Gallery Links
Users Online
· Guests Online: 15

· Members Online: 0

· Total Members: 4,947
· Newest Member: XoseB
Forum Threads
Theme Switcher
Switch to:
Last Seen Users
· eklans00:10:18
· weia00:59:40
· Paul Beuk01:14:29
· ESant01:37:05
· Reimund Ley02:28:18
· JWV02:52:23
· Jan Maca03:26:38
· Nosferatumyia03:48:03
· kacper0104:02:49
· bertrandpami05:29:20
Latest Photo Additions
View Thread
Diptera.info :: Identification queries :: Diptera (adults)
Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
Milichia canariensis, male.
Maherjos
#1 Print Post
Posted on 19-04-2015 20:20
User Avatar

Member

Location: Motril (Granada) España
Posts: 2342
Joined: 02.09.09

Photograph taken on April 18 2015, in the wetlands of the Suárez Pond in Motril, Granada, Spain.
Immediate area of the Mediterranean coast.
Apparent size with wings, about 4-6 mm

Appreciate your cooperation for identification.
Maherjos attached the following image:


[132.32Kb]
Edited by Maherjos on 08-10-2015 18:47
 
Maherjos
#2 Print Post
Posted on 19-04-2015 20:24
User Avatar

Member

Location: Motril (Granada) España
Posts: 2342
Joined: 02.09.09

.
Maherjos attached the following image:


[123.29Kb]
 
Paul Beuk
#3 Print Post
Posted on 27-04-2015 13:24
User Avatar

Super Administrator

Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19209
Joined: 11.05.04

If I understand Carles Tolrá (2009; http://www.hetero...05-110.pdf) correctly, the colour pattern is not sufficient to distinguishe between canariensis and speciosa. The former is only recorded from the Canary Ilsnads and Turkey and, as yet, not from the Iberian Peninsula.
Edited by Paul Beuk on 27-04-2015 13:25
Paul

- - - -

Paul Beuk on https://diptera.info
 
diptera.info
Maherjos
#4 Print Post
Posted on 27-04-2015 16:04
User Avatar

Member

Location: Motril (Granada) España
Posts: 2342
Joined: 02.09.09

Paul Beuk wrote:
If I understand Carles Tolrá (2009; http://www.hetero...05-110.pdf) correctly, the colour pattern is not sufficient to distinguishe between canariensis and speciosa. The former is only recorded from the Canary Ilsnads and Turkey and, as yet, not from the Iberian Peninsula.



Hi Paul.

As you know, I'm just a fan of Diptera, who have come through photography. So always ask and am very grateful data, information and knowledge provided by experts you.

If I thought that the fly of my photographs could be Milichia canariensis, it is only because about two years ago in the same place in Spain, -Charca Suarez in Motril, photograph these other two copies, male and female, who as such were confirmed by Irina Brake specialist.
http://www.dipter...d_id=54614
http://www.dipter...d_id=54615

And to your request and were uploaded to the Gallery:
http://www.dipter...to_id=8964
http://www.dipter...to_id=8962

After this meeting, 25/04/2015 day in the same place, went to photograph a female with the same. And the day 26/04/2005 I returned to photograph another male.
These last pictures I have not yet had a chance to process them and upload them, but as soon as it can go up to the same post.

When I can, I will process and will upload the rest of the pictures. And as soon as I get communicate with the specialist milichia, I think we will leave doubts.

Kind regards from southern Spain.
José Marín
Edited by Maherjos on 27-04-2015 16:05
 
Paul Beuk
#5 Print Post
Posted on 27-04-2015 18:43
User Avatar

Super Administrator

Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19209
Joined: 11.05.04

If youy have specimens, we can look at the right structures after preparation of the abdomen.
Paul

- - - -

Paul Beuk on https://diptera.info
 
diptera.info
Maherjos
#6 Print Post
Posted on 27-04-2015 20:43
User Avatar

Member

Location: Motril (Granada) España
Posts: 2342
Joined: 02.09.09

Paul Beuk wrote:
If youy have specimens, we can look at the right structures after preparation of the abdomen.


Is the male or female needed?
Would you do personally preparations and pictures of genitalia?
I want to learn. I have a microscope and take photographs with a microscope. But I have no training or experience in photographs of the genitalia. I have to learn.

Greetings
José Marín
 
Paul Beuk
#7 Print Post
Posted on 28-04-2015 17:25
User Avatar

Super Administrator

Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19209
Joined: 11.05.04

Both could give the necessary details, check the pictures in the linked publication. I personally probably would do simple preparations to confirm species (so not resulting in those well stuctured images). Abdomen (or just the tip if it is a male) in lactic acid, few seconds in micro wave (twice, a minute or so apart), and then transfer to alcohol (if it may swell) or glycerine (should not swell that much).
Others will prefer other methods...
Paul

- - - -

Paul Beuk on https://diptera.info
 
diptera.info
Maherjos
#8 Print Post
Posted on 28-04-2015 20:25
User Avatar

Member

Location: Motril (Granada) España
Posts: 2342
Joined: 02.09.09

Paul Beuk wrote:
Both could give the necessary details, check the pictures in the linked publication. I personally probably would do simple preparations to confirm species (so not resulting in those well stuctured images). Abdomen (or just the tip if it is a male) in lactic acid, few seconds in micro wave (twice, a minute or so apart), and then transfer to alcohol (if it may swell) or glycerine (should not swell that much).
Others will prefer other methods...


Indeed, it is quite complicated ... Frown
Soon I will contact you privately.

Kind regards
Jose Marin.
 
ibrake
#9 Print Post
Posted on 19-05-2015 17:09
Member

Location:
Posts: 64
Joined: 03.03.08

Hi,
I would identify this fly as Milichia canariensis based on the colour, but the species is certainly closely related to Milichia speciosa. A look at all the material of both species (and M. decora) with a study of the variation of colour and shape would help...
Irina
 
www.milichiidae.info
Paul Beuk
#10 Print Post
Posted on 08-10-2015 13:28
User Avatar

Super Administrator

Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19209
Joined: 11.05.04

I tentatively would say this is canariensis after examination of the genitalia. Unfortunately, the images provided by Carles-Tolrá, when he re-instated it as valid species, are not quite comparable for both species. Firstly, the images of speciosa proper are much darker than those of canariensis which makes it difficult to discern the different structures very well. Secondly, the image of the speciosa genitalia supposedly in ventral view, is much more posteriorly directed than that the corresponding image for canariensis. If I were to give orientation (anatomically; so as if the cerci were located posteriorly), canariensis would have images in posteroventral and anteroventral directions (90 degree difference); speciosa would have them in posteroventral and ventral directions (45 degree difference). Most structures I can see I can match in the images for canarienses (including the apparently smaller surstyli, that remain well separated) but I cannot say they might not match that of speciosa. I need to get my hands on a true speciosa for dissection...

By the way, what was the exact date these specimens were collected (and were they collected the same day; one headless, the other complete)?
Edited by Paul Beuk on 08-10-2015 13:29
Paul

- - - -

Paul Beuk on https://diptera.info
 
diptera.info
Maherjos
#11 Print Post
Posted on 08-10-2015 18:46
User Avatar

Member

Location: Motril (Granada) España
Posts: 2342
Joined: 02.09.09

Paul Beuk wrote:
I tentatively would say this is canariensis after examination of the genitalia. Unfortunately, the images provided by Carles-Tolrá, when he re-instated it as valid species, are not quite comparable for both species. Firstly, the images of speciosa proper are much darker than those of canariensis which makes it difficult to discern the different structures very well. Secondly, the image of the speciosa genitalia supposedly in ventral view, is much more posteriorly directed than that the corresponding image for canariensis. If I were to give orientation (anatomically; so as if the cerci were located posteriorly), canariensis would have images in posteroventral and anteroventral directions (90 degree difference); speciosa would have them in posteroventral and ventral directions (45 degree difference). Most structures I can see I can match in the images for canarienses (including the apparently smaller surstyli, that remain well separated) but I cannot say they might not match that of speciosa. I need to get my hands on a true speciosa for dissection...
By the way, what was the exact date these specimens were collected (and were they collected the same day; one headless, the other complete)?


Male, 2015/04/18. Female 2015/04/25.

From what I've seen photographs of Milichia speciosa, none has been taken on the Mediterranean coast of southern Spain.
In the photographs I have seen, of M. speciosa, patches of their wings are larger and more darken her wings.
http://www.biodiv...27857.html

I guess, what you could deduce that the copies sent, coupled with the opinion of Irina in principle be reasonable and fairly correct proposal Milichia canariensis identification.

Thanks for the detailed and thorough study that you have done.
Best wishes,
Jose Marin.
 
Paul Beuk
#12 Print Post
Posted on 08-10-2015 18:48
User Avatar

Super Administrator

Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19209
Joined: 11.05.04

Both specimens you sent were males...
Paul

- - - -

Paul Beuk on https://diptera.info
 
diptera.info
Maherjos
#13 Print Post
Posted on 08-10-2015 18:54
User Avatar

Member

Location: Motril (Granada) España
Posts: 2342
Joined: 02.09.09

Paul Beuk wrote:
Both specimens you sent were males...


Ah !. Error on my part ... awkward
Even then might remain stored any female ... Would it help to clarify the issue?
 
Paul Beuk
#14 Print Post
Posted on 09-10-2015 08:45
User Avatar

Super Administrator

Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19209
Joined: 11.05.04

Apparently the female sternites are structurally different in both species so that would help.
Paul

- - - -

Paul Beuk on https://diptera.info
 
diptera.info
Maherjos
#15 Print Post
Posted on 09-10-2015 08:57
User Avatar

Member

Location: Motril (Granada) España
Posts: 2342
Joined: 02.09.09

Paul Beuk wrote:
Apparently the female sternites are structurally different in both species so that would help.


I seek and you send it. To see if it is possible to dispel any doubts.
 
Paul Beuk
#16 Print Post
Posted on 05-01-2016 16:23
User Avatar

Super Administrator

Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19209
Joined: 11.05.04

I received the female today and based on the sternites it should be speciosa: there is only a very limited increase in the size of the tergites from segment 3 to 5. Also, If the images given by Carles-Tolrá are followed, there are some differences in the setae on the sternites and in the whole sequence of sternites, too, sternite 2 is relatively smaller in canariensis.
Paul

- - - -

Paul Beuk on https://diptera.info
 
diptera.info
Nacho Cabellos
#17 Print Post
Posted on 16-11-2023 18:13
User Avatar

Member

Location: Spain
Posts: 1154
Joined: 27.09.09

i'm very interested in Milichidae and, after reading the literature I found about theese family, I came to this post.
If I understood correctly, there is no any confirmation about the presence of M. canariensis in the Iberian Peninsula, right?
The only sign of theese presence consists in an identification, based on a color pattern, besides posterior identifications bassed on that one; pattern that, according to a poblication of M.C. Tolra, is not enough to distinguish both species bacause exists individuals of M.speciosa that exhibing that pattern.
Could you confirm if there is any change on this topic?

Thanks a lot in advance!!
Edited by Nacho Cabellos on 16-11-2023 18:14
 
Jump to Forum:
Similar Threads
Thread Forum Replies Last Post
Male of Culicidae - ID? --> appears to be Ochlerotatus caspius Diptera (adults) 6 25-02-2024 13:47
Hydrotaea => Pollenia vagabunda, male Diptera (adults) 4 17-02-2024 20:45
Tachinidae: Soliera pacifica? - I hope a male? --> yes and yes Diptera (adults) 4 01-02-2024 10:42
Rhagionidae, male Rhagio ?conspicuus Diptera (adults) 6 29-01-2024 21:06
Tachinidae, male Eliozeta helluo Diptera (adults) 3 27-01-2024 18:55
Date and time
27 February 2024 15:33
Login
Username

Password



Not a member yet?
Click here to register.

Forgotten your password?
Request a new one here.
Temporary email?
Due to fact this site has functionality making use of your email address, any registration using a temporary email address will be rejected.

Paul
Donate
Please, help to make
Diptera.info
possible and enable
further improvements!
Latest Articles
Syrph the Net
Those who want to have access to the Syrph the Net database need to sign the
License Agreement -
Click to Download


Public files of Syrph the Net can be downloaded HERE

Last updated: 25.08.2011
Shoutbox
You must login to post a message.

17.08.23 15:23
Aneomochtherus

17.08.23 13:54
Tony, I HAD a blank in the file name. Sorry!

17.08.23 13:44
Tony, thanks! I tried it (see "Cylindromyia" Wink but don't see the image in the post.

17.08.23 11:37
pjt - just send the post and attached image. Do not preview thread, as this will lose the link to the image,

16.08.23 08:37
Tried to attach an image to a forum post. jpg, 32kB, 72dpi, no blanks, ... File name is correctly displayed, but when I click "Preview Thread" it just vanishes. Help!

23.02.23 21:29
Has anyone used the Leica DM500, any comments.

27.12.22 21:10
Thanks, Jan Willem! Much appreciated. Grin

19.12.22 11:33
Thanks Paul for your work on keeping this forum available! Just made a donation via PayPal.

09.10.22 17:07
Yes, dipterologists from far abroad, please buy your copy at veldshop. Stamps will be expensive, but he, the book is unreasonably cheap Smile

07.10.22 11:55
Can any1 help out with a pdf copy of 1941 Hammer. Vidensk. Meddel. Dansk Naturhist. Foren. 105; thank you

Render time: 2.86 seconds | 188,319,990 unique visits