart 1834, and Oestroidea to Leach 1815. Oestroidea is thus the older name. Mr. Lehrer simply likes to attack Thomas Pape in absentia, and you (and this article) are collateral damage. Dyanega (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I don't know about "damage". I don't feel damaged, and the article has improved to the tune of one reference! --Stemonitis (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As it is very known, Mr. Dyanega, the large " taxonomic specialist " lepidopterologist of the world, is also a large impostor. Because, the name " Oestroides " belongs to Burmeister (1829) from where derive the word " Oestroidea " of Gravenhorst (1843) only for the Oestridae family. But Rohdendorf (1964) established the name " Oestridea " for the superfamily. As for the name " Sarcophagoidea ", it belongs to Shannon (1926) for the family. Also Rohdendorf (1964) gave the name " Sarcophagidea " for the superfamily. Thus, the priority is in Rohdendorf. See Sabrosky (1999) to eliminate your stupidities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.163.124 (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Mr. Lehrer, after years dealing with you and your incessant policy violations, I must say that you only reveal your unsuitability as an editor every time you post. You have zero comprehension of how Wikipedia works, despite many years trying to explain it to you, and zero comprehension of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, of which I am an acting Commissioner. All too often, your prime arguments hinge upon personal attacks and insults, and what few attempts at scholarship you present are backed up solely with your self-published works, which are prohibited from inclusion in Wikipedia (a policy you consistently ignore). I am not a taxonomic specialist; I publish works on many different insect orders. I am, however, a specialist in the Code, which is the only issue here, and on which account your comments are incorrect. Even if you don't like it, the superfamily is Oestroidea now and for the foreseeable future, and Wikipedia policy is such that it MUST reflect this scientific consensus. The name "Sarcophagoidea" has been forgotten and buried, and will certainly stay that way despite your attempts to revive it. You need to accept the authority of legitimate dipterists (i.e., scientists who publish peer-reviewed papers on Dipteran taxonomy in international journals, not self-publishing hacks), and cease editing Wikipedia as if it were a suitable place to air your petty academic disputes and grudges. The list of WP policies you violate is immense, including WP:SOCK, WP:NOR, WP: SPS, WP:OWN, WP:COI, WP:CIVIL, and WP:LIBEL, among others. You have been asked politely to cease and desist, and you have resisted without remorse. The time has come for you to stop, and leave Wikipedia alone, since you clearly will not abide by the rules. Dyanega (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, you have grossly misunderstood the format of Sabrosky's catalog. It is possible that this is because of your limited comprehension of English, and reliance upon Babelfish and other automated translation software, but if you cannot understand English, then it is inappropriate for you to edit the English Wikipedia and then argue when others correct mistakes you have made based on your misunderstandings. Sabrosky explicitly indicates, on page 7: "The earliest available family-group name that established its date for priority, regardless of rank or spelling, is in boldface. Earlier names that are unavailable, suppressed, or preoccupied are listed for historical purposes. (These are not boldfaced, not even the oldest, because they cannot be used.) Following the boldfaced name are listed, if any, the first uses at successively higher levels, e.g., tribe to subfamily to family, up to the highest rank ever attained, even into the order group if such names were based on a nominal type genus." In the case of Oestroidea, Sabrosky indicates the first use (rankless) was OEstrides Leach 1815 (which establishes availability and thus priority), and the first definitive family-level use was OEstridae Samouelle 1819, and the first superfamily use was Oestroidea Townsend 1931. The Rohdendorf citation you are referring to is a subsequent misspelling, listed explicitly AS a misspelling, for which Sabrosky added the annotation "(superfamily)" not to indicate that Rohdendorf was the first person to use it as a superfamily name, but because Rohdendorf's misspelling ("Oestridea") would normally be interpreted as a typographic error for "Oestridae" (i.e., that Rohdendorf was referring to the family, rather than the superfamily). The same for Rohdendorf's misspelling of "Sarcophagoidea". Likewise, the uses you cite of Burmeister were also within Sabrosky's list of misspellings, and the reason Gravenhorst's use of "Oestroidea" has a "(family)" annotation is not to indicate that Gravenhorst was the first to recognize the family, but because he had misspelled the family name so it looks like a superfamily name, and readers of the catalog would otherwise be confused - as you obviously were, not comprehending the nature of the catalog listings. So, consulting Sabrosky only reinforces my observations regarding how badly you have misinterpreted the literature, rather than revealing my stupidities. Dyanega (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)