Diptera.info

Posted by Sundew on 11-05-2022 18:26

Hi,
Some days ago, while photographing in the woods, a small Tachinid enjoyed the delicious taste of my skin. I found out that it was Actia (female?), but I am uncertain about the species. Wing veins r and r4+5 are clearly bristly, but I cannot see any bristles on cu1. So A. pilipennis is probably off the table. What about A. infantula because of the dusted tergites? Help is greatly appreciated!
The location was southwestern Germany, 20 km west of Stuttgart.
Many thanks for all comments, Sundew

Edited by Sundew on 11-05-2022 23:59

Posted by Zeegers on 11-05-2022 20:57

Hi Claudia

Very interesting specimen ! If it were Actia, it could only be infantula. However, the legs are very orange (black in antenna), the yellow hind margins to tergites are not seen in Actia and the antennal shape is off for an Actia. So it is more like a Ceromyia.

Theo

Posted by Zeegers on 11-05-2022 21:01

Based on the very well developed lateral discal bristles and the setulae on wing venation, this should be Ceromyia flaviseta, which is an extremely rare (ly recorded) species !!
But known from BW, so that figures

Theo

Posted by Sundew on 11-05-2022 22:49

Well, Theo, that’s extremely interesting! These rare Tachinids seem to like me... And they share the same wood.
Ceromya (btw, according to the World Checklist by O’Hara et al. 2020 [http://www.nadsdi...ver2.1.pdf] the spelling “Ceromyia” is an unjustified emendation) flaviseta was also found in the Berlin region, so I can use the pictures for our website https://www.orion...en_ges.php. What a nice find!
Thank you so much for your always reliable help,
Claudia

Posted by Zeegers on 11-05-2022 22:57

As well known, I am immune to the nomenclatural police.
Ceromya is very obviously the first unjustified emendation and it needs, in my opinion, to be corrected, whether the police approves or not.
Science is about making progress, not about nurishing the mistake.

Feel free to disagree

Theo

Posted by Sundew on 11-05-2022 23:59

You don't have to feel criticised, but as a reviser of the Berlin-Brandenburg Species List I am obliged to adhere to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Article 33.2) and to use the original spelling by Robineau-Desvoidy.
Can we assign a sex to the photographed fly? I thought it was a female, but I don't see that the 5th tarsomere of the forefoot is enlarged.