pun_logo

The Society for the study of flies (Diptera)

Affiliated to the British Entomological and Natural History Society (BENHS)

You are not logged in.

#1 2014-12-03 15:55:05

Gateside
DF Members
Name: Nigel Gilligan
From: Cumbria
Registered: 2011-08-26
Posts: 966

distinctive Muscidae, or something similar?

I used the Diptera family key, and after rejecting other Calyptrates such as Tachinids,  Rhinophoridae, Sarcophagidae, I then considered Calliphoridae on the venation, but rejected it as not complying with this description ....
"Shiny, metallic or lusterous black flies (green bottle and bluebottles)".

It's not Faniidae, but it seems to comply (just about) with Muscidae, in that the 2nd venation example has M1 curving towards R4+5 quite strongly. It may actually meet it, or very close, so cell r4+5 may actually be closed. That does not comply, as far as I can see. I can't sort that one out by myself.

If it is Muscidae, then by superficial similarity, it does look very much like Helina reversio. But that's as far as it goes. The venation is quite wrong, just for starters!

Can somebody put me back on the right track, please.
4 images loaded, one just to show the view from the front - sadly somewhat out of focus where it matters on the face.
Nigel

last image best for venation!


Uploaded Images

Last edited by Gateside (2014-12-03 15:58:23)

Offline

 

#2 2014-12-03 21:07:28

Stephane Lebrun
Registered user
Name: Stephane Lebrun
From: Le Havre, FRANCE
Registered: 2008-04-05
Posts: 599

Re: distinctive Muscidae, or something similar?

It's a pity you rejected Tachinidae, because it is a tachinid : this is a Siphona. wink

Stephane.

Offline

 

#3 2014-12-03 22:31:31

Gateside
DF Members
Name: Nigel Gilligan
From: Cumbria
Registered: 2011-08-26
Posts: 966

Re: distinctive Muscidae, or something similar?

Thanks very much, Stephane.

I had rejected Tachinidae because although it had something of the right jizz, the venation looked wrong when compared to any verified tachinids I've recorded before (mostly Tachina grossa). And since I couldn't tell if the subscutellum was strongly inflated (it does a bit), and I couldn't quite make out the hypopleural bristles because of the shadows there, but I suspected I couldn't see them because they were not there! So ... I got it wrong.

As to Siphona, and playing the guessing game a bit with UK tachinids, it does really look like Siphona setosa.

Hopefully Chris Raper will come along and tell me I can't do that, which is fair enough.

Nigel

Offline

 

#4 2014-12-30 22:07:11

ChrisR
Administrator
Name: Chris Raper
From: Reading, UK
Registered: 2008-03-08
Posts: 392
Website

Re: distinctive Muscidae, or something similar?

Nigel just brought this to my attention ...

Yes definitely Siphona but it would be very unwise to say more without a specimen - they are a fearfully difficult genus that requires great care wink  I can see why you have arrived at setosa but it is a very rare species and I'd need a specimen to confirm the record and I don't think I would agree on the antennal length - it looks short to me, which would take you to the much commoner cristata/geniculata pair and geniculata (the commonest Siphona in the UK) would be my bet, from just the look of it. smile

Offline

 

#5 2014-12-31 09:56:32

Gateside
DF Members
Name: Nigel Gilligan
From: Cumbria
Registered: 2011-08-26
Posts: 966

Re: distinctive Muscidae, or something similar?

Thanks Chris. My fault for putting an incorrect thread title.

It would appear that even a genus record would be useful in this case - there are none at all in the western half of Cumbria. But I know what people will now say, and I tend to agree with them.... We shall see what happens in 2015.

Nigel

Offline

 

Board footer

Powered by PunBB
© Copyright 2002–2005 Rickard Andersson