I don't have the credentials or education required to even comment but....

It seems to me that if Texas and Louisiana have them then why not Oklahoma ? Here's an example of what I mean, alligators are not indigenous to Oklahoma and you wouldn't think they should be here but they are. They migrated in from Louisiana. I guess my point is that just because a book says they shouldn't be here doesn't mean they aren't. It's the same with BugGuide data. Oklahoma is, in my opinion, very under represented but it doesn't mean that critters don't exist here just because they don't show up on a data map.

Why do you think it's this species? Or, perhaps, why does Ron think it's this species. You are one that always seems to want an explanattion as to why species X is species X and yet you accept this specimen as a Chrysomya. In fact, you even go as far as identifying it to the species level! I don't know if it is or isn't. I cannot justify placing it in a genus, only wish I could.

Nothing personal. I have moved the mis-identified Strickand fly and will probably move, or at least question, many of the others in this genus.

That's ok, not taken personally. I have no idea if the ID is correct or not but I accepted the ID because Ron knows his flies and I know nothing. Like I said I don't have the credentials or education to even comment but I thought what the hell, I'll throw in my two cents....or 1 cent....or half cent....or maybe I have no cents :-D

but I just moved many of his ID's to the correct species
SEE HERE

Your knowledge of flies is far greater than mine, plus I'm no scientist. Also, I did say "I think" in my first comment, indicating more of a guess than an ID.

"I am thinking this image may be of flies in the genus Chrysomya and NOT Lucilia. Update: Indeed, these appear to be adults of the "hairy maggot blow fly," Chrysomya rufifacies, an introduced species now not uncommon in Florida and other southern states. The blue posterior margins of each abdominal segment are quite diagnostic.
… Eric R. Eaton, 28 December, 2005 - 5:52pm"

If this is correct then your fly would be a Chrysoma based on the posterior margins.
And the relatively wide gap between the eyes in the other shot would make this a male rufifacies. Now we have good evidence to put a name to this fly.