It really is not a fruit fly.

IN a recent essay titled “Talking about the Genome,” paragingly called garbage species by the eminent evolutionist, Theodosius Dobzhansky. The endemic (or ecothe distinguished historian of recent science, Horace Freeland Judson (2001), made an incisive and cologically specialist) species constitute the second group; their distribution is circumscribed by their hosts, and gent plea for scientific language precision. He concludes, “. . . for ourselves and for the general public, they include 1600 species (Powell 1997). This division boils down to where the Drosophila female lays her what we require is to get more fully and precisely into the proper language of genetics.” The timeliness and eggs! Insect taxonomists, describing the cosmopolitans, have carefully spelled out their breeding sites. Imms verity of this admonition is not arguable. In parallel, there is also a need for precision in animal and plant (1925) in his textbook stated that they are “prevalent about flowing sap, decaying fruit, cider presses, vinegar nomenclature, both vernacular and scientific. As concerns nomenclature, inadvertently, Professor Judson factories, etc. where they are attracted by certain byproducts of fermentation.” Similarly, Seguy (1950, p. 366) fails to follow his own advice, no doubt because he is a historian, not a biologist. Pictured in his essay is an in his La Biologie de Diptéres states, “The Drosophilids are small flies attracted to moisture and light which seek adult male fly whose description reads: “The fruit fly: Drosophila mutants are the cornerstone of the language odorous substances and fermenting and putrefying materials” (translated from the French). Finally, Comstock, used in genetics.” Because more than one thousand species of the genus Drosophila have already been identhe dean of American entomology teachers, described Drosophilids in his 1924 textbook as “pomace flies; one tified, taxonomic precision dictates that this fly be precisely designated a Drosophila melanogaster male.1 I argue of the pomace flies, Drosophila melanogaster . . . is widely used in laboratories in the study of heredity” (Comfurther that there is great ecological variation among the numerous Drosophila species, vitiating the common stock 1924, p. 484). The inadequacy of “fruit fly” becomes obvious when name of fruit fly attached to D. melanogaster or any other Drosophila species. In the scientific literature and in the biology of endemic species is examined. For many endemic Drosophila species, their habitat and breeding textbooks, all Drosophila species should be referred to by their scientific, not their common, name. sites are unclear or unknown. Dobzhansky spent three decades investigating the population genetic structure Since Meigen in 1830 first described D. melanogaster, the numerous Drosophila species identified can be of D. pseudoobscura in the Sierra Nevada of California loosely separated into two groups. One group, the coswithout successfully identifying the breeding site(s) of mopolitan or ecologically generalist species, includes this species. However, where the breeding sites of en10–12 species. Their geographical distribution is intidemic species have been identified, their locations belie mately linked to human habitation,2 and they were disthe designation fruit fly. Two examples suffice. At least two species of Drosophila whose hosts are West Indian land crabs have been described by Carson and 1 Curiously, the captions to the fly parts are in German. Wheeler (1968). As they described for one species, “D. 2 An extreme example of the association of a cosmopolitan species endobrachia oviposits around the eyes of the crab; first with human habitation is the finding by Brncic and Dobzhansky instar larvae move between the third maxillipeds and (1957) of D. funebris in two vegetable and fruit stores in Punta Arenas, Straits of Magellan. A few D. funebris were found even farther south. thence into the gill chambers. Following a lengthy so-