Diptera.info

Posted by blowave on 24-01-2012 20:57

Hi,

It looks like Phaonia, although there appears to be a hind leg missing the bristle on the tibia on the other side can be seen but I'm not sure. It doesn't seem to fit any that I know. 30th September on Ivy, near Lincoln UK.

Janet

Posted by blowave on 25-01-2012 01:58

nielsyese wrote:
Hi Janet, I think this is a female of Phaonia falleni/angelicae.
Niels

Hi Niels, thanks! I had considered P. angelicae which I have had but it seems so dark, Phaonia falleni I haven't yet come across. I'll see what I can find out, unless someone else can say more. Stephane? :D

Posted by blowave on 25-01-2012 02:55

I've done some comparisons with P. angelicae, it has a few differences to this fly. For one, P. angelicae looks to have a pair of long ocellar bristles or in the region of the anterior ocelli. I can't see the halter on this fly, maybe it got broken? It's very obvious in angelicae.

Another, P. angelicae has pv on the mid tibiae and I think part of those would be visible if they were present.

This is one I named P. angelicae from 2010, I don't recall posting it for ID but I might have!

Posted by blowave on 05-02-2012 15:47

I found photos of what looks to be the same fly from two days previous on 28th September. From what I can see this looks to be Phaonia scutellata.

All black palpi and antennae, 1 pair pre scutellar bristles, p bristle on t1. Does anyone agree?

Posted by Stephane Lebrun on 06-02-2012 18:52

#13

I see 2 probable species Phaonia angelicae or Phaonia erronea. As I can't see whether the mid tibia has pv or not, I can't affirm anything. I can't judge either whether the mouthedge is enough protruding or not for P. angelicae.

Posted by blowave on 06-02-2012 19:34

#14

Thanks Stephane, I have cropped off and lightened the mid leg of P. angelicae which is at a similar position. The pv are easily visible on this..

Posted by blowave on 06-02-2012 21:32

#17

Stephane Lebrun wrote:
OK, no pv bristle visible. Is it really absent or broken ?

Good question Stephane, there is also an apparently missing halter on the fly in question unless it's the dark blob I can see on the anterior edge of the calypters.

I checked the keys for female P. erronea, t1 doesn't have a posterior bristle. The hind femora have a complete row of strong anteroventrals too. I guess the keys are correct and not referring to a previous incorrectly named fly?

From reading older threads I have realised there is a difference in the frons at the vertex, the keys for P. scutellata states it is 1/3 of the total width of the head. What is the reason for it not being scutellata?

Posted by Stephane Lebrun on 06-02-2012 21:51

#18

Sorry Janet, I don't understand any more of which fly we are talking, which is which ?
Photo 1,2,5, 6, 7, 11 : difficult to ID (OK some pictures show a small pd on t1, which P. erronea has rarely (but not never).
Photo 3, 4, 8, 9, 10 are likely Phaonia angelicae (because we can see pv on t2 or additional pd in basal part of t3).

Posted by blowave on 06-02-2012 22:29

#19

Stephane Lebrun wrote:
Sorry Janet, I don't understand any more of which fly we are talking, which is which ?
Photo 1,2,5, 6, 7, 11 : difficult to ID (OK some pictures show a small pd on t1, which P. erronea has rarely (but not never).
Photo 3, 4, 8, 9, 10 are likely Phaonia angelicae (because we can see pv on t2 or additional pd in basal part of t3).

Sorry if you're getting confused Stephane! I had mentioned for photos 3& 4 it was one I had named P. angelicae, I posted it as a comparison when niels suggested it could be this or another.

Photo 10 I have also mentioned it as being angelicae, the others I think are all the same fly but taken two days apart.