Talk:Eristalis tenax

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Insects Low‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Diptera Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Diptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of flies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DipteraWikipedia:WikiProject DipteraTemplate:WikiProject DipteraDiptera articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Behavioral Ecology Peer Review

for the overview section, I suggest that the references be taken out because according to good article guideline, if lead info is already mentioned in the article (as it should be) and isn’t controversial, redundant citations should be taken out. I don’t think any of the lead info would be considered controversial. I also moved “toughness” section to the “life cycle” section as I thought this connected pretty well. For the “pollination” section, I am not sure how relevant that would be because it is focusing on diptera, but not on the specific species, so I think adding specific info pertaining to E. tenax would be more appropriate. I also moved “territoriality” to before “life history” as this would follow the article format give in project diptera and made life history its own separate section. Overall, a good article and had lots of interesting info, especially the part on mimicry with honeybees. Y.shiuan (talk) 00:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing I did for the article was to change the structure of the overview so that it started with a sentence about this specific fly instead of a sentence about Diptera. Something that I did throughout the entire article (or at least tried to) was to put the period at the end of the sentence, before the citation, instead of after the citation. That is the correct format, and I recommend that the rest of them are also fixed. I also changed some words that were spelled incorrectly, like "latitude." I also removed the word "extremely," because it was overused. I changed some words that were shortened to the full word, like "temp" to "temperature." I also changed the name of the section "Appearance through Life Cycle" to "Life History," but I think the Life History and Life Cycle sections are very similar and should be condensed. The biggest problem I encountered in this article was the Description section. The author simply put many short incomplete sentences to describe the fly, such as "Eyes are marbled in black" and "femur 3 thick, hanging down while hovering." I tried to make it more cohesive, but struggled with this because I wasn't sure what it was even supposed to be saying. I recommend that the author goes back to this section to make it have complete sentences so that it is more understandable to the reader. Finally, I have some recommendations. First, I recommend adding citations to the end of each sentence and not put them all at the end of the paragraph. I also think that the sentences that cite specific papers should be removed and summarized. In the Biology section, the last sentence is confusing and needs to be cleared up. Finally, some references have a "check date values" warning and should be checked and updated.Hannahwhite97 (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is overall very well written and contains lots of interesting information. You did a great job on the picture selection, not only including pictures of E. tenax, but also the species that it mimics. Your description of the mimicry was also very thorough and explanatory. I made some general edits to sentence structure and grammar. Within the Description section you include some numbers that confused me. I would suggest making these clearer/removing them if they were accidental. You could also improve the article my discussing why the larvae are called rat-tailed maggots and why they are significant enough to have their own wikipedia page. JustinLevin (talk) 04:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers an expansive range of information about this fly. The choice of media is also diverse, plentiful, and useful in gaining a deeper understanding of the text. In addition, the formatting/structure of the article is clear and organized, making depth of information much easier to synthesize. My recommendations would be to limit some repetitive concepts about the distribution of the fly, and some of the language could be less repetitive and also clearer/more concise. Eengermann (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Human intestinal myiasis of the Rat-tailed maggot???

This "human intestinal myiasis of the Rat-tailed maggot" sound like nonsense to me. Intestinal parasites are specifically adapted to that environment, but here we're expected to believe that an insect that has a larval form that is optimized for a waterborne existence will somehow survive in the intestine "as long as the breathing tube reaches towards the anus". I've looked at the web references, and they're not detailed enough to give a proper idea of what's going on.

But my guess is this: I assume that drone flies could easily find their way down a toilet's vent pipe and lay their eggs at the back of the U-bend. The maggots would stay at the back of the U-bend, feeding on the goop there, and floating just below the surface of the water as they normally do. However, if a stool hits the water in the pan, some maggots might get sloshed around the U-bend into the pan. Person looks in water, jumps to wrong conclusion, fishes the maggot out and takes it to their doctor.--Farry (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your "guesses" do not deserve an ambox

Your misunderstanding of this organism's capabilities (and your lack of imagination) trump documented cases?

Hall MC. A note regarding myiasis, especially that due to syrphid larvae. Arch Intern Med 1918; 21: 309-312.
Cookson HA, Oldroyd H. Intestinal infestation by larvae of a drone fly. Lancet 1937; 2: 804.
Zumpt F. The problem of intestinal myiasis in humans. S Afr Med J 1963; 37: 305-307.
Lakshminarayana CS, Kanchana MV, Janakavalli R, Mallika M. Intestinal myiasis due to Eristalis tenax. J Indian Med Assoc 1975; 65: 234-235.
Aguilera A, Cid A, Regueiro JM, et al. Intestinal myiasis caused by Eristalis tenax (letter). J Clin Microbiol 1999; 37: 3082.

In the future, please just put a "cite needed" if you don't believe something. "accuracy disputed" is for something a little more objectively supportable than your hunches. The breathing tube (rat tail) of this maggot is an adaptation to harsh and anaerobic environments; it can survive in polluted cesspools which are a much less maggot-friendly environment that the interior of a human stool, even if that stool is still occupying someone's colon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.20.180 (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree

I have read older literature concerning intestinal infestation of Eristalis larvae. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martottenheim (talk • contribs) June 23, 2009 (UTC)