Is ‘the Drosophila‘ actually Drosophila?

This post was chosen as an Editor's Selection for ResearchBlogging.orgCelebrities commonly change their names on the path to stardom. Elton John began life as Reginald Kenneth Dwight, John Denver as Henry Deutschendorf, Jr, and Bela Lugosi as Be’la Ferenc Dezso Blasko. A name change can make someone more marketable in the fickle entertainment industry. However, once someone makes it big, their name usually stays the same (excepting P-Diddy and Prince, whose constant name changes became marketing strategies in themselves). A celebrity’s name becomes the branding that represents and sells their fame.

What about name changes for scientific celebrities? I’m not talking about people, but rather the components of nature that we observe around ourselves and adorn with nomenclature. There was (unnecessary) public uproar when Pluto was re-designated as a Kuiper Belt planetoid. Neil deGrasse Tyson even got hate mail from children when the American Museum of Natural History updated its displays accordingly. The change was the result of a non-unanimous scientific consensus attempting to better define the bodies of the solar system, but many people had become attached to the idea of PLANET Pluto and reacted negatively to the news.

Now a new conundrum is brewing within scientific circles as biologists try to decide what to do when the nomenclature describing a celebrity organism no longer jives with scientific observation. Nature News asks, ‘What’s in a name?’. Well, when the name is Drosophila melanogaster, there’s 100 years of glorious scientific discoveries in a name.

Photo by mr.checker

D. melanogaster, the common fruit fly, was a major workhorse behind the early 20th century genetic revolution. Researchers like Thomas Hunt Morgan harnessed the fly’s fast reproductive cycle and simple care requirements to elucidate the fundamentals of heredity. Since then, the powerful D. melanogaster model has exploded to become a principle contributer to research in genetics, neurology, development, biomechanics, and evolution. Found in almost any biology department around the world, this animal is of tremendous historical and contemporary importance to science; a true celebrity.

However, there is one slight problem; Drosophila melanogaster is probably not Drosophila melanogaster.

The issue here is the status of the genus, Drosophila. This genus, as it is currently recognized, contains 1,450 species of fruit flies. A genus, or any level of taxonomic organization, is supposed to be monophyletic, that is; composed only of species that are evolutionarily closer to one another than they are to the members of any other genus. However, with Drosophila, this has been shown through extensive molecular and morphological analysis not to be the case.

Fruit Fly supertree. Adapted from Van der Linde and Houle, 2008

Look at the phylogenetic tree to the left (for an overview of phylogenetics, read this post). Each node on the tree represents a group of species of the same genus. Notice, however, that the 1,450 species of the Drosophila genus are split up into six different clades, interspersed with other genera. This is called paraphyly, and it points out an error in the taxonomic nomenclature. All the species of a given genus should be grouped together, in a monophyletic relationship. Ultimately, this means that there is going to have to be some reorganization of the genus. Some members of Drosophila are going to be ousted and given new names.

The obvious solution to preserve the celebrated D. melanogaster species name would seem to be leaving its clade (marked with a red arrow) as genus Drosophila and renaming the others. However, there are two problems with this. First of all, restructuring the genus in the manner would push out, and require the renaming, of 1,100 species of fruit flies. Furthermore, the type species Drosophila funebris (marked with an orange arrow), the animal from which the Drosophila genus was originally described in 1787, lies in a different clade than D. melanogaster. A recent petition to re-designate the genus type species as D. melanogaster was voted down by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

As it looks at the moment, D. melanogaster is probably on its way to becoming Sophophora melanogaster. This has generated shock and disbelief from biologists; citing possible research impediments should the name change go through. In addition, they surely have a sentimental attachment to the name of their favorite laboratory arthropod. When biologists say ‘Drosophila‘, they mean Drosophila melanogaster. This celebrated animal has a strong claim to being the most important and powerful research tool biologists have in their arsenal. However, even D. melanogaster, like Pluto, may need to bend in name to the powers of parsimonious taxonomic nomenclature.

Read more about the Drosophila name fight here and here at Nature News, or here at Catalogue of Organisms

Check out some of my other posts about phylogenetics:


    Kim Van der Linde, & David Houle (2008). A supertree analysis and literature review of the genus Drosophila and closely related genera (Diptera, Drosophilidae)Insect Syst. Evol., 39, 241-267


10 Responses to “Is ‘the <em>Drosophila</em>‘ actually <em>Drosophila</em>?”

  1. 1 BobK April 9, 2010 at 10:35 am

    I cannot wait for the letters from elementary school students asking why the mean taxonomists have to rename their favorite fly. Taxonomy must reflect phylogeny and that is that.

  2. 2 Ted C. MacRae April 9, 2010 at 1:38 pm

    Personally, I’m happy to see the petition voted down. The case for stability was not as strong as many make it seem, as it was really only this one species that anybody cared about – there would be similar numbers of species with new generic assignments regardless of whether this petition was accepted. The only question was which species.

    There is an annoying inconsistency in the whole petition process. I once tried to change the name of an insignificant little beetle to a long-forgotten senior synonym and encountered adamant opposition from a reviewer, even though the junior synonym did not meet the requirements for reversal of precedence. A petition was submitted to conserve the junior synonym, which was accepted almost unanimously. How can the conservation of that junior synonym have been so important, when conservation of a scientific name known by almost everybody with a high school education is not? I take this as a welcome sign that the ICZN is, properly, going back to only accepting petitions where meeting the provisions of The Code would have a profound and wide-ranging effect on stability. Trying to protect this or that pet species name is just silly.

    • 3 Mike Bok April 9, 2010 at 4:13 pm

      I cannot wait for the letters from elementary school students asking why the mean taxonomists have to rename their favorite fly. -BobK

      Luckily, I don’t think many third-graders know about Drosophila. I can’t imagine, ‘OK children today we’re going to do our multiplication tables, then have a nap, and then learn about sex-linked recessive traits in Drosophila melanogaster‘.

      I would be more concerned with backlash from sentimental researchers.

      The Code… -Ted

      For some reason I picture an enormous, gold-bound, weathered tome clutched in the hands of an ancient Old-world naturalist, sitting in oversized leather chair in a dimly lit vault deep beneath Oxford University.

  3. 4 Nigel Atkinson June 27, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    The name of Drosophila melanogaster should not be changed. It is one of the most important model organisms. A name change will only confuse the literature.

  4. 5 compare life insurance uk June 11, 2013 at 10:06 pm

    What’s up, this weekend is fastidious in support of me, since this moment i am reading this fantastic educational post here at my home.

  5. 6 Ashton Mcniff June 28, 2013 at 1:56 pm

    This is the most effective posts that we have read. Now i’m just simply captivated by how wise you happen to be. Because of your own personal insite I was in a position to take your knowledge and also implement the idea to my issue. Your article was the ideal means to fix my needs. If anybody needs this sort of info I will make sure to advise them about your website. I would personally love to express to all your readers they are blessed to obtain this type of info. We loved your article a lot that I liked this, tweeted it, subscribed, and saved it to my favorite social bookmarking website just for later reading. Once again, thank you for assisting me with assisting me resolve our dilemma.

  6. 7 hacked cpanel November 18, 2014 at 7:41 pm

    I believe this is one of the most vital information for me.

    And i am glad reading your article. But should statement on few general things, The
    site style is ideal, the articles is truly nice : D. Just right task, cheers

  1. 1 News » Blog Archive » Editor’s Selections: Flocking People, Drosophacalypse, Deep-Sea Life-Lists, and Who Misses the Mangroves? Trackback on April 15, 2010 at 5:26 pm
  2. 2 Drosophila reclassification to Sophophora melanogaster - Dendroboard Trackback on April 21, 2010 at 5:16 pm
  3. 3 commercial water heater repair denver Trackback on July 7, 2014 at 11:56 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

I have moved.
Arthropoda can now be found here.

Michael Bok is a graduate student studying the visual system of mantis shrimp.

Flickr Photos

%d bloggers like this: