Talk:Tabanidae/Archive 1

Untitled
Are they attracted to sweat? When running on certain trails, I literally get swarmed by what I think are horseflies. They follow me for miles and will land on my back and bite me. It's quite annoying to say the least.

Not a forum, but those are deerflies 74.37.227.156 (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe these are the same thing. --99.159.6.120 (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the fly that bit me up in Cape Cod. It's like a mutant mosquito. Like someone stabbed me.

Does anyone know whether ITIS's genus list is complete for this family? I'm suspicious because there doesn't seem to be a type genus for the subfamily Pangoniinae, whereas everything else is very regular. seglea 23:52, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be cleaned up a bit?
Compared to, say, the article on the common house-fly, this article could use some presentation clean up.

saintempire 23:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

This is war....
How about some info on how to take the young ones out enmasse before they become winged scourges!?!

==From someone who works with Tabanus:

Ok, this page seems a bit inaccurate, especially concerning the feeding behavior: 1)They don't "lick" blood up, they lacerate the wound and ingest it up through a tube-like structure that is part of their mouthparts. The 'labrum' forms the feeding canal. 2)I don't know of any that are 'venomous'. I would be curious to see the references on that. However, they do have anti-coagulants that is produced from their salivary glands. Once they begin to probe their host's skin and find appropriate stimuli to ingest the blood meal, they release saliva into the host and it is the mixture of saliva + anti-coagulant that causes the painful sting, not the actual laceration of the skin etc.

Also, their eyes are not typically bright colored generally speaking. However, there are a few species with 'green' eyes that are found along the coastal marshes of the Eastern seaboard (USA).

I agree with other comments, there should be more rigorous work dedicated to the information on this page.

Hyphen
What's with the hyphen "horse-fly" ? House-fly? No hyphens! Nada zero zip. Nickrz 22:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like (from Webster) horesfly is one word. Should we move this article and make this a redirect?-Throbblefoot 19:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Current useage according to the Entomological Society of America is "horse fly". ESA nomenclatorial rules state that Diptera are given names as two words, e.g., horse fly, house fly, robber fly, etc., whereas non-Diptera are given single words as names, e.g., dragonfly, butterfly, mayfly. I can't speak for the conventions in other countries, though; the hyphen may be acceptable elsewhere. Squamate 14:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just put all the hyphens back in. If the article is going to be moved, then do that first, and then update the text; don't pre-empt the move. Incidentally, current usage is not restricted to the USA; a global perspective should be sought before moving. And I, personally, am not going to be swayed by a weak argument along the lines of "nada zero zip". --Stemonitis 16:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I just checked Kettle's Medical and Veterinary Entomology (strangely enough, there is no copyright date on my copy, but it's the first edition), and he (an Australian author) uses "horseflies" but also uses "deer flies"! No hyphens are used in either name, though. Squamate 18:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I leafed through Mullen and Durden's Medical and Veterinary Entomology (2002), and in the reference section for the Tabanidae chapter there are references to the following: horse flies and deer flies (Canadian); horseflies (British); horse fly (Russian); horse flies (Danish). Are there any users from Asia or Africa who can weigh in? Squamate 19:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Horse fly. Two words. The Entomological Society rules should be followed. This is quite a common mistake by laymen, hypenating things against convention and common sense. The rules to which Squamate alluded also apply to various types of bees, i.e. bumblebees and honey bees as well as other insects. The country of Lower Slobbovia may refer to the honey-bee (sic), but does that mean the English-language version of this encyclopedia must bow to their obscure and erroneous usage? Anyway: this subject should redirect to the taxonomic family name Tabanidae, as should "deer fly" and other flies in this family. I think common (arbitrary, subjective, regional and widely variable) names should always be subordinate to accepted, scientific terms. But hey, that's me.Nickrz 21:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd be all for a move to the scientific name (because of my actions some months ago, this will now require an admin), for the reasons you state. However, note that the Entomological Society of America is not a global authority, and that there is no global authority for common names (with the possible exception of birds and maybe a couple of other charismatic groups). What may be a common name in America may be unknown elsewhere (as shown by the current coccinellid debate). I'm not saying that "horse fly" is wrong, by the way. --Stemonitis 06:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments on the above:

1. You are correct, Stemonitis, America is not the world, but I used the ESA rules to illustrate that some rules for common names do exist ... no one has presented any similar rules for European, Asian, or African useage. Are there any? I've never seen the hyphen used in print, by the way, except on this page. 2. In my opinion, this topic should be redirected to "Tabanidae". Nickrz has a good point that common names should redirect to accepted sccientific terms. Does "cleg" redirect to this page? I've never heard that word spoken in my life, but several entomology textbooks mention it as a common name for tabanids. Squamate 17:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy is to use common names wherever they are "reasonably unique" (WP:TOL), and not always to redirect to scientific names. In this case, however, only some members of the family are horse-flies (others being deer-flies, and possibly other things as well; I don't know the group well), so the scientific name seems to be the only plausible option. This is basically Bruce Marlin's ("Nickrz'") argument. Regarding, clegs, the OED defines "cleg" as "A gadfly, horse-fly, or breeze", with the last quotation to use it dating from 1872. I don't think we need to worry about that too much if it hasn't been used for 130 years. --Stemonitis 10:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Cleg is common usage in my area of the UK. Nasty little pests happy to feed on both horse and rider. The UK may be backwards, but we are not a whole 130 years in the past - we do have the internet : )   --Effh (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

As a data point, the OED (on-line second edition, http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50108211) prefers "horse-fly", with a hyphen, though their quotations cover all the variants. --bjh21 17:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster, the American Heritage Dictionary, and Chambers Reference Online give "horsefly," and don't even list "horse-fly" or "horse fly" as alternate spellings, although Chambers takes you to "horsefly" when you search for "horse fly". That's two American and one British dictionary. In my experience the OED is often quite conservative in its entries. In this particular case, the last quotation they give is from 1861, and the definition looks to me as if it was not altered for the 1989 edition. On Google, "horse fly" gives 109000 hits, while "horsefly" gives 434000. The online Concise Britannica gives "horsefly". I believe the weight of convention is strongly towards "horsefly", and that the Entomological Society of America is trying to impose naming consistency where it does not exist. I think the article title should be "Horsefly", and there should be a note in the article about alternate spellings, and that some authorities with expertise in the field prefer a variant that differs from common usage. --Mark Foskey 19:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to chime in on this discussion, with a caveat. Throughout my education I have learned the ESA guidelines (outlined above). That being said, there are of course many naming conventions (here is a comic for your consideration). I have looked to other articles on Wikipedia to see if there is a common format already on this website. See crane fly versus botfly. While it would be consistent to choose a naming convention and "correct" all other articles, or title all insect families by their scientific names, these options would require great effort and would be largely unnecessary (on account of redirects solving most discrepancies). What I am getting at is that it would be best (i.e. simplest) to leave the title as-is, with a note on different spellings and alternate names in the introduction. Common names will always vary (but that hyphen still bugs me). Sigil VII (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Horse fly or Cleg (UK Version)
Not sure if it's the same insect, but we have a smaller version here in the UK. Approximately 10mm long, dart-shaped, and similar to the larger version that's found elsewhere. I'm fairly often bitten by these things. They seem to flatten themselves against the skin, then a small pin-prick is felt as they bite. Physical reaction to the bite is a high, sharp bump roughly 15mm across that itches like crazy for a few days, before gradually subsiding. Can't find a species other than Horse flies that so closely match this insect, so I would assume we have a smaller version of the same thing. Can anyone clarify this please?


 * See the recently created List of soldierflies and allies recorded in Britain, which should answer your question. SP-KP 21:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Fron
Sex can be distinguished based on size of the eyes relative to the frons.

What are frons? --Abdull 09:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Term now wikilinked to an article. SP-KP 10:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

horses breeding with flies?
The article states that horseflies originated in the US when horses from England bred with native flies???? I'm sure this must be a typo, and you are not suggesting that horseflies are the result of a horse/fly mating!!

--- its not a typo it's someone having a laugh 82.69.25.133 11:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC) --

Largest?
What is a typical size for a horsefly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * I was wondering the same thing -- seems like an insect named Horse for its size should have some mention of its range of sizes.David (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Esenbeckia
The Esenbeckia link in the infobox goes to a plant genus. Is there a plant genus and insect genus with the same name? How would we usually disambiguate that? Recury (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The link in the infobox points to a genus in the family Tabanidae. The link in your post above points to the plant genus.  It is not unknown to have plants and animals with the same generic names.  There is the case of Bacillus the bacterium and Bacillus the insect, too. Squamate (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Deer fly vs. horse-fly
... or deerfly or horsefly... there are now two separate entries for them, one for deer fly and one for horse-fly; aren't they the same and shouldn't they be combined? The family name Tabanidae re-directs to horse-fly; shouldn't both horsefly and deerfly re-direct to Tabanidae? Doprendek (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That article is clearly on the genus Chrysops (one among many within the Tabanidae) rather than the family Tabanidae. Shyamal (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Horse-Fly vs. Stable Fly
The first 3 of these articles mention "horseflies," but the first two refer to biting flies that are classified significantly differently than the third:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse-fly (Family: Tabanidae)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer_flies (Family: Tabanidae.....Genus: Chrysops)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_fly (Family: Muscidae....Genus: Stomoxys)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housefly (refers and links to the "Stomoxys" stable fly article, but doesn't mention "Horse flies":)

At the very least, it seems that these articles should acknowledge the phenomenon of "Horsefly" referring to more than one type of fly.

(I posted a similar message on the stable fly talk page.)Sojambi Pinola (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've listed them all as synonyms at horsefly, but some clarification may be in order. 67.9.175.207 (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

They should not be the same, I have been on the receiving end of the top three and they are different, that is like saying a horse and a pony are the same. 74.37.227.156 (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Horse Fly Season
It would be helpful to have a map showing horse fly seasons in the US and other countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.19.137 (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Redundant redirect
I've deleted the opening line: "For other uses, see horsefly." If there was once a disambiguation page, it no longer exists and instead the link just goes (via a redirect) back to this same page Dom Kaos (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Where do horseflies go at night?
If we knew where they slept at night couldn't we "get" them then? (I'm serious.) They seem to travel in small swarms so maybe they sleep together as well. Spayandneuter (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Are they territorial?
It seems like when I go camping, they're very territorial. It's like they chase down anything within their territory, but once you get outside it, they ignore you. Am I crazy? --99.159.6.120 (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Size
"They range in length from 30 to 60 mm". This CAN'T be true, can it? A 1" to 2.5" long horse fly? I'm no expert on the subject, but I'd wager an hour naked in a box full of hungry horse flies that that statement is incorrect. Endasil (talk) 08:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Endasil--your humorous desire to expose yourself can be directed elsewhere. You would get out of your obligations for too many reasons. Firstly, it is unconscionable that an intelligent person would bind themselves in an area of ignorance with nothing to gain, monetarily or in professional notoriety, from being correct. Along those same lines, your ignorance would further play into the unconscionableness as you would be exposed to the large variety you cannot fathom. Secondly, we would never be able to hold you to the bet, because based on the mandibles and the flesh-cutting characteristics, you would obviously get out of your obligation, no matter how stridently (or comically) sworn, on a "pound of flesh" ruling. Finally, you could not even be summoned to appear for such an inquiry, for your address is already "kaput." While the range indicated would appear a "stretch" for an insect, horseflies are rather large...I've never seen one in the 2.5" or 60mm ballpark in the eastern United States (nor am I around horses that much), but those in the 20mm-30mm (0.83" to 1.25") range are common. grubbmeister (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I got bit by one about 1.5" long last month- the mouthpiece went all the way through my T-shirt, the thing had already tried to bite my dad and then came over and tried me. Bad mistake, I swatted it but not before the damage was done. I'm here in Arkansas (obviously) where everything grows bigger, meaner, and a whole lot less cute-and-cuddly than elsewhere- even our squirrels look like mobsters.--Arkansawyer96 (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Size...
Just an observation, but the stated size of 30 to 60mm sounds HUGE! This would make them about the size of extremely big cicadas. I could imagine 30mm at the largest, 60 borders on the horrific... can somebody come up with a realistic source for the 60mm maximum as given? 80.135.43.237 (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the bite picture of a scrotum?
I swear it is; I can't figure out what other part of the body might look like that and be that hairy. Surely there's a better picture somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.190.45 (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I must congratulate you and I suppose I should have thanked you as well for a most illuminating question. Look, whoever you are, you might not have noticed, but this is a biological article. In biology (trust me!) things happen that would have made the sainted Henrietta Maria Bowdler close her eyes at the very thought, never mind the sight, but you know, some of us who have to deal with biological matters do not have time to close our eyes every time a monkey does something inconsiderately indelicate. You no lika our scrotum? Then get an equally assertive Tabanid to bite you in a place somewhere else that will be more acceptable to display in the parlour and send us the photo. Mind you, this picture doesn't look particularly scrotal to me; more like the thigh adjoining the inguinal area -- so cheer up and keep your eyes closed. (Whoops! Sorry! Forgot to sign.) JonRichfield (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Help everyone, or "Bye bye Horse-fly"
Unless someone gives me good reason to forebear, I intend (apart from some radical editing of the text) to put the entire article in what is currently a redir under the name Tabanidae. JonRichfield (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Horse-fly is nowadays an increasingly anachronistic spelling; the modern trend is to split the names of true flies (such as robber fly and bee fly (and of course, horse fly)) into separate words, while agglutinating non-flies with their descriptive word, such as sawfly, caddisfly and the like (see Fly).
 * The confusion of spelling "horsefly", "horse-fly", or "horse fly" could be resolved in any way by fiat, but the dictionaries differ at present and in fact have differed for a couple of centuries by now (check out n-gram). It is not for WP to get involved, nor implicitly to approve one spelling or the other by using it as an article heading.
 * It makes no sense to hook an article based on a biological taxon, to a particular spelling of a common name that is one of several alternatives, some of them only conditionally appropriate (such as cleg, March fly) while others are only arguably general, instead of to the proper name of the taxon (in this case Tabanidae). No one will look up Tabanidae, you say? For a start, I did, but more to the point there is no problem to reading the article if you typed in "horse-fly" and you got redirected to "Tabanidae". In fact, if you get desperate looking for "blindevlieg" or "blind fly", you wouldn't find it any harder to wind up at Tabanidae than at "horse-fly".
 * The article needs radical attention anyway and I am looking at starting that process. Now is a good time to do something about it. I'll hang fire for a couple of days until someone points out a good reason to reconsider.