Diptera.info

Posted by Manuel Lopez on 24-05-2013 09:22

On Papaver flower, Beas de Granada (C Granada, 1380 m. asl).

Thanks !!

Edited by Manuel Lopez on 28-05-2013 21:46

Posted by ChrisR on 24-05-2013 14:09

Interesting but not a Phasia (no petiole) and I'm not even sure that it is a tachinid. Do you have more photos?

Posted by ChrisR on 24-05-2013 19:56

Hmm, it's not an easy one - I might leave it for the other experts ;)

Posted by Zeegers on 24-05-2013 20:36

i would be surprised if it is not in Phasiinae.
But then...

Other than a melanistic form (of Clytiomyia ??), which is unlikely and never seen by me, I'm lost.

Theo

Posted by ChrisR on 24-05-2013 21:39

Yeah, this is a classic example of something that should have a pin through it ;)

Posted by Gerard Pennards on 24-05-2013 22:45

Are we sure it is a Tachinid?? You can laugh about it, but wing venation and general appearance reminds me a bit of Graphomya.....

Posted by John Carr on 27-05-2013 02:13

Gerard Pennards wrote:
Are we sure it is a Tachinid?? You can laugh about it, but wing venation and general appearance reminds me a bit of Graphomya.....

Almost all Muscidae would have stronger, differentiated dorsocentral bristles and usually at least one pair of differentiated acrostichals. Vein M is rarely so strongly bent (in some Muscini but not Graphomya). I think I see a subscutellum too.

Posted by Jaakko on 28-05-2013 12:11

Xysta holosericea? Female Clytiomyia are quite dark too, but this is a male(?).

Jaakko

Posted by Zeegers on 28-05-2013 17:54

#10

It crossed my mind. I never saw the female, though, so I cannot comment.

Theo

Posted by John Carr on 28-05-2013 18:09

#11

Jaakko wrote:
Xysta holosericea? Female Clytiomyia are quite dark too, but this is a male(?).

Jaakko

If you are going by the narrowly separated eyes, in Phasia females can have more narrowly separated eyes than males and perhaps that is true of related genera.

I can't tell by the shape of the abdomen.

Posted by Zeegers on 28-05-2013 19:22

#12

This is the male

http://www.dipter...d_id=54506

rather different (but coulld be sexual dimorphism)

Theo

Edited by ChrisR on 28-05-2013 19:46

Posted by Zeegers on 28-05-2013 19:34

#13

If you look at the picture on www.tachinidae.eu, also in the female sex of Xysta the genitalia are enlarged and asymmetrical. So that does not fit.

Howver, Opesia might be a candidate

Do you have Opesia in Spain ?

Theo

Posted by Manuel Lopez on 28-05-2013 19:41

#14

Yes, Opesia cana and O. descendens are described in Spain.

Posted by ChrisR on 28-05-2013 19:50

#15

The more I look at it, the more I find myself quite taken by the idea tat it is a female Opesia cana ... they are so rare though that we'd all be forgiven for not instantly recognising it :)

Posted by Zeegers on 28-05-2013 20:31

#16

Chris, with this absolution you'd make a great Pope.

Thank you

Theo

Posted by ChrisR on 28-05-2013 20:45

#17

Thanks Theo - I am just well-practiced when it comes to explaining my own inadequacies! ;)

The irony is that Opesia are some of my favourite tachinids - their clean lines and rarity go some way to explaining my fascination in them ... but just getting a chance to see one is a rare treat indeed!

Edited by ChrisR on 28-05-2013 20:45