Talk:Drosophila

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

Insects Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Diptera High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-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.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BioStudent2020, Allanhomes. Peer reviewers: Sthomas10, Zachwherrmann, BenjaminMoes.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from the text:

General Drosophila Melanogaster Overview Coming Soon

---

At the beginning of this article this can be read: (Greek δροσος, drosos, "dew", + φιλα phila, "loving"). Actually, φιλα doesn't exist in classic Greek with that meaning. When creating scientific names, Greek roots are modified into Latin spellings and, sometimes, Latin morphemes (-a is a femenine suffix). The most similar word should be φίλη (phílē, which means "a female friend" or "beloved", not "loving"); -phila is just a scientific creation from the verb φιλέω, philéō, "to love" + the Latin femenine suffix -a. - Piolinfax 13:25, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article should be merged with Drosophila melanogaster. --24.14.254.14 02:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) magefile

No, because it deals with the genus Drosophila, not with the species D.melanogaster. Nina 20:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

True, but considering that the genus Drosophila contains about 1000 species, much if not most of the material on this page is actually about D. melanogaster and should be moved there. We should mention somewhere that modern geneticists and molecular biologists often use the terms "Drosophila" and "fruit fly" sloppily to refer to Drosophila melanogaster. AxelBoldt 01:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I found the same problem with the page for the genus Arabidopsis and the species Arabidopsis thaliana. I tried to fix it by changing the genus page. I moved out everything about thaliana and used a bold text at the top to redirect to the model system. Much of the problem is that people mistakenly link to Arabidopsis (or Drosophila) instead of the respective species pages. Then people start to add info assuming it is the page about the model system instead of the genus. David D. 20:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the information in this article was added on 25 Nov 2003 by user:Hopetocome (who seems to since have left Wikipedia); see [1]. A very strange edit [2] by user:Quyenphung on 17 May 2004 added quotes around a number of Hopetocome's statements and added references. I strongly suspect these references to be bogus: unless Quyenphung and Hopetocome are the same person, how would Quyenphung know the exact sources for the quoted statements? Furthermore, some of the claimed quotes are even non-grammatical.

If anyone has access to any of the cited sources, I would appreciate it if they could check the veracity of the claimed quotes. AxelBoldt 04:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I just did a Google search and found that at least the references to Weigmann 2003 are correct (see [3]). So probably everything is fine. AxelBoldt 04:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think this page needs a serious overhaul.

First of all, I think it is wise to make a clear separation between the genus and the various species, and the first line should indicate that D. melanogaster is a different page.

Secondly, the genus is highly paraphyletic, and taxonomic changes are expected. In this line, it should be better integrated with the higner levels ((sub-)family) as well as the subdivision in the genus (subgenera Sophophora, Drosophila and Idiomyia (next to 6 smaller genera) and lower levels). Cureently, there is no good published phylogeny, but a review of an article has been submitted that sums the current status of the genus. In that line, the list of species should be removed and replaced with a link to Taxodros, as that is the best and most complete overview of all species. A seperate section can be made for those species that do have a seperate page on wiki. Else, we could just dump all species on the list, but the taxonomic changes in the genus are pretty frequent, so that requires a lot of maintenance.

There is a tremendous amount of information on this genus available, but the current status is just a poor representation. I would opt for seperate headers for general information about morphology, ecology, physiology, behavviour, etc etc etc in so far it is genus level information, not melanogaster. --KimvdLinde 02:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a cleaned up version for the time being at User:KimvdLinde/Drosophila--KimvdLinde 04:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find long lists of red links to be less than helpful. It would be more useful to have a section that describes some of the diversity of the genus, links to the few existing Wikipedia articles for Drosophila species, and cites an authoritative source that provides a long list of species. (Good start towards such a revised section.) --JWSchmidt 04:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC) (first link edited after changing this point--KimvdLinde 15:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I changed it to the suggested version.....--KimvdLinde 04:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a general revision of the article. It still needs some work, but it's getting there. KarlM 07:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This quote is valid for Drosophila melanogaster, not the genus: "The fruit fly, is a cosmopolitan holometabolous insect, that is found in all warm countries, while in cooler regions, it is established by migrants during the summer or can over winter in warm places." (Weigmann, 2003) I will move it. --KimvdLinde 01:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added some clarification on the Idiomyia issue. The classification of Hawaiian species under this name was never accepted, but got propagated mainly through databases that include whatever is published. Since the original change was made in a major monograph and the article correcting and undoing it was a short note, many sites still have Idiomyia. We shouldn't be propogating its use as if there is debate about which classification is correct. It's a little long for a footnote, but when I get around to writing a separate page on Hawaiian Drosophilidae I'll move it there. KarlM 21:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an article does a proposal for change, and if others agree, it is followed. If it is not followed, it might not be accepted. So, it is slightly more difficult that just that. Just brushing aside the database of dr. Bächli as merely a database that juist publishes everything what is out there is incorrect. Only changes that seem to be stable are added to the database (pers. com. dr. Bächli). Om a different note, it is just a matter of time till the genus will be split in four major genera and Idiomyia will be a proper genus again. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as someone who works with Hawaiian Drosophilidae, I don't think there is much debate about which is valid: Idiomiya is not. The problem with it is that Grimaldi's classification was based on a morphological analysis, and had the Hawaiian Drosophila as a non-monophyletic grouping, with the crassifemur species group placed in with the genus Scaptomyza, and with the Hawaiian Scaptomyza as a non-monophyletic grouping. To the best of my knowledge, every single molecular study conducted since then has shown that the Hawaiian Drosophila are in fact monophyletic. Further complicating affairs, Grimaldi's Idiomiya is a radically different genus from the original Idiomiya, which initially included only a small subset of the picture-wings. MikeDunford 21:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you would split the genus Drosophila, the taxonomical valid name will be Idiomyia. That Grimaldi's Idiomyia was radically different than the original is actually quite irrelevant, when it is established that a certain group needs a genus name, the oldest valid synonym of which the type species is within the group will become the genus name. This can and will require a redescription of the genus, which Grimaldi actually did. However, the genus Drosophila is a paraphyletic mess, which requires quite a big change in the nonemclature to resolve, and hopefully will be done within the near future. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, with regard to Idiomiya, except that the redescription is currently not attached to a clearly monophyletic group, and is itself in need of a redescription. With regard to the paraphyly of Drosophila, it is a huge mess, but I doubt it will get fixed any time soon, unless an exemption is granted to redesignate the type species for the genus. I've got a feeling that any attempt to remove melanogaster from Drosophila will result in much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but right now the type is funebris, and any possible redefinition would put funebris and melanogaster in separate genera. MikeDunford 22:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be needed to set funebris and all other type speciemens aside by the ICZN, and mel has to become the new type. After that, splitting will leave D. mel with the correct name and saves a war among drosophilists. If you want more information, please, contact me off wiki, just follow the links --> -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's look at this quantitatively. Since Grimaldi's classification of the Hawaiian species in Idiomyia in 1990:

number of Hawaiian drosophilid papers using Drosophila: ~60

number of papers mentioning Idiomyia at all: 2

number of those papers endorsing that classification: 0

number of Hawaiian species described under Drosophila: 33

number of Hawaiian species described under Idiomyia: 0

That sounds like a consensus to me. Certainly not widely accepted. Until you publish your paper, it hardly merits a footnote as an oddity. This is not the place for pushing pet theories. KarlM 06:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. You might have only two article mentioning Idiomyia, I just counted already 13 pdf's in my collection, not to mention the paper reprints not available as PDF.
2. You may want to put Bachli aside, I do not. As far as I know, he is the contact person regarding Drosophilidae taxonomy for the Diptera database, which is subsequently used by institutes as the ICZN, etc.
3. Most articles that discuss the issue either mention it as unresolved or just avoid the issue and mention 'Hawaiian Drosophila' next to 'Drosophila' , not just one big blop of 'Drosophila' .
4. O'Grady has only in 2002 proposed to synonymize Idiomyia with Drosophila, which based on Bachli's database, who has not followed it, has not yet been accepted by all major Drosophilidae taxonomists in the world.

Based on this, it is clear that there is just no consensus among taxonomists (just take O'Grady versus Bachli) and that seems to be the most sound way to describe the current situation. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Can you give some citations? The figure of 2 came from a ZooRecord/Biosis search, so if it wasn't mentioned in the abstract it wouldn't have come up. However, I've been working on Hawaiian Drosophila for 12 years and have never seen one that took Idiomyia seriously. The fact that some people who aren't familiar with the classification of the group used it in a catalog doesn't make it valid.
2. I put it aside because a database is not a published work. Regardless of his standing and ability as a systematist, anybody can put their pet theories in a database with no criticism. When his paper resurrecting (and defining, since the only available definition only covers the planitibia group) Idiomyia is published, let me know and I may change my mind. Moreover, I don't wish to disparage Bachli's knowledge or abilities as a systematist, but since nothing he has published has involved Idiomyia or Hawaiian drosophilids, I wouldn't consider him an expert in the group.
3. The fact that articles that mention the issue call it unresolved is due to most articles not mentioning it at all. Only the extremely small minority who support it would call it unresolved. "Hawaiian Drosophila" is widely used as an equivalent to one of the larger species groups, like virilis-repleta, not "avoiding the issue". Since the Hawaiian drosophilids are not sister to the remainder of Drosophila, it's wrong to write it like that.
4. Regardless of whether Bachli has updated his database, Idiomyia has still been formally synonymized again. What counts is what is published, not what someone is thinking in their head or on their web site. Moreover, you make it sound like it's just O'Grady vs. Bachli and I only have this position because I'm O'Grady's mouthpiece, which is not true. NO ONE working on Hawaiian Drosophilidae uses Idiomyia.

This is way more time than is worth spending on what seems to be a minor matter of wording, but it's especially frustrating to me because it exemplifies one of the biggest problems in science: lay people thinking that fringe ideas are mainstream because the people who hold them shout the loudest. It's no different from "teach the controversy", and half the people in the US thinking that there is a debate about evolution among biologists. I find it especially ironic given the rant you have on your user page about Wikipedia being a useless bunch of POV-pushers, when you are doing precisely the same thing here. KarlM 05:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, have it your way. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How come we have it as Musca funebris, even though it's a redirect to Drosophilia funebris? Why are we not allowed to change it?--Mr Fink 05:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is because it was originally described with that name. When the genus Drosophila was described, Fallén used the species Musca funebris as the type. KarlM 07:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved two of the three new pictures over to Drosophila melanogaster, since they're pretty much specific to it. It's worth having one demonstrating eye mutants, since that's mentioned in the article, but it's really about the genus as a whole. KarlM 07:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to submit to you a video of a ‘fruitfly’ That resembles some of yours yet is totally different - please contact me on mjm.r.wootton@live.co.uk Riekie Wootton (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to submit to you a video of a ‘fruitfly’ That resembles some of yours yet is totally different - please contact me on mjm.r.wootton@live.co.uk Riekie Wootton (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the first reference (bifurca = 6 cm sperm), and added another ref for "few giant sperm..." Flyguy649^talk_contribs 06:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, you read that correctly. 5.8 centimetres, not millimetres. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody know why the thumbnail for the eye color picture isn't showing up in the page? If you click on the link the full picture displays fine, and it's encoded the same as it's always been, so I don't understand why it's not working. KarlM 22:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem with WikiCommon's server. It's one of those "Technical Difficulties" moments.--Mr Fink 22:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're quick at catching comments! I just noticed the header about that and came back to delete my post, figuring no one would have read it yet. KarlM 22:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071107160224.htm
• http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/53844/
• http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?&pubmedid=17202166

The term "picked-fruit flies" comes up with only about 15 hits in Google, several of which are just mirrors of this article. Unless someone can find other evidence that it's actually common (in English; perhaps it's a translation of common usage somewhere else?), it should be left out. I've certainly never heard it. KarlM (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked the taxobox, mostly using the trimmed version but with some modifications. I work on Drosophila and IMO these are the taxonomically relevant ranks. Below subfamily the ranks and mostly unused and will likely be changed around in the near future anyway; between Insecta and Drosophilidae the ranks are not particularly important for the discussion of the genus (I think they are appropriate on the Drosophilidae page). If you have serious issues with it, let's hash out the reasoning here first and settle on a consensus. KarlM (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, I appreciate your input. The fact of the matter is that there is already a consensus. WP:TX is fairly clear about what ranks sre to be included, and as you rightly say, ranks such as Pterygota have no place in a species article. The insertion of large numbers of extraneous ranks is the personal quest of a single editor, and should not be given undue weight. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? There is nothing there that says what should or shouldn't be included. Several of the ones you just deleted are useful (and much more so in the Drosophilidae article, where you also deleted them). KarlM (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Taxoboxes should include all major ranks above the taxon described in the article, plus minor ranks that are important to understanding the classification of the taxon described in the article, or which are discussed in the article. Other minor ranks should be omitted." — WP:TX --Stemonitis (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to encourage articles on other species of importance to studies of evolution in wild populations. For many years Theodosius Dobzhansky and his co-workers collected, bred and studied Drosophila persimilis from wild populations in California and elsewhere; Drosophila robusta, Drosophila ananassae, Drosophila burchii, Drosophila melanica, Drosophila miranda, Drosophila prosaltans, Drosophila serrata, Drosophila virilis, Drosophila willistoni, Drosophila paulistorum, Drosophila artificialis, Drosophila prosaltans have all made appearances in the evolutionary literature (see Dobzhansky T. 1970. Genetics of the evolutionary process. Columbia, N.Y.). From this perspective I would think an article on D. persimilis to be essential, and others, especially D. miranda and D. willistoni, highly desirable. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Only 1005 days after your request, I have started an article on D. willistoni. Speciate (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should we erect a new article to list all of the species?--Mr Fink (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being the writer of the concerning species list, I have to say:

1. Drosophila is not a different genus of insects, compared to the rest of genus articles written in the Wikipedia. So, because every article in Wikipedia that described a genus has a description of the species related, the article of Drosophila should have the same information too.
2. Regards your deletion, KarlM, my personal opinion is: when somebody creates some kind of useful information in an article, if you think that it is not well placed, or needs a reedition, please, adapt this information for yourself. A simple "deletion" is very disgusting for the previous editor. I always take a lot of care to do that, if the information is useful, it should be in the Wikipedia, maybe in other article, why not, I don't have any significative opinion about that (I have seen a lot of articles in Wikipedia with longer lists than that).
3. Finally, the existance of this list is important because the approximation of the article is too for researching. I am a researcher too, but we don't have to forget that Drosophila is first a biological genus and it comprises a lot of species, and after that, Drosophila is a model organism for scientists, but just after that.
4. I will do the list for myself in a separated article, but please, consider these appreciations in the future: don't simply delete useful information made by others, this is really unkind. Flakinho (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. A species list is not useless. But there are over 1,500 species in the genus, and exactly how many depends on who you talk to and what classification they use (see my discussion above with KimvdLinde). Putting all of them in would be much larger itself than the current article. Putting in a random assortment of species, like the first draft that was there, is not very useful. It just makes more sense to make it a separate article. And incidentally, most of the species lists for other genera are useless, because they only include <1/4 of the species.
2. When something is deleted it isn't gone forever. It's still in the history if you want to pull it out to recreate it for the list article, you don't have to start from scratch. Also, I provided a notice and explanation of it on your talk page. None of this is any more "disgusting" than any other edits that routinely go on, including to my own contributions.
3. I'm well aware of Drosophila as more than D. melanogaster; I work on non-model Drosophila myself. IMHO there's not much need for a list when there are outside resources like TaxoDros readily available, but I don't see any problem with it per se. It's just that putting a huge list of names in the middle of the article, so that you have to scroll past 1500 lines to get to the references and links, makes it unreadable. KarlM (talk) 04:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, the most of the genera articles in Wikipedia, are useless, following your explanation. Because there are a lot that don't include all the existant species. Good. So, the template {{listdev}} is useless, and probably the people that create all these articles and the template are useless too. And probably is easier to do a Google search looking for Miguel de Cervantes instead creating an article about him, because all the information are in Google. Yes. Probably you are right. Flakinho (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A list of all the species is useful. A list of (economically, scientifically, etc.) significant species is useful. A list of species with articles is useful. A list of 10% randomly chosen species is useless. A million autogenerated species pages consisting of only "Aus bus is a plant in South America. It is threatened by habitat loss." is useless. In case you hadn't noticed, people do lots of useless things on WP. Relentless categorizers, for instance. The point of good editing should be to provide information without information-free clutter.

I agree that breaking them down into species groups is also important. If you want to a table of all the species from TaxoDros (downloaded Jan. 6 2010), which can probably be rapidly converted into WP format, you can download it from here (Excel spreadsheet, with species groups and subgroups). Note that this is for the entire family, and has Idiomyia (usually considered part of Drosophila, at least for now) separated as a genus. KarlM (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it would be a far better use of our time if we were to use the energy we're currently using to bicker with to work on making the genus list page better, like, for example, reorganizing all the species according to species complexes.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be far better to provide the subdivision of the genus, which is subgenera, and species groups, and prosition the species in each of the species groups, which is reasonably doable. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good! I agree with Mr Fink and Kim van der Linde! :D Flakinho (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would thank for linking here a past- homonymy with the Fungal Genus. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A very similar case is there with Acetabularia. Here I link it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acetabularia#Exist_homonymy_with_a_fungal_Genus

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Drosophila. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051214205852/http://rana.lbl.gov:80/drosophila/ to http://rana.lbl.gov/drosophila/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130121085710/http://ccamp.res.in/fly-facility.html to http://ccamp.res.in/Fly-facility.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Drosophila. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527141042/http://rana.lbl.gov/drosophila/index.html to http://rana.lbl.gov/drosophila/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rana.lbl.gov/drosophila/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that I care too much about it, but I was mystified a bit when user:Leschnei removed the link in the "See also" section regarding the adage about attracting more flies with honey than vinegar - Drosophila flies are also known as "vinegar flies"... get it? Sure it doesn't contribute direct information about the Drosophila, but it arguably does make the page more interesting and adds humor. Aren't you also trying to get people interested in the topics you're writing about? The link was inspired by the main French Wikipedia home page in their "Did you know" section about Drosophila...Smellyshirt5 (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The section on 'use in genetic research' seems to imply that Drosophila is especially closely related to humans. Surely it isn't, at least when compared with any vertebrate species, e.g. mice or monkeys. Presumably what is really meant is that many Drosophila genes are similar enough to human genes for evolutionary homologies to be identified, but the same would be true of many other organisms. If I remember the history rightly, Drosophila originally became popular in genetics research for practical reasons: they reproduce quickly and in large numbers, they are cheap and easy to keep, and they show a number of visibly identifiable mutations, which made them good subjects for early 'Mendelian' genetics. Then it turned out that they also have 'giant' chromosomes in some of their cells, which makes them easy to examine under a microscope. 2A00:23C8:7906:1301:2027:569B:16F4:269D (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]