---

UK, Suffolk, 2km from coast. 27.iv.09
approx 7mm

I think this is Phryxe heraclei, (double row of ventral bristles on costal vein, see below).

Steve

---

...

---

...

---

...

---

...

---

You have to be a bit careful using Belshaw because he describes the wrong vein but figures the correct bit. Go by figure #394, which I believe should have been called something like "the section of the costa between SC and r1" - I think your photos are focused on the section of the costa before SC. But in the top right of the first wing it does look as though the correct bit of wing has the extra hairs ... so you may be right :D

---

I'm not sure, but from general picture general impression is not heraclei.
It is a male, why not extract its genitalia ?
Difference is obvious then.


Theo

---

Ahh, just a thought - are you looking on the dorsal or ventral face of the wing?

As Theo said, genitalia are very clear. Come to think of it I think most of my P.heraclei have small, reddish abdominal side patches.

---

ok Chris, I see the part of the vein you mean. I should have realised from your update notes to Belshaw, available on your website. So maybe it isn't heraclei afterall. YES, its the ventral side.

Theo, I cannot argue with your logic apart from to say I'm processing photos of dried flies in batches and therefore refer you to the works of Adam Smith et al and the idea of "Division of Labour" :P

Best Regards,

Steve

---

OK, to me the correct area of the wing is now being looked at and it does have the necessary minute hairs. If I remember the key correctly you only look for hairs if you are happy that it is not P.nemea and this one has a blue/grey parafrontal so it shouldn't be P.nemea ... and looking back at photo 1 there do appear to be orange/brown abdominal side patches so ... male genitalia aside ... to me this looks fairly like P.heraclei but I would still recommend putting in the extra work to prove it by relaxing the specimen and hooking the genitalia out :)

P.heraclei is the third commonest Phryxe spp. in Britain, in my experience - followed by magnicornis & erythrostoma (both of which are very rare)

---

whatever it is, it is not nemea.

Magnicornis is another matter, in my opinion


Theo

---

ok, here's the extraction. I think the oval surstylus confirms heraclei?

Steve

---

Phryxe vulgaris :D

---

I'm on a steep learning curve:D

---

Not sure - looks a bit P.heraclei to me - can we see it from a purely lateral angle? :)

---

ok, 2 more photos. I folded the cercus back initially to have a clear view of the surstylus, as I thought that was important for the key, so apologies for the photos differing from a text book diagram. I don't have other specimens for comparison but the surstylus looks more like the diagrams of heraclei in both Belshaw's key and Tschorsnig and Herting's key. The cercus does appear to have a ventral apex under the microscope, its flattened a little by perspective in the photo. There are certainly a few ventral hairs on the Costal vein as described for heraclei in Belshaw. So I am tentatively placing an id of heraclei ( I don't need it to be such, by the way, just looking for an accurate id :))

Thank you to Chris and others for comments.Thank you to Theo for making me go to the trouble of relaxing and preparing and further photographing the specimen. I have learnt much and hopefully this thread will be helpful in the future when others have pinned Phryxe to be identified.
Steve

---

...

---

...

---

Yeah, to me that's P.heraclei :)

---

Yes, I'd say it is heraclei after all.


Theo

---

hi all,
..as usual it's one of sd's threads I arrive at whenever I need to look up a new fly, so thanks Steve for chopping down all that wood!

My specimen has hairs reaching about two thirds of the way along that 'sub-costal' area, but no red patch on the side nor any trace of red on the scutellum. The parafacial area is blueish. Is that still ok for heraclei? I keyed it together with a small vulgaris and the differences were very clear, and it took an unusual route through the key, sending me back to couplet 35 from 101

best wishes,
Jeremy

---

I'd need to see it really - if it is a male then the genitalia can be useful to confirm heraclei. The 'subcostal' bristles feature is difficult because Belshaw named it incorrectly in the book and you are often looking for only 1 or 2 bristlets and one wing can have them while the other wing doesn't ;)

---

there are six hairs on one wing and three on the other, on the underside of the wing-edge beyond the costal spur. Fig 394 shows nine hairs on this area.