Drosophila. A guide to species identification and use

By H. Jongde. 2006

398 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ad154d96587ace7fcadc13c88ef2d39f5a8532b1

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Bacterial Communities of Diverse Drosophila Species: Ecological Context of a Host–Microbe Model System (2011, background): “in practically every type of habitat, and show a great variety of morphological, behavioral, and life-history traits [1].”
Phylogenetic analysis and a time tree for a large drosophilid data set (Diptera: Drosophilidae) (2013, background): “Furthermore, prescutellar acrostical setulae, observed in most Scap- todrosophila species, also occur within Steganinae (Grimaldi, 1990; Markow & O’Grady, 2006), potentially providing independent morphological support for our topology.”
Phylogenetic classification of the Drosophilidae Rondani (Diptera): the role of morphology in the postgenomic era (2013, background): “…Rondani, to which Drosophila species belong, is huge, containing 4157 species, classified under 75 extant and 3 extinct genera (TAXODROS: http://taxodros.unizh.ch, as of 31 May 2012), that reveal unique morphological and ecological diversity among Muscomorphan flies (Markow & O’Grady, 2006).”
Invasive host for invasive pest: when the Asiatic cherry fly (Drosophila suzukii) meets the American black cherry (Prunus serotina) in Europe (2014, methodology): “The identification and nomenclature of Drosophila species followed that described by Markow and O’Grady (2006).”
Reproductive isolation and the causes of speciation rate variation in nature (2016, background): “However, our understanding of taxonomic speciation rates in the drosophilidae is poor: indeed, it is possible that hundreds or thousands of distinct drosophilid taxa remain to be described (Markow & O’Grady, 2006).”