Drosophila pseudoobscura: a model fruit fly for the real world

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


And now, an entry about why I photographed this small brown fly.

Students of introductory biology will recognize Drosophila melanogaster (see photo below) as the famous laboratory fruit fly whose mutations taught early geneticists about genes and chromosomes. But this post isn't about Drosophila melanogaster. After all, that species is not the only fruit fly. In fact- digression!- Drosophila isn't even a true fruit fly. That title is officially reserved for another family entirely, Tephritidae, while the thousands of species of Drosophilidae are technically vinegar flies.

No, this post is about another species, the dark one in the top photograph.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In the early 20th century, Drosophila melanogaster had performed admirably for basic studies of inheritance. But it wasn't suited to all questions. By the 1930's, the new evolutionary synthesis had sprouted wings and biologists like California's Theodosius Dobzhansky were looking beyond simple inheritance to the behavior of genes in the real world. Lab flies wouldn't do; they needed natural populations. Drosophila melanogaster was too closely associated with human commerce to reliably reveal patterns of evolution in the field.

So biologists searched for a wild fly. What they found, all up and down the west coast of North America, was a common, dark-colored relative, Drosophila pseudoobscura. When wild populations of this species showed signs of genetic differences from place to place, the fate of D. pseudoobscura as an evolutionary guinea pig was sealed. If Drosophila melanogaster was the iconic laboratory genetics animal, Drosophila pseudoobscura became the iconic field genetics animal. While D. melanogaster taught us about genes and inheritance, D. pseudoobscura taught us about the evolution of new species.

As a measure of this animal's importance, Google Scholar now lists more than 12,000 academic articles for "Drosophila pseudoobscura". You'd think this would be a well-photographed species. But you'd be wrong. Imagine my surprise when an image search for this animal turned up a paltry sample of photographs, many of the wrong species:

Among the few illustrations of real D. pseudoobscura are D. persimilis and D. melanogaster mislabelled as D. pseudoobscura and a calyptrate muscoid in a completely different fly family. Most other photos were small, blurry, or showed dead flies rather than living ones.

Why so few decent photographs of such an evolutionary icon? This was a job for a bug photographer!

I got my hands on live D. pseudoobscura lab stock, and these photos are the result.

I hope you enjoy these new images, and I hope they bring some small recognition to the existence of more than just one fruit fly.


Additional information:

Alex Wild is Curator of Entomology at the University of Texas at Austin, where he studies the evolutionary history of ants. In 2003 he founded a photography business as an aesthetic complement to his scientific work, and his natural history photographs appear in numerous museums, books and media outlets.

More by Alex Wild

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe