Diptera.info :: Identification queries :: Diptera (adults)
Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Musca autumnalis
|
|
| johnes81 |
Posted on 15-09-2017 10:46
|
 Member Location: Berlin, Germany Posts: 1978 Joined: 15.10.16 |
Berlin - mid August - near cattle and sheep I think that this should be Musca autumnalis but I have no keys for Muscidae. I see that Germany also has domestica, osiris, tempestiva recorded. I have no keys for osiris. I can add more photos if osiris is a possibility. Thank You for your Time and Effort. johnes81 attached the following image:  [127.22Kb] John and Nini. Naturalists not experts. |
|
|
|
| johnes81 |
Posted on 15-09-2017 10:46
|
|
Member Location: Berlin, Germany Posts: 1978 Joined: 15.10.16 |
dorsal view
johnes81 attached the following image:  [178.71Kb] John and Nini. Naturalists not experts. |
|
|
|
| johnes81 |
Posted on 15-09-2017 10:46
|
|
Member Location: Berlin, Germany Posts: 1978 Joined: 15.10.16 |
sternites
johnes81 attached the following image:  [141.28Kb] John and Nini. Naturalists not experts. |
|
|
|
| johnes81 |
Posted on 15-09-2017 10:47
|
|
Member Location: Berlin, Germany Posts: 1978 Joined: 15.10.16 |
cerci/surstyli? the genitalia look different than Calliphoridae. I have no idea what is the correct nomenclature.
johnes81 attached the following image:  [160.41Kb] John and Nini. Naturalists not experts. |
|
|
|
| johnes81 |
Posted on 15-09-2017 10:48
|
|
Member Location: Berlin, Germany Posts: 1978 Joined: 15.10.16 |
aedeagus
johnes81 attached the following image:  [176.18Kb] John and Nini. Naturalists not experts. |
|
|
|
| johnes81 |
Posted on 15-09-2017 10:50
|
|
Member Location: Berlin, Germany Posts: 1978 Joined: 15.10.16 |
aedeagus lateral
johnes81 attached the following image:  [163.43Kb] John and Nini. Naturalists not experts. |
|
|
|
| Stephane Lebrun |
Posted on 15-09-2017 16:05
|
 Member Location: Le Havre, France Posts: 8248 Joined: 03.03.07 |
Musca osiris and vitripennis have hairy eyes. Musca tempestiva has a whole black abdomen. Musca domestica (male) has a broader frons ans more elongated abdomen. It is either M. autumnalis or M. larvipara (in your area) : you must look at the suprasquamal ridge (the ridge along the mesonotum, just before the scutellum, hidden by the large calypters) : if hairy on the whole length, it is larvipara, otherwide autumnalis. The genal hairs distribution is different between both species too. Stephane. |
|
|
|
| johnes81 |
Posted on 15-09-2017 20:59
|
|
Member Location: Berlin, Germany Posts: 1978 Joined: 15.10.16 |
Thank You for the information about the various Musca. I've saved the data to a text file. I didn't know about M. larvipara. Definitely a possibility. I suspect that this is M. autumnalis because I remember the gena is very hairy. I will look at the suprasquamal ridge tomorrow. I'm too tired to go to the microscope tonight. I'll update this post tomorrow. Thank You Sir Stephane. see you tomorrow... John and Nini. Naturalists not experts. |
|
|
|
| johnes81 |
Posted on 16-09-2017 12:31
|
|
Member Location: Berlin, Germany Posts: 1978 Joined: 15.10.16 |
suprasquamal ridge (I think that I am correct about this anatomy. please correct me if I am wrong) as I have explained before, my microscope is very nice for looking through the lens but it is horrible for making photos. I will have to research for a better setup. Thus, I am sorry for the photo quality being so poor. johnes81 attached the following image:  [87.43Kb] John and Nini. Naturalists not experts. |
|
|
|
| johnes81 |
Posted on 16-09-2017 12:31
|
|
Member Location: Berlin, Germany Posts: 1978 Joined: 15.10.16 |
gena
johnes81 attached the following image:  [74.82Kb] John and Nini. Naturalists not experts. |
|
|
|
| johnes81 |
Posted on 16-09-2017 12:32
|
|
Member Location: Berlin, Germany Posts: 1978 Joined: 15.10.16 |
gena 2
johnes81 attached the following image:  [69.85Kb] John and Nini. Naturalists not experts. |
|
|
|
| Stephane Lebrun |
Posted on 16-09-2017 14:44
|
|
Member Location: Le Havre, France Posts: 8248 Joined: 03.03.07 |
The supraquamal ridge should be just behind the membranous organ you are pointing. It is a linear rim/ledge that starts behind the wing base and reach the base of scutellum ; look at : https://www.dipte...ost_238104 For the genal distribution, could you provide a picture in profile view, like this : Stephane Lebrun attached the following image:  [89.19Kb] Stephane. |
|
|
|
| johnes81 |
Posted on 16-09-2017 20:33
|
|
Member Location: Berlin, Germany Posts: 1978 Joined: 15.10.16 |
sorry for the misunderstanding about the location of the suprasquamal ridge. I've never seen this term before.
johnes81 attached the following image:  [142.21Kb] John and Nini. Naturalists not experts. |
|
|
|
| johnes81 |
Posted on 16-09-2017 20:35
|
|
Member Location: Berlin, Germany Posts: 1978 Joined: 15.10.16 |
I don't pin my specimens, so getting an exact lateral (profile) is very difficult. The head never moves where I want it. I cannot try for hours. sorry. I've posted a pic of the best position that I could achieve this evening. Very difficult in a petri dish.
johnes81 attached the following image:  [101.42Kb] John and Nini. Naturalists not experts. |
|
|
|
| johnes81 |
Posted on 16-09-2017 20:41
|
|
Member Location: Berlin, Germany Posts: 1978 Joined: 15.10.16 |
I don't think any authoritative work exists for Muscidae. As you know, an authoritative work contains keys AND genitalia. For example, The Plant- and Leafhoppers of Germany by Dr. Robert Biedermann and Dr. Rolf Niedringhaus. Also Blowflies of Fennoscandia and Denmark by Dr. Knut Rognes. I cannot find such works for Muscidae. Do you know of any? I'm surprised that noone has drawn genitalia for the Musca. I found drawings for Musca domestica only. I still think that this should be Musca autumnalis. Overall it is a match but a few things make me feel uneasy about it. I'd like to have genitalia confirmed. I'm in the process of clearing it with KOH. Maybe I can write to a Muscidae expert if we cannot resolve this species. johnes81 attached the following image:  [160.28Kb] Edited by johnes81 on 16-09-2017 20:42 John and Nini. Naturalists not experts. |
|
|
|
| Stephane Lebrun |
Posted on 16-09-2017 23:39
|
|
Member Location: Le Havre, France Posts: 8248 Joined: 03.03.07 |
Dear John and Nini, according to your additional pictures (the profile view of the head is good for what I wanted to see), it is Musca autumnalis. About the genitalia, I rarely need them to ID Muscidae. In other families, Calliphoridae (Pollenia, Bellardia etc.), and Sarcophagidae you virtually can't work without genitalia, I agree (I also think to Fanniidae and Anthomyiidae). Muscidae (and this is why I like this familly) offers many other ways to ID a species in most cases (chaetotaxy especially). I'm well too lazy for the time-consuming genitalia examination, that's why I gave up Sarcophagidae for example. Genitalia are used by experts (what I am not) that work on a revision of a genus or a group of similar species, or describe a new species, but once the work is done, there are almost always some others characters bound to the genitalia structure, so that it is only necessary to check it for having a confirmation. This is my point of view, perhaps some people would only trust on genitalia for Muscidae. I recognize your efforts for showing us these identification characters. Many books on Muscidae show genitalia (at least cerci and surtyli) plates for many genera, but strangely, Musca are seemingly ignored (I haven't opened all my books to be certain of that). Regards. 
Stephane. |
|
|
|
| johnes81 |
Posted on 17-09-2017 10:55
|
|
Member Location: Berlin, Germany Posts: 1978 Joined: 15.10.16 |
Dear Sir Stephane, My Wife and I Thank You for all of your work on this specimen. We appreciate you always. You are one of the most knowledgeable individuals in this field. I save alot of your posts in a text file for reference. I used to rely upon characters of a specimen versus genitalia until I realized that it doesn't make sense to me. alot of keys clearly require a specimen and a microscope. If I actually have a specimen, then why in the world should I count hairs and follow keys? I would rather examine the genitalia. do you know what I mean? i understand keys for taxonomists that need to identify a holotype that cannot be handled. I understand keys for pinned collections that noone wants to dissect. I prefer genitalia. I look for authoritative works for people like me. I find it more difficult to count hairs and compare features sometimes. Sometimes the keys are vague and I am left wondering if I am even looking at the right place. I recognize that you are superior to me in this ascpect. I have no idea why Musca are seemingly ignored. I like the Musca, they are very interesting. I found a pdf with drawings of Musca domestica: Morphological Study of Musca domestica http://zancojournals.su.edu.krd/index.php/JPAS/article/viewFile/82/74 Regarding Sarcophagidae, I want to document the genitalia of Sarcs. I am growing tired of not being able to identify Sarcophagidae. I actually like these flies. Sarcophagidae make me laugh because they fly into me when I am trying to photograph an insect. Seemingly as though they are the watch dogs of the insect world. Very funny. I like Calliphoridae but you will never see me post a query about a Pollenia because Dr. Knut Rognes has authoritative work on this genus. I have very little trouble matching the genitalia. I've identified five species so far and one of them had to be confirmed by Dr. Rognes because it is a first record for Germany. Just so you know, I identified the species using his work. He just confirmed it for me. Anyway, I Thank You Sir Stephane, you are Magnificent. I enjoy reading your posts and I learn alot from the text. I wish for you a Wonderful Day 
Edited by johnes81 on 17-09-2017 10:57 John and Nini. Naturalists not experts. |
|
|
|
| Jump to Forum: |
