Diptera.info :: Family forums :: Syrphidae
Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 syrphidae -> Cheilosia cf. laticornis
|
|
| Michael Becker |
Posted on 28-11-2009 07:44
|
|
Member Location: Germany, Neuss Posts: 1268 Joined: 16.01.07 |
Hello, this syrphid from july in the austrian alps has too few remarkable characteristics for me. Does someone know, what it is? (Lenght was about 8mm). Thanks, Michael Michael Becker attached the following image:  [39.52Kb] Edited by Michael Becker on 29-11-2009 07:40 |
|
|
|
| Andre |
Posted on 28-11-2009 19:59
|
 Member Location: Tilburg, the Netherlands Posts: 2111 Joined: 18.07.04 |
It's a female Cheilosia. I don't know if anyone else (Gerard?) dares guessing the species, but I don't.. |
 |
|
| Michael Becker |
Posted on 28-11-2009 20:14
|
|
Member Location: Germany, Neuss Posts: 1268 Joined: 16.01.07 |
Hello Andre, thanks for your answer. Then my guess would be Cheilosia pagana, because of the remarkable yellow antennae. Perhaps someone can correct me? Michael |
|
|
|
| Gerard Pennards |
Posted on 28-11-2009 20:15
|
 Member Location: Amersfoort Posts: 1914 Joined: 07.06.04 |
How about a female flavipes? greetings Greetings, Gerard Pennards |
|
|
|
| Michael Becker |
Posted on 28-11-2009 21:44
|
|
Member Location: Germany, Neuss Posts: 1268 Joined: 16.01.07 |
How about a female flavipes? Because of the remarkable yellow legs? Yes, flavipes fits better. Even if the upper part of the legs (femur?) is black? Greetings, Michael |
|
|
|
| Gerard Pennards |
Posted on 28-11-2009 22:00
|
|
Member Location: Amersfoort Posts: 1914 Joined: 07.06.04 |
Ooops, wrong name, I was meaning a female of Cheilosia laticornis. C. flavipes has indeed the femora completely yellow! Greetings Greetings, Gerard Pennards |
|
|
|
| Michael Becker |
Posted on 28-11-2009 22:26
|
|
Member Location: Germany, Neuss Posts: 1268 Joined: 16.01.07 |
Hello Gerard, thank you again for the correction. I couldn't find any picture of C. laticornis. Do you think, the identification is certain enough for the gallery? Michael |
|
|
|
| Gerard Pennards |
Posted on 28-11-2009 23:36
|
|
Member Location: Amersfoort Posts: 1914 Joined: 07.06.04 |
Hmmm, no, not certain enough. Although one can make educated guesses with some Cheilosia, most of them are impossible to identify with certainty from a picture. At most you could say Cheilosia cf laticornis, wherin cf stands for 'looks like'! Greetings Greetings, Gerard Pennards |
|
|
|
| Michael Becker |
Posted on 29-11-2009 07:39
|
|
Member Location: Germany, Neuss Posts: 1268 Joined: 16.01.07 |
Hello Gerard, thank you. I will label it C. cf. laticornis on my hard disk. I think, this is no case for the gallery. Michael |
|
|
|
| John Smit |
Posted on 29-11-2009 15:29
|
 Member Location: Utrecht Posts: 565 Joined: 05.10.04 |
Why not 'just' C. pagana? The specimen seems to fit this species perfectly: the more or less large reddish antennae, the short brown pilosity on the thorax... Whereas C. laticornis always has a dark upper edge of the third antennal segment (lacking in this specimen) and the frons is not wide enough for C. laticornis. Therefore I'ld say C. pagana. John |
|
|
|
| Gerard Pennards |
Posted on 29-11-2009 15:45
|
|
Member Location: Amersfoort Posts: 1914 Joined: 07.06.04 |
Well, two reasons for not thinking of pagana. First is that the third antennal segment doesn't look as big as it should be in pagana, but that could be the angle of sight. Second is the more 'dull' appearance of the body, I always tend to think pagana is much more shiny! But than again, from picture it is as always a crime! :-)) So John's idea is not so bad anyway!  greetings Edited by Gerard Pennards on 29-11-2009 15:46 Greetings, Gerard Pennards |
|
|
|
| Jump to Forum: |
