---

Why doesn't put a brief description of main characters in GALLERY section that dinstinguish that family of others? It would be useful so we can learn to identify flies better. For example, I know, most of the time, how can I distinguish spider's families. (Indeed, it is not hard. ;) In diptera, I know no yet how can I distinguish some families, or better, how can I explain why this fly is Tephritidae and not else one.

Thank you.

---

Good suggestion - it would be nice to make Diptera more accessible to beginners.

For some families it might be possible to list some features that are visible from photos but these would often be (as we say) 'rules of thumb' ... they apply generally but not always. In the text books most groups are characterised by features that might not appear in photos at all because they are hidden or very small indeed.

Perhaps whoever does it could split the rules into 'text-book rules' and then 'rules of thumb'? :)

---

Good idea in itself. Anyone who wants to submit info is welcome, but in my experience 'brief' descriptions for families do not really exist. At least not so brief that I expect that they can be used in the album descriptions...

---

Certainly this is a good idea:p:p but also, for the moment try Wikipedia (see Weblinks) or go to the glossary for those families eg. blow fly added to it.
Wiki can be accessed this way too Go to blowfly in the glossary then type the family name into the Wikipedia search box.

The families (The genera of early workers such as Linnaeus, Fabricius) are the most easily recognized higher taxa (see glossary for this term) but Paul is sadly right about those small features but the rules of thumb not so easy to make. Recognizing the differences, say, between the Fanniiidae (slender bodied) and the stouter bodied Muscidae is a start. Then look at Kahis? thread comment on Thricops for a possible error here. Then learn that Tachinidae are more bristled than either. Is all about experience. Can we all agree that an expert has made more mistakes than anyone else (but learned from them) ?. I personally favour comments on behaviour ie. waving wings for many Sepsidae on the Gallery pages. Robert

---

You can do give depth info with images to help on this (not in Gallery, but we can put a link on there.) It would be an heraclian task :) (not herculian, I think.) I mean: you can (and others dipterists) put general info in gallery and then in-depth text explain so we can try really identify families. It is possible, I think. If possible for spiders, all of anyelse, it is very possible. :) But I understand what you mean with that.
But clues about lenght known, colors and variations possible, +possible habitats, beahvio(u)r, characters that a REAL :) dipterist do search everytime when he/she sees a dipter... would help a little more than nothing written.

Keep on the excellent work! This website is very useful and a great resource!

---

I guess it will not be so bad after all when looking at the space the descriptions might take (I have been snooping around on how things would look, etc.). Remains just one thing: I do not have the time to add them all now. I may take descriptions from another source later, though. Anything you want to submit here is welcome, but please try to follow the satndard as soon as one is set. :)

---

Are you sure the Album is the best place for such descriptions? Perhaps they should go to the glossary with cross-references/image links to the gallery

---

I will think about a suitable solution.

---

I suggest an article per family where information can be added bit by bit. It could include, for instance, a general description of the family, direct link to the family gallery, links to identification keys, litterature and checklists. I realize it's a lot of work, but everyone can contribute to the articles by leaving comments with additional info. As Paul mentioned a template would be good to make the articles uniform. Suggestions of a few headlines: Family description, Identification keys, Checklists, Literature.