Thread subject: Diptera.info :: Sciomyzidae (?)
Posted by Robert Heemskerk on 25-11-2005 13:18
#1
Dear Fly-reader,
I can't remember the size, must be some 10mm..
Sciomyzidae (?), but what kind..?
4-09-2005
Amsterdam Woodforest
regards Robert Heemskerk
Posted by Jan Willem on 25-11-2005 13:41
#2
Hi Robert,
What do you think of
Coremacera marginata? You can search for this species in the Forum.
Jan Willem
Posted by Paul Beuk on 25-11-2005 13:55
#3
I think it is
Euthycera fumigata.
Posted by Andre on 25-11-2005 14:11
#4
I agree with Paul.. I am sorry dear colleage! :o
Posted by Robert Heemskerk on 25-11-2005 14:33
#5
When I look at these two species (beautiful picture's in the diptera's database!) they look at first view quite similar to each other(to me).
Looking more specific I see Euthycera fumigata doesn't have spots on it's back and the legs are less darker and more yellowish!
Euthycera fumigata is more common in Holland I think..
Let's say rather common..
I sent a letter to Sinterklaas with some fly-lecture-wishes, I hope he will gracious to me...
In spring I will improve my pictures!;)
Edited by Robert Heemskerk on 25-11-2005 14:34
Posted by Jan Willem on 25-11-2005 14:40
#6
Hi Paul and Andr?,
You are totally right. I was too sloppy with my suggestion. Superficially both species look similar, but there are enough differences to make clear that the fly on the picture is
Euthycera fumigata instead of
Coremacera marginata.
Sorry Robert for leading you in the wrong direction!
Jan Willem
Posted by Juergen Peters on 25-11-2005 20:45
#7
Hello!
clear that the fly on the picture is Euthycera fumigata
That leads me to the question if the fly on this picture, taken on June 9 here in Ostwestfalen/Germany, is also
Euthycera fumigata? I had stored it unter
Tetanocera sp., but only because I did not find a better match... Thanks in advance!
Posted by Paul Beuk on 25-11-2005 21:04
#8
Looks rather like it.
Posted by Juergen Peters on 25-11-2005 22:28
#9
Hello, Paul!
Paul Beuk wrote:
Looks rather like it.
Thanks a lot!
Posted by Andre on 26-11-2005 02:36
#10
Second one may well be another Euthycera, since the spots on the sides of the frons seem small.
With long setae on antennal flagellum (the right name I hope :| ) it may be E. chaerophylli. Short setae and two little spots on sides of frons may be E. stictica...
So.... the picture reveals too little...
Edited by Andre on 26-11-2005 02:37
Posted by Juergen Peters on 26-11-2005 22:16
#11
Hello!
Andre wrote:
Second one may well be another Euthycera, since the spots on the sides of the frons seem small.
With long setae on antennal flagellum (the right name I hope :| ) it may be E. chaerophylli. Short setae and two little spots on sides of frons may be E. stictica...
So.... the picture reveals too little...
Thanks, Andre! Unfortunately this is the only picture I have of this fly.
Posted by Nikita Vikhrev on 06-11-2006 17:51
#12
Again I disagree with Paul about Euthycera.
2. Discaused in http://www.diptera.info/forum/viewthread.php?forum_id=5&thread_id=385&pid=1491#post_1491
1. I think that Jan was right and it is Coremacera. There arn't a lot of features visible. But arista is white pubescent as in case of Coremacera or Euthycera fumigata, but not black plumose as Euthycera chaerophylli. Euthycera fumigata is western species and I've never seen it, but beside general impression I have another reason: Coremacera has stripped eyes, Eu. chaerophylli - not. Robert's fly eyes are clearly stripped. I can't find any indication that Eu. fumigata (or any other Euthycera) may have stripped eyes.
Nikita
Posted by Paul Beuk on 06-11-2006 17:55
#13
Nikita Vikhrev wrote:
Again I disagree with Paul about Euthycera.
Again? LoL, I haven't said anything here since ages. :P