Comments on: Public Service Announcement: Drosophila is not a Fruit Fly

By: anki

anki — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:57:29 +0000

hello, nice blog you have. I found it when I search on Tephritidae, I have a fruit fly who is similar your first picture, I wonder if you know the right name on that fly? Xyphosia miliaria is more red and with red eyes, my picture is more grey with green eyes, as your first picutre.. I really want to know the real name on it.

have a nice day

By: Sequencing wine spoilage yeast

Sequencing wine spoilage yeast — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:17:16 +0000

[...] ethanol also helps prevent and of course this has implications for the Drosophila (Sophophora) flies that land there and eat yeast. They needed a good way to overcome the ethanol like the well studied [...]

By: Honeybee or Honey Bee? | Archetype

Honeybee or Honey Bee? | Archetype — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:03:15 +0000

[...] words, go try to convince geneticists that, if they won’t call their beloved model organism vinegar fly, at least they should call it fruitfly. Wait, does this [...]

By: Alehkhs

Alehkhs — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:14:22 +0000

Well good news, you don’t have to worry about her anyways!

By: myrmecos

myrmecos — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:40:40 +0000

The thing is, the drosophilids already had a perfectly good common name: Vinegar flies.

By: MrILoveTheAnts

MrILoveTheAnts — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:37:48 +0000

Would “Moldy Fruit Fly” be such a stretch? How do you change the common name to something?

By: ihateaphids

ihateaphids — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 04:38:16 +0000

I somewhat agree…except I don’t really understand the whole conservative pork issue. they are equally responsible for such stuff. i say we take our funding where we can get it. grants are one means, but creative lobbying is not off limits AFAIC.

By: myrmecos

myrmecos — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:24:19 +0000

There are several big-scale issues here, as I see them. Aside from the Fruit Fly/Vinegar Fly one, that is.

1. McCain/Palin’s demagoguery of science and the continued Republican promotion of anti-intellectualism as a campaign strategy. Definitely bad.

2. The use of congressional earmarks to fund research external to the usual scientific agencies (NIH, NSF, DOE, etc). A legitimate policy issue.

3. The government’s role in supporting industry. Regardless of any confusion on the part of Palin and the bloggers, this particular fly research is an agricultural subsidy of sorts. Also a legitimate policy issue.

4. The government’s role in supporting basic research.

I worry that by tangling these issues together in a “kitchen sink” approach when we fight back against #1, we give the medievalists ammunition by reinforcing the science=pork connection they already see.

By: Susannah

Susannah — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 20:42:46 +0000

I think the autism reference is valid, however; Palin, and her cheering section probably meant, and understood, by “fruit flies”, the flies they see in their kitchens when the kids leave banana peels lying about.

By: ihateaphids

ihateaphids — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 18:58:02 +0000

It is still correct in that she is mocking basic research, however, whatever the organism. I made the same mistake honestly, simply because Drosophila are commonly referred to as fruit flies, and I have a hard time believing Palin has ever heard of Tephritids. But the organism matters little in this case, really. I react the same way when they highlight the ‘1,000,000 dollars to study bear DNA,’ as it demonstrates a clear and consistent anti-science viewpoint .