|
|
| Author |
Message |
dolgr
|
|
Flies
| 
Sep 11 18:20 UTC 2003 |
I am wondering if anyone here can help me. I badly need the
descriptions of these species. They are Lispocephala atrimaculata,
Lispocephala flavibasis,Lispocephala unicolor, Lispocephala vernalis.
Maybe in some books they are called Caricea atrimaculata, Caricea
flavibasis, Caricea unicolor, Caricea vernalis.
Could anyone please help me to find the information about them? And
from where do you find this information? If someone could tell me some
websites of these species or books to look in, I would be very
grateful.
|
| 44 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 1 of 44:
|
Sep 11 19:59 UTC 2003 |
This sounds suspiciously like a class assignment. ;>
|
rcurl
|
|
response 2 of 44:
|
Sep 11 20:25 UTC 2003 |
Just for fun I did a little web searching - and am astonished at how many
species of flies there are. Aren't there more of beetles?
"When J. B. S. Haldane, remowned British physiologist and philosopher, was
asked what his studies of nature revealed about God, he replied, "An
inordinate fondness for beetles."
|
gull
|
|
response 3 of 44:
|
Sep 12 14:09 UTC 2003 |
<laugh> I like that.
|
dolgr
|
|
response 4 of 44:
|
Sep 15 12:48 UTC 2003 |
No, it's not a class assignment. Got a mail from a friend in China that needs
info on this (she's working on a Ph.D. in Education, so can't think of why
she needs fly info), but just thought I would post it here in case there are
any entymologists here.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 5 of 44:
|
Sep 15 16:18 UTC 2003 |
That was a long shot - but not impossible.
|
dolgr
|
|
response 6 of 44:
|
Sep 15 16:26 UTC 2003 |
Well, yes, but it couldn't hurt to ask, right?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 7 of 44:
|
Sep 15 17:51 UTC 2003 |
My experience is that it is hard to get any answers here to questions on
obscure or specialist topics, except about computers. I said hard, not
impossible, for there are some fonts of knowledge on some obscure topics -
like, say, Rag Time music, or taxi driving.....
|
flem
|
|
response 8 of 44:
|
Sep 15 19:04 UTC 2003 |
There are also a lot of people here who are better at googling than I am.
And more than a few who are willing to give their detailed opinion, whether
they know what they're talking about or not. :)
|
slynne
|
|
response 9 of 44:
|
Sep 15 23:13 UTC 2003 |
Hey, I resemble that remark!
|
lynne
|
|
response 10 of 44:
|
Sep 17 14:47 UTC 2003 |
<grin>
|
dolgr
|
|
response 11 of 44:
|
Sep 17 19:13 UTC 2003 |
I tried googling, but didn't get anywhere. Guess I'll have to try to hit a
university library for this one. Thanks anyway, people.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 12 of 44:
|
Sep 17 19:18 UTC 2003 |
It is too specialized and also usually explained with diagrams since
species separations involve minute details of many different body
organs. Also, structural taxonomy is fading as DNA based technology grows.
|
dolgr
|
|
response 13 of 44:
|
Sep 17 19:26 UTC 2003 |
Maybe so, but that doesn't answer the question. It was a long shot, but like
I said, it didn't hurt much. I have seen a number of people here seem to be
quite specialized in one area or another so I thought I'd take the chance.
Now, if I can find some old books on this . . .
|
rcurl
|
|
response 14 of 44:
|
Sep 17 22:19 UTC 2003 |
I wasn't answering a question, but just discussing likely reasons for a low
probability of an expert on that specific topic to be a grex participant.
Low, but not impossible, as I said.
I'm familiar with taxonomic articles in other areas (concerning troglobytes
and stygobytes) and they appear mostly in journals, since journal publication
is necessary for the description of new species. Eventually they get gathered
into books (I have some on the diatoms). So there must be such compilations
on the flies. How about "TAXONOMY OF THE MUSCOIDEAN FLIES" (1908). You
can find this and another several dozen such books at http://www.abebooks.c
om/
if you search on <flies taxonomy>.
|
dah
|
|
response 15 of 44:
|
Sep 17 22:55 UTC 2003 |
If she's working on a Ph. D, she should do her own fucking research. Don't
contribute to the degredation of degrees.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 16 of 44:
|
Sep 18 00:30 UTC 2003 |
We aren't talking about her sex life, where I agree she *should* do her
own research, but getting "hints" to point ways to learn are considered
legitimate in education. Teachers are supposed to be mentors, not just
critics.
|
dah
|
|
response 17 of 44:
|
Sep 18 00:32 UTC 2003 |
dolgr isn't a teacher, and surely by Ph. D time, she should be able to look
up the names of some flies.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 18 of 44:
|
Sep 18 01:05 UTC 2003 |
I'd say you should be right if this were a finishing PhD students, but
you may not understand how callow and ignorant are beginning PhD students
(my apologies to anyone to whom those descriptors applied).
|
dah
|
|
response 19 of 44:
|
Sep 18 01:11 UTC 2003 |
I could look up the names of those flies and I'm never even been an
undergraduate. It's trivial, and you are, sir, contributing to the
degredation of degrees. (degrade-ation of degrees. how clever.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 20 of 44:
|
Sep 18 06:28 UTC 2003 |
OK. Go ahead, if it is so trivial.
|
tod
|
|
response 21 of 44:
|
Sep 18 06:34 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
dah
|
|
response 22 of 44:
|
Sep 18 15:43 UTC 2003 |
Rane, I couldn't do that and prove it without contributing to the
degredation of degrees.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 23 of 44:
|
Sep 18 16:19 UTC 2003 |
I think you are just stalling. Go ahead, "degrade" all of our degrees. I'd
love to see your attempt to do it. The essence of the scientific method is
open discourse, which includes showing others are wrong.
|
tod
|
|
response 24 of 44:
|
Sep 18 17:17 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|