Diptera.info :: Identification queries :: Diptera (adults)
Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Which Sciapus?
|
|
| conopid |
Posted on 05-10-2007 20:33
|
 Member Location: United Kingdom Posts: 1039 Joined: 02.07.04 |
One for Nikita and Igor? I cannot decide which UK Sciapus this is. I think it might be Sciapus longulus. None of the tarsi appear to be modified, all tarsi are dark, and it has a fairly metallic face. All help appreciated. conopid attached the following image:  [32.09Kb] Nigel Jones, Shrewsbury, United Kingdom |
|
|
|
| conopid |
Posted on 05-10-2007 20:33
|
|
Member Location: United Kingdom Posts: 1039 Joined: 02.07.04 |
second photo
conopid attached the following image:  [21.45Kb] Nigel Jones, Shrewsbury, United Kingdom |
|
|
|
| conopid |
Posted on 05-10-2007 20:34
|
|
Member Location: United Kingdom Posts: 1039 Joined: 02.07.04 |
third photo
conopid attached the following image:  [30.72Kb] Nigel Jones, Shrewsbury, United Kingdom |
|
|
|
| conopid |
Posted on 05-10-2007 20:34
|
|
Member Location: United Kingdom Posts: 1039 Joined: 02.07.04 |
Fourth photo
conopid attached the following image:  [21.32Kb] Nigel Jones, Shrewsbury, United Kingdom |
|
|
|
| Kahis |
Posted on 05-10-2007 20:57
|
 Member Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 1999 Joined: 02.09.04 |
Sciapus zonatulus (Zett.)
Kahis |
 |
|
| conopid |
Posted on 05-10-2007 23:18
|
|
Member Location: United Kingdom Posts: 1039 Joined: 02.07.04 |
Thanks Kahis, My key to British Dolichopidiae says that zonatulus fly has long yellow hairs on the ventral side of the front femora, but the hairs on this fly appear to be quite short and dark. Is this a problem for S. zonatulus? Nigel Jones, Shrewsbury, United Kingdom |
|
|
|
| Kahis |
Posted on 06-10-2007 00:23
|
|
Member Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 1999 Joined: 02.09.04 |
Hmm. Meuffels & Grootaert (1990) says for S. zonatulus "Femur I without bristles or setae, bearing only very short white hairs; posteriorly near tip a few black bristlelike setae". How old is your key? The names in this difficult group have been shuffled a few times before 1990. S. contristans sensu d'Assus-Fonseca 1978 is the real S. contristans which is not synonymous with S. zonatulus. The male of S. longulus has long, strong bristles on the fore femur (length >2x width of the femur). More likely is S. basilicus, which is very close to S. zonatulus. The two species differ in the position of the small setae of fore basitarsus (barely visible in the pictures), details or male genitalia, and size. The last two characters can not be judges from your photos. Cheers, Jere K. Kahis |
|
|
|
| conopid |
Posted on 06-10-2007 10:34
|
|
Member Location: United Kingdom Posts: 1039 Joined: 02.07.04 |
Hi Jere, I have Fonseca's 1978 British Doli key. So presumably it lists the true contristans, although the latest UK check list has zonatulus as synonymous with contristans - confusing! My specimen has no pale hairs on the ventral side of Femur 1, just the short dark hairs in the photo. I think I'll try running it through the key again to see if I have made an elementary mistake somewhere.  Cheers Nigel Nigel Jones, Shrewsbury, United Kingdom |
|
|
|
| Kahis |
Posted on 06-10-2007 10:45
|
|
Member Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 1999 Joined: 02.09.04 |
THe "very short white hairs" are indeed very short and fine, shorter and much weaker than the dark hairs.
Kahis |
|
|
|
| Igor Grichanov |
Posted on 06-10-2007 13:49
|
 Member Location: St.Petersburg, Russia Posts: 1721 Joined: 17.08.06 |
Sciapus zonatulus (Zetterstedt,1843) [Psilopus] (Bezzi,1903: Katal. palarkt.Dipt. 2: 292) * =Psilopus zonatulus Zetterstedt, 1843: Dipt.Scand. 2: 628 // probable syn. of Sciapus contristans (Wiedemann, 1817) (Lundbeck, 1912: Dipt.danica 4: 36); rest. Meuffels & Grootaert, 1990: Bull.Inst. r.Sci.nat.Belg., Entomol., 60: 164 ** Palaearctic: Belgium, England, Finland, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Netherlands * Sciapus Igor Grichanov |
|
|
|
| conopid |
Posted on 06-10-2007 14:23
|
|
Member Location: United Kingdom Posts: 1039 Joined: 02.07.04 |
Jere and Igor, Thanks for your helpful responses. Okay, I have had another look at the fly and I cannot get a match with any of the species described in Fonseca. The only possibility might be S loewi (now also listed as a synonym of contristans)! However I cannot detect any obvious modification of the mid tarsus apical segment. So a question, is the lateral flattening of the apical segment slight and not very obvious? If this is the case, then I think my fly is likely to be Fonseca's S loewi. (now S contristans) The fly certainly has extensive white dusting over the frons, thorax and abdomen. Does S contristans have such dusting? Another feature of my fly, is that the face is actually glistening bright white, rather than metallic. I moved the light around to see this effect, which I had previously not noted. I need a good reference collection!  Sorry I am getting very confused. But I now think this fly is S contristans (named as S loewi in Fonseca 1978)  Any comments? Edited by conopid on 06-10-2007 14:33 Nigel Jones, Shrewsbury, United Kingdom |
|
|
|
| David Gibbs |
Posted on 06-10-2007 15:07
|
 Member Location: Bristol, UK Posts: 833 Joined: 17.06.06 |
Nigel, forget Fonseca for the constrians group of Sciapus, you need to get a copy of Meuffels & Grootaert (1990). i would have thought your specimen would run to maritimus in Fonseca's key, which includes maritimus, zonatulus and basilicus. although the latest UK check list has zonatulus as synonymous with contristans - confusing! no, constrians is listed as : authors misident meaning that someone, in GB literature, used the name constrians for what later proved to be zonatulus. you specimens looks identical to my specimens of zonatulus but always as well to check genitalia. |
|
|
|
| Kahis |
Posted on 06-10-2007 15:18
|
|
Member Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 1999 Joined: 02.09.04 |
Here's the full reference: Meuffels, H. J. G. & Grootaert, P. 1990. The idenitity of Sciapus contristans (Wiedemann, 1817) (Diptera: Dolichopodidae), and a revision of the species group of its relatives. Bull. Inst R. Sci. Nat. Belg., Ent., 60: 161-178. Kahis |
|
|
|
| conopid |
Posted on 06-10-2007 15:19
|
|
Member Location: United Kingdom Posts: 1039 Joined: 02.07.04 |
Hi David, Thanks for that. I'll oreder the Sciapus paper and will check out the genitalia when this arrives. Cheers Nigel Nigel Jones, Shrewsbury, United Kingdom |
|
|
|
| Kahis |
Posted on 06-10-2007 15:22
|
|
Member Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 1999 Joined: 02.09.04 |
conopid wrote: Thanks for your helpful responses. Okay, I have had another look at the fly and I cannot get a match with any of the species described in Fonseca. This is exactly what should happen, as your specimen represents a species missing from Fonseca's key! It runs to couplet 7 and then fails to match either choice - as it should. Kahis |
|
|
|
| conopid |
Posted on 06-10-2007 15:30
|
|
Member Location: United Kingdom Posts: 1039 Joined: 02.07.04 |
I understood - eventually! Sorry it took me so long to grasp the facts. I'd never have figured it out without this brilliant forum. Nigel Jones, Shrewsbury, United Kingdom |
|
|
|
| Jump to Forum: |
