Diptera.info :: Identification queries :: Diptera (adults)
Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Identified as 'Syrphus ribesii cf' by Dieter
|
|
| valter |
Posted on 14-04-2008 22:25
|
 Member Location: Faro, Portugal Posts: 1995 Joined: 09.07.07 |
Location: Algarve, Portugal Date Photo Taken: April 2008 
Edited by valter on 15-04-2008 12:37 |
 |
|
| Xespok |
Posted on 14-04-2008 22:48
|
 Member Location: Debrecen, Hungary Posts: 5550 Joined: 02.03.05 |
Syrphus cf vitripennis female.
Gabor Keresztes Japan Wildlife Gallery Carpathian Basin Wildlife Gallery |
|
|
|
| Dieter |
Posted on 15-04-2008 08:06
|
|
Member Location: Munich, Germany Posts: 114 Joined: 15.04.07 |
Hi Gabor, please, would you explain why this should be Syrphus vitripennis? From the habitus it's very probably a Syrphus but in narrow sense the image doesn't even show the character of the genus. And the hind femur seems to be yellow which occurs very infrequently within vitripennis ("bretoletensis"  . If it is a Syrphus than I would vote for ribesii.Cheers, Dieter |
|
|
|
| Xespok |
Posted on 15-04-2008 09:49
|
|
Member Location: Debrecen, Hungary Posts: 5550 Joined: 02.03.05 |
For me the jizz suggested immediately Syrphus. As for the species I was too fast, the femora are yellow so it should be ribesii, indeed. I am glad that I put the cf there
Edited by Xespok on 15-04-2008 09:50 Gabor Keresztes Japan Wildlife Gallery Carpathian Basin Wildlife Gallery |
|
|
|
| Dieter |
Posted on 15-04-2008 11:22
|
|
Member Location: Munich, Germany Posts: 114 Joined: 15.04.07 |
The 'jizz' of syrphine hoverflies is the best way for misidentifications! You can believe me, even some of the most capable experts of Syrphidae produced misidentifications which obviously resulted from relying on the habitus, e.g. Parasyrphus nigritarsis identified as Epistrophe, etc. Now this thread is headed 'Identified as 'Syrphus ribesii' by Dieter'. This is not correct! I only wrote, if it is a Syrphus than it is probably ribesii. And there is a small chance that it is vitripennis. This could be confirmed or excluded only by checking a voucher. Syrphids are not a good group for rapid IDs from fotos! Cheers, Dieter |
|
|
|
| Xespok |
Posted on 15-04-2008 12:10
|
|
Member Location: Debrecen, Hungary Posts: 5550 Joined: 02.03.05 |
Dieter, I think you misunderstand the task of this web site. Most people here realize that identification of diptera is not 100% sure based on images, particularly based on a single image as in this case. Identification based on a voucher by keys and comparison of it to the description and in some cases to the type is the 100% sure way of identifying any diptera. In the long run probably DNA-based methods will also come into the picture making the species scenario even more complicated. But most of us here just want to get the closest possible identification based on the pictures posted. Most of us just want an idea about where to read on. Most of us just want to get an idea what to look at an photograph. Most of us do not have access to all possible literature, to collections, to descriptions or to types. We leave this level to the pros. A small fraction of us may eventually become pros, but most of us wants to stay as amateur entomologists and photographers. The difference between the pros and the amateurs, is that the pros aim to be 100% sure, while the amateurs are pretty happy with cc. 95%. I think with this picture it is fair to say that it is likely to be Syrphus ribesii, as far as the details are visible, since no visible details speak against it. But it should indeed be labeled Syrphus ribesii cf. Also saying that Syrphids are not a good group for rapid IDs from photos is not true. I think they are in fact one of the better groups in diptera. (Compare for most nematocera families for example, or Phorids etc) But as in all diptera groups there will be some easier groups and some more difficult (Cheilosia, Pipiza, Pipizella etc) particularly at the species level. Gabor Keresztes Japan Wildlife Gallery Carpathian Basin Wildlife Gallery |
|
|
|
| Jump to Forum: |
