Thread subject: Diptera.info :: my guess: Chloropidae?
Posted by Sundew on 11-12-2007 19:11
#1
Hello,
There are still some unidentified dead flies in stock, so here is the next one. My recent genus guesses were all not absolutely wrong but also not perfectly right, so now I am cautious in naming, but the animal's habit somehow recalls Chloropidae. The gallery pictures, however, gave no good match. Can anyone help? (Sure you can ;))
Sundew
Posted by Sundew on 11-12-2007 19:12
#2
Some leg details.
Posted by Paul Beuk on 11-12-2007 21:18
#3
Indeed Chloropidae.
Posted by Sundew on 11-12-2007 22:58
#4
What about subfamily Oscinellinae as to extension of costa?
Sundew (looking forward to a possible genus name)
Posted by Kahis on 11-12-2007 23:11
#5
Do the scutellar setae sit on small tubercles? If so, I would say
Rhodesiella plumiger.
Posted by Sundew on 12-12-2007 19:49
#6
Do you call the thickened bristle bases "tubercles"? This is the maximum magnification I can get.
Sundew
Edited by Sundew on 12-12-2007 19:49
Posted by crex on 12-12-2007 19:57
#7
Sundew wrote:
... This is the maximum magnification I can get.
How much is that? 40x?
Posted by Sundew on 13-12-2007 00:03
#8
That's difficult to say... My ZEISS stereo microscope Stemi 2000 allows for a 50 x magnification. With this set, I hold the digicam to the ocular and take a photo (or better several, as the autofocus choses each time anew on what to focus, and all pictures are slightly different; altogether, the depth of field is very shallow.) My Sony Cybershot DSC-P200 has 7.2 megapixels, which allows for a considerable detail magnification. This is also necessary, as the photo subject covers only the centre of the picture and is surrounded by a lot of free space or nature (if I photograph a 2 mm fly on a leaf, I can approach up to 6 cm; this gives only a tiny image.)
The picture above is a combination of 50 x stereo microscope magnification and much more computer magnification. You see the mm scale bar in the uppermost left pic, showing that a scutellar seta is about 0.3 mm long. In the lowermost pic it measures about 20.5 cm on the screen, which would correspond to an about 700 x magnification. The quality is not satisfying anymore, it is simply oversized, but I hope the base of the seta, which is really small, is somewhat recognizable at least.
I hope this was helpful!
Best wishes, Sundew
Posted by crex on 13-12-2007 00:16
#9
Thanks for the explanation. It helps to know a little more when looking for a microscope to buy.
Posted by Kahis on 14-12-2007 10:52
#10
That's exactly what we needed to see.
Rhodesiella it is.
Posted by von Tschirnhaus on 04-09-2022 20:55
#11
Chloropidae, Rhodesiellinae, Rhodesiella plumiger (Meigen, 1830): I agree with "Kahis". Two new and optimal photographs from Sweden are commented by me now:
https://diptera.info/forum/viewthread.php?forum_id=5&thread_id=107536
and another image from European Russia:
https://diptera.info/forum/viewthread.php?forum_id=5&thread_id=106915&pid=444480#post_444480