Diptera.info :: Identification queries :: Diptera (adults)
Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Sciomyzidae (?)
|
|
| Robert Heemskerk |
Posted on 25-11-2005 13:18
|
 Member Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands Posts: 2082 Joined: 17.10.05 |
Dear Fly-reader, I can't remember the size, must be some 10mm.. Sciomyzidae (?), but what kind..? 4-09-2005 Amsterdam Woodforest regards Robert Heemskerk   |
 |
|
| Jan Willem |
Posted on 25-11-2005 13:41
|
 Member Location: Waalwijk, The Netherlands Posts: 2134 Joined: 24.07.04 |
Hi Robert, What do you think of Coremacera marginata? You can search for this species in the Forum. Jan Willem |
|
|
|
| Paul Beuk |
Posted on 25-11-2005 13:55
|
 Super Administrator Location: Netherlands Posts: 19311 Joined: 11.05.04 |
I think it is Euthycera fumigata.
Paul - - - - Paul Beuk on https://diptera.info |
|
|
|
| Andre |
Posted on 25-11-2005 14:11
|
 Member Location: Tilburg, the Netherlands Posts: 2111 Joined: 18.07.04 |
I agree with Paul.. I am sorry dear colleage!  |
|
|
|
| Robert Heemskerk |
Posted on 25-11-2005 14:33
|
|
Member Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands Posts: 2082 Joined: 17.10.05 |
When I look at these two species (beautiful picture's in the diptera's database!) they look at first view quite similar to each other(to me). Looking more specific I see Euthycera fumigata doesn't have spots on it's back and the legs are less darker and more yellowish! Euthycera fumigata is more common in Holland I think.. Let's say rather common.. I sent a letter to Sinterklaas with some fly-lecture-wishes, I hope he will gracious to me... In spring I will improve my pictures! 
Edited by Robert Heemskerk on 25-11-2005 14:34 |
|
|
|
| Jan Willem |
Posted on 25-11-2005 14:40
|
|
Member Location: Waalwijk, The Netherlands Posts: 2134 Joined: 24.07.04 |
Hi Paul and Andr?, You are totally right. I was too sloppy with my suggestion. Superficially both species look similar, but there are enough differences to make clear that the fly on the picture is Euthycera fumigata instead of Coremacera marginata. Sorry Robert for leading you in the wrong direction! Jan Willem |
|
|
|
| Juergen Peters |
Posted on 25-11-2005 20:45
|
 Member Location: northwest Germany Posts: 13813 Joined: 11.09.04 |
Hello! clear that the fly on the picture is Euthycera fumigata That leads me to the question if the fly on this picture, taken on June 9 here in Ostwestfalen/Germany, is also Euthycera fumigata? I had stored it unter Tetanocera sp., but only because I did not find a better match... Thanks in advance! 
Best regards, Jürgen -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Juergen Peters Borgholzhausen, Germany WWW: http://insektenfo... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
|
|
|
| Paul Beuk |
Posted on 25-11-2005 21:04
|
|
Super Administrator Location: Netherlands Posts: 19311 Joined: 11.05.04 |
Looks rather like it.
Paul - - - - Paul Beuk on https://diptera.info |
|
|
|
| Juergen Peters |
Posted on 25-11-2005 22:28
|
|
Member Location: northwest Germany Posts: 13813 Joined: 11.09.04 |
Hello, Paul! Paul Beuk wrote: Looks rather like it. Thanks a lot! Best regards, Jürgen -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Juergen Peters Borgholzhausen, Germany WWW: http://insektenfo... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
|
|
|
| Andre |
Posted on 26-11-2005 02:36
|
|
Member Location: Tilburg, the Netherlands Posts: 2111 Joined: 18.07.04 |
Second one may well be another Euthycera, since the spots on the sides of the frons seem small. With long setae on antennal flagellum (the right name I hope  ) it may be E. chaerophylli. Short setae and two little spots on sides of frons may be E. stictica...So.... the picture reveals too little... Edited by Andre on 26-11-2005 02:37 |
|
|
|
| Juergen Peters |
Posted on 26-11-2005 22:16
|
|
Member Location: northwest Germany Posts: 13813 Joined: 11.09.04 |
Hello! Andre wrote: Second one may well be another Euthycera, since the spots on the sides of the frons seem small. With long setae on antennal flagellum (the right name I hope ) it may be E. chaerophylli. Short setae and two little spots on sides of frons may be E. stictica...So.... the picture reveals too little... Thanks, Andre! Unfortunately this is the only picture I have of this fly. Best regards, Jürgen -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Juergen Peters Borgholzhausen, Germany WWW: http://insektenfo... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
|
|
|
| Nikita Vikhrev |
Posted on 06-11-2006 17:51
|
 Member Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 9305 Joined: 24.05.05 |
Again I disagree with Paul about Euthycera. 2. Discaused in http://www.diptera.info/forum/viewthread.php?forum_id=5&thread_id=385&pid=1491#post_1491 1. I think that Jan was right and it is Coremacera. There arn't a lot of features visible. But arista is white pubescent as in case of Coremacera or Euthycera fumigata, but not black plumose as Euthycera chaerophylli. Euthycera fumigata is western species and I've never seen it, but beside general impression I have another reason: Coremacera has stripped eyes, Eu. chaerophylli - not. Robert's fly eyes are clearly stripped. I can't find any indication that Eu. fumigata (or any other Euthycera) may have stripped eyes. Nikita Nikita Vikhrev - Zool Museum of Moscow University |
|
|
|
| Paul Beuk |
Posted on 06-11-2006 17:55
|
|
Super Administrator Location: Netherlands Posts: 19311 Joined: 11.05.04 |
Nikita Vikhrev wrote: Again I disagree with Paul about Euthycera. Again? LoL, I haven't said anything here since ages. 
Paul - - - - Paul Beuk on https://diptera.info |
|
|
|
| Jump to Forum: |
