Talk:Stalk-eyed fly

Diopsid image
Here's a really nice image I found on Commons if someone knows an appropriate article to use it for. — BrianSmithson 19:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, nice picture. Unfortunately, there are no articles in wikipedia at all below the level of Diopsid; even if there were, we need a better identification. You may ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life for that. Meanwhile, I've found a place to use it on Diopsoidea. Eugene van der Pijll 20:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sphyrocephala
The article by L. Papp, M. Földvári & P. Paulovics (1997) in footnote 3 may be correctly quoted, but the composite word “sphyracephala” is wrong; it has to be sphyrocephala. The scientific name of this “hammerhead”, cf. Greek σφῦρ|α [spʰȳr-] + κεφαλ|ή [kepʰal-], results from a combination of the main chunks of these words and --
 * a) the insertion of a buffer element -o- in between, and
 * b) the addition of another -o as a neuter inflectional morpheme.

Consequently, we get σφυροκέφαλο [spʰȳroképʰalo], a word which necessarily is furnished with an -α in plural. In Latin the name would be sphyrocephala.

The entomologists should perhaps ask a linguist before they go public with their new species…

A detail ? Well, this hammerhead article is replete with interesting details. Should a linguist renounce the same pleasure of diving into the nitty-gritty of how the entomologists account for their research ?

I have now corrected two instances of “sphyracephala” and one of “sphryacephala”[sic]. The one belonging to the article should remain morphologically wheelbroken. We can’t correct what is already printed, but we could do better next time. Hirpex (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * While Sphyrocephala may be linguistically correct, Sphyracephala is the established spelling of this genus in the scientific literature e.g. Sphyracephala beccari. Examples from the literature include: "A cladistic analysis of Diopsidae (Diptera) based on morphological and DNA sequence data" and On the egg morphology and phylogenetic relationships of Diopsidae (Diptera: Schizophora). I have amended the one instance, and now Sphyracephala links to the existing Wikipedia article on this genus. Just to be nonsensical, Prosphyrocephala keeps its o based on the existing literature (Scientistchic (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC))

Recent revision
I have added a Behavior Section, under which I have created a Vision section and a Mating section. I have also heavily revised the Sexual Selection section to more accurately reflect what is known. I also add a considerable number of sources to strengthen the article as a whole. and rearranged the photos. I also remove the Research section, as if was unnecessary, poorly referenced and receptive. Also the good information in this section was placed in context in the other sections and elaborated upon.

--Cobiorower (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC) cobiorower

This article is well written and provides a lot of interesting information, especially with the Wilkinson and Reillo experiments. What Cobiorower did with organization was a good idea. You could consider adding more sub-sections to the "Sexual Selection" part to make the large block of text less intimidating and more clear. Good job. Njoymusic2 (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought the information about the sexual selection experiments was very interesting. I feel like the article may be better suited as a wikipedia entry if the specific details of the experiment were excluded and the article focused on the conclusions. In other words, taking the names of the researchers and their methodology out. If the experiments themselves are particularly influential, they should probably have their own sub-headings (which I'm planning on addint) Gabriel.hassler (talk) 04:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what to tell you man, this article is very good. I like the inclusion of experiments to bring in new elements of doubt and uncertainty. Whereas encyclopedic entries tend to be more on the gritty factual side, your mention of the sexual selection experiments for this species provides a deeper insight not only into the knowledge, but the foundation and origin of the information. The headings and style are very good, and flow well together. I generally had no difficulty in reading the passages as they were clear and not passive in delivery. TKYung (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)