---

Dear John and Nini,
according to your additional pictures (the profile view of the head is good for what I wanted to see), it is Musca autumnalis.
About the genitalia, I rarely need them to ID Muscidae. In other families, Calliphoridae (Pollenia, Bellardia etc.), and Sarcophagidae you virtually can't work without genitalia, I agree (I also think to Fanniidae and Anthomyiidae). Muscidae (and this is why I like this familly) offers many other ways to ID a species in most cases (chaetotaxy especially). I'm well too lazy for the time-consuming genitalia examination, that's why I gave up Sarcophagidae for example. Genitalia are used by experts (what I am not) that work on a revision of a genus or a group of similar species, or describe a new species, but once the work is done, there are almost always some others characters bound to the genitalia structure, so that it is only necessary to check it for having a confirmation. This is my point of view, perhaps some people would only trust on genitalia for Muscidae.
I recognize your efforts for showing us these identification characters.
Many books on Muscidae show genitalia (at least cerci and surtyli) plates for many genera, but strangely, Musca are seemingly ignored (I haven't opened all my books to be certain of that).
Regards. ;)