This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Diptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of flies 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.DipteraWikipedia:WikiProject DipteraTemplate:WikiProject DipteraDiptera articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects 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.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Hi, the following sentences are come from [3], which is inaccurate:
"In contrast, the published finds from Central Europe (Austria, Hungary, Czech Republic) are old and the species has not been confirmed in these countries in recent decades."
Today sept. 2022, we got a user taken image for this species from Hungary. So, it is very obvious then, the above statement is wrong. The time-frame of the word "old" is not scientificaly meaningful, in case of a species which was discovered in 1794.
Therefore, I would like to suggest to use more sources if possible, or remove the inaccurate quote from the source 3.
.jpg){kind=small}
