Diptera.info :: Identification queries :: Diptera (adults)
Who is here? 1 guest(s)
Estheria picta = confirmed
|
|
johnes81 |
Posted on 16-08-2017 00:38
|
Member Location: Berlin, Germany Posts: 1978 Joined: 15.10.16 |
After hours of searching for similar species, I've concluded that the species in the photo must be Estheria. I've used the keys from Tschorsnig to try to deduce which species. I think this should be Estheria picta but I am not confident. Size is 12mm. If you think that it matches Estheria, then let me know if you need more photos... johnes81 attached the following image: [77.97Kb] Edited by johnes81 on 25-08-2017 12:21 John and Nini. Naturalists not experts. |
|
|
Zeegers |
Posted on 16-08-2017 07:27
|
Member Location: Soest, NL Posts: 18472 Joined: 21.07.04 |
Please always state locality and date of photo. If I can forget about all the Iberian species, that makes life so much easier Theo |
|
|
johnes81 |
Posted on 16-08-2017 10:20
|
Member Location: Berlin, Germany Posts: 1978 Joined: 15.10.16 |
Berlin, DE - Suitable habitat - August (Tschorsnig lists July to September) http://www.iucnre...cheme-ver3 species listed for Berlin (my location): Estheria bohemani (Rondani, 1862) Estheria petiolata (Bonsdorff, 1866) Estheria picta (Meigen 1826) listed for Germany but not for Berlin: Estheria cristata (Meigen, 1826) Maybe it is isn't Estheria if you don't recognize it. according to Tschorsnig's keys: Scutellum predominantly yellow = cristata Scutellum black = bohemani this leaves picta and petiolata. If size of petiolata is 14mm (Tschorsnig) THEN not petiolata IF area around m-cu and post angular is browned THEN not petiolata. cheeks look hairy to me, no visible petiole of R5. We are left with picta or another genus. I can add more photos if it helps someone recognize it. Otherwise, Tachinid sp. unidentifiable by experts. Thread closed. I hope that you have a Wonderful Day. John and Nini. Naturalists not experts. |
|
|
johnes81 |
Posted on 16-08-2017 14:31
|
Member Location: Berlin, Germany Posts: 1978 Joined: 15.10.16 |
maybe a little more details will help someone recognize it? edit: reuploaded photo because cheeks are hairy not bare and propleuron is bare not hairy. new photo shows the hairy cheeks and bare propleuron. johnes81 attached the following image: [132.43Kb] Edited by johnes81 on 17-08-2017 18:17 John and Nini. Naturalists not experts. |
|
|
johnes81 |
Posted on 16-08-2017 14:32
|
Member Location: Berlin, Germany Posts: 1978 Joined: 15.10.16 |
if not enough details, then perhaps terminalia will help?
Edited by johnes81 on 04-09-2017 22:15 John and Nini. Naturalists not experts. |
|
|
johnes81 |
Posted on 16-08-2017 15:39
|
Member Location: Berlin, Germany Posts: 1978 Joined: 15.10.16 |
I see only acrophallus from Cerretti for petiolata and hertingi. Anyone have photos for picta, cristatus and bohemani? page 280: http://www.naturk...rretti.pdf The acrophallus in my attachment sure looks like Estheria species. Anyone? Edited by johnes81 on 04-09-2017 22:15 John and Nini. Naturalists not experts. |
|
|
johnes81 |
Posted on 17-08-2017 16:08
|
Member Location: Berlin, Germany Posts: 1978 Joined: 15.10.16 |
once again, I've screwed up. The propleuron is bare. I was looking at the humeral callus. Very sorry. I will fix this post with more accurate data after I do some more work. I am struggling with Tachinidae... John and Nini. Naturalists not experts. |
|
|
johnes81 |
Posted on 17-08-2017 18:18
|
Member Location: Berlin, Germany Posts: 1978 Joined: 15.10.16 |
I've updated the examination photos. I will attach more evidence of Estheria for reference. first, the second costal segment has no hairs along the underside. johnes81 attached the following image: [110.74Kb] John and Nini. Naturalists not experts. |
|
|
johnes81 |
Posted on 17-08-2017 18:21
|
Member Location: Berlin, Germany Posts: 1978 Joined: 15.10.16 |
r5 is interesting. By definition, a petiole is a small foot-like structure. I do not see a petiole here. No, I am not an expert but it looks like it closes at the wing edge. I cannot see how this should be described as even a small petiole. The edge just looks thickened to me. R5 no petiole (to me). Maybe a small petiole to an expert. johnes81 attached the following image: [126.87Kb] John and Nini. Naturalists not experts. |
|
|
johnes81 |
Posted on 17-08-2017 18:25
|
Member Location: Berlin, Germany Posts: 1978 Joined: 15.10.16 |
I see that Cerretti shows the calypter of litoralis and petiolata. I will show the calypter if it helps.
johnes81 attached the following image: [76.52Kb] John and Nini. Naturalists not experts. |
|
|
johnes81 |
Posted on 17-08-2017 18:27
|
Member Location: Berlin, Germany Posts: 1978 Joined: 15.10.16 |
Finally, I believe that this species must be Estheria picta based upon all of the evidence presented to you. Tschorsnig does not include genitalia with his keys, so I ask if anyone can recognize it as picta. All of the data leads to Estheria but I am not an expert. I am struggling with Tachinidae. I hope that I am correct with Estheria picta. If I understand Tschorsnig correctly, then bare cheeks eliminates cristata and bohemani. The area around m-cu and the post-angular vein are browned eliminating petiolata This leaves picta, a first record, a new species or a misidentification. The genitalia should help no matter what the case is. Edited by johnes81 on 17-08-2017 18:28 John and Nini. Naturalists not experts. |
|
|
johnes81 |
Posted on 25-08-2017 12:22
|
Member Location: Berlin, Germany Posts: 1978 Joined: 15.10.16 |
I have contacted a Tachinidae expert about this species because I assume that noone here can recognize it. The expert compared my photos with a specimen in a collection. The expert agrees with my opinion. I am happy to name this as Estheria picta. If anyone finds themselves with a similar species, they now have a visual crutch to lean on. I wish for all a Pleasant Day. John and Nini. Naturalists not experts. |
|
Jump to Forum: |