---

Thanks! We all have our own reasons to and objections against accepting existing classifications: all of them are highly subjective, and the gaps between groups of taxa are hardly measurable.

However, my own position is not to rock the boat unless everybody's gonna wash and swim. I have behind me at least two major nomenclatural changes I am not very proud of: first was Terellia in Tephritidae absorbed many heterogeneous species, and the second is Ulidiidae vs. Otitidae. Both await for molecular cladistics verdict, which can either support, or disprove my point of view. In both cases, I am trying not to make any fuss until the "final truth" is achieved.

I.e., checklists and faunistical papers are not good places for changing or even discussing any subjective nomenclatural problems. Nomenclature must be stable, unless it contradicts well-proven phylogenetic grouping by supporting polyphyletic taxa.

I am waiting for the moment when Palloptera in the strict sense is undoubtedly shown to be paraphyletic, and Temnostoma and Toxoneura to be its daughter groups. And if then its result is published in a brand new "Manual of the Diptera of the World ", - I will be absolutely happy with that.

Until then, I am using the three genera. Just for stability.