Talk:Cluster fly

	Arthropods portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

07.10.07

The article on the kind "Pollenia" sensu Rognes (like that on its article on Calliphoridae, in general), is the expression of an incomparable ignorance on these dipterous and it represents a true POLENIOMANIA of its author. These is the cause for which the readers, who are not advised, must read and in particular retain its information with many precautions. In the recent critical articles on the wild imaginings of Rognes on Pollenia and, also on the kind Eurychaeta B.B. (which belongs to the Sarcophagidae family), one finds the evidence, on the basis of morpho-structural research of these dipterous, which it introduced of nomina nuda and of characteristic fabulations to the author of the article. Us give, for information exact of readers, some articles well documented, which reveals the inaccuracies of the data, which were published by Knut Rognes, in a great polleniomaniacal series of publications.

For your explanation I give you critical work of A. Lehrer, in which you can note the ineptitudes of Rognes on the genus Pollenia and Eurychaeta.

1. LEHRER, A.Z., 2007, Variabilité de Pollenia rudis (Fabricius) et ses nouvelles synonymes (Diptera, Calliphoridae). Fragmenta Dipterologica, nr. 7 : 13.- 19[1].

2. LEHRER, A.Z., 2007, Nouvelles espèces et nouveaux synonymes du genre Nitellia Robineau-Desvoidy (Diptera, Calliphoridae). Fragmenta Dipterologica, nr. 7 : 19 - 27[2].

3. LEHRER, A.Z., 2007, A propos de Pollenia amentaria sensu Rognes, 1991 (Diptera, Calliphoridae). Fragmenta Dipterologica, nr. 8 : 1 - 3[3].

4. LEHRER, A.Z., 2007, Pollenia venturii sensu Rognes 1992 est un synonyme de Nitellia solitaria (Grunin, 1970) (Diptera, Calliphoridae). Fragmenta Dipterologica, nr. 8 : 17 - 20. [4]

5. LEHRER, A.Z., 2007, Analyse critique du « Pollenia vagabunda species-group » sensu Rognes (Diptera, Calliphoridae). Fragmenta Dipterologica, nr. 9 : 1-6[5].

6. LEHRER, A.Z., 2007, A propos de « Pollenia intermedia-group » sensu Rognes et du statut de Pollenia rudis alajensis Rohdendorf (Diptera, Calliphoridae). Fragmenta Dipterologica, nr. 9 :7-11[6].

7. LEHRER, A.Z., 2007, La terminologie nomenclatrice illogique et non conforme de Knut Rognes, dans la recherche des Calliphoridae (Diptera). Fragmenta Dipterologica, nr.11:5-7[7]

8. LEHRER, A.Z., 2007, Analyse de Pollenia semicinerea sensu Rognes et description d’une espèce nouvelle du genre Pollenia R.D. (Diptera, Calliphoridae). Fragmenta Dipterologica, nr. 9 :20-25[8]

9. LEHRER, A.Z., 2007, La fausse théorie de Rognes sur la position systématique du genre Eurychaeta B.B. et établissement d’une nouvelle espèce asiatique (Diptera, Sarcophagidae). Fragmenta Dipterologica, nr. 10 :8-12[9]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.205.95 (talk) 05:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pandur —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.1.234.168 (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

13.10.07

Dear friends,

You now have the proof of the psychosis of one of large impostors of our time, Knut Rognes, which is obsessed by the worship of its personality and not to find and correctly express the facts of nature. In one is single delirious of interpretation in the world of the taxonomists, this ignoramus made inventions which are in conformity neither to the standards of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and nor with the biological truth. Moreover, it is has a character of a "ragged" and not of a man of science, because it continuously uses the means of slandering of enquiring truths and complaints with the university forums.

Even now it erased the files pdf which were assembled to the invalid species of Rognes and which show the strong arguments of its ineptitudes on Pollenia and the Eurychaeta genus (of the Sarcophagidae family).

It is afraid of scientific criticisms of Prof. Dr. A. Z. Lehrer, because it is only one simple mime according to work of the specialists, by believing a large taxonomist philosopher who does not understand anything on taxonomy and the nomenclature of Calliphoridae. This is the cause for which it has destroyed the addresses of files pdf, by believing that the researchers cannot directly read work of great value of Dr. Lehrer. Really, Rognes is the most retrograde, the most sterile and the most idiotic (as is usually named) amateurs dipterologists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.153.2 (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, we put a very serious question: who has the right to erase the contributions of the men of science to establish the scientific truths and as is it possible that a "ragged" can be introduced, by intellectual effraction, in the contributions of the others, which were written in your Wikipedia?

Pandur and Condor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.153.2 (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]