Identification of Diptera (flies, mosquitoes, etc.)

Community and Forum → Insects identification → Identification of Diptera (flies, mosquitoes, etc.)

Pages: 1 ...17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25... 98

Likes: 3

Likes: 1

04.09.2009 10:47, Юстус

Eristalis intricaria

Dear Dr. Niko,
there are two things that confuse me about Eristalis intracaria.
1. The abdomen at the base should be covered with reddish-yellow hairs. There are no such hairs.
2. Arista should be long-feathered. And in this case, it is-I think korotkoopushennoy - in the first photo, if you can see, I apologize for the quality (for comparison, in the second photo-long-feathered arista Volucella).
If you take this into account and follow the key of N. A. Violovich's determinant, you can (while closing your eyes to "something-something") get to Eristalis pacificus.
"Something-something" that can be bothering is the color of the legs. By default, Violovich's feet should be black (he specifies the color of the legs of E. Intracaria separately: "the front and middle legs are partially yellow"). But if you look at the first description, and not the determinant, then there (Violovich N. A. New species of babbling flies of the Palearctic fauna (message 28) / / Taxa of the Siberian fauna (New and little-known species of the Siberian fauna). Novosibirsk, Nauka Publ., 1977, pp. 68-84) there is a significant clarification regarding E. pacificus: "The legs are black, the knees and about 1/3 of the lower legs are light yellow" (p. 68). Just like in our case. And as for arista, it also says the following: "arista is light brown, with a short pubescent main half." It also seems to me that this is our case. And in general, the description is suitable (including the ratio of the width of the forehead to the width of the head).
There is also a question about the distribution of E. pacificus. The identifier indicates "lower reaches of the Ob River, Prikolymye, Iturup Island". It makes sense to note that in the determinant, N. A. often does not give "distribution", but only indicates the places of collection, which, of course, is not the same thing.

That's the kind of doubt I have about the definition of this fly. Help, PLZ, to resolve me from the burden of doubt.

Pictures:
picture: 1.jpg

1.jpg — (6.04 k)

picture: 2.jpg

2.jpg — (8.68к)

04.09.2009 21:03, Pirx

Dear Dr. Niko,
there are two things that confuse me about Eristalis intracaria.
1. The abdomen at the base should be covered with reddish-yellow hairs. There are no such hairs.
2. Arista should be long-feathered. And in this case, it is-I think korotkoopushennoy - in the first photo, if you can see, I apologize for the quality (for comparison, in the second photo-long-feathered arista Volucella).
If you take this into account and follow the key of N. A. Violovich's determinant, you can (while closing your eyes to "something-something") get to Eristalis pacificus.
"Something-something" that can be bothering is the color of the legs. By default, Violovich's feet should be black (he specifies the color of the legs of E. Intracaria separately: "the front and middle legs are partially yellow"). But if you look at the first description, and not the determinant, then there (Violovich N. A. New species of babbling flies of the Palearctic fauna (message 28) / / Taxa of the Siberian fauna (New and little-known species of the Siberian fauna). Novosibirsk, Nauka Publ., 1977, pp. 68-84) there is a significant clarification regarding E. pacificus: "The legs are black, the knees and about 1/3 of the lower legs are light yellow" (p. 68). Just like in our case. And as for arista, it also says the following: "arista is light brown, with a short pubescent main half." It also seems to me that this is our case. And in general, the description is suitable (including the ratio of the width of the forehead to the width of the head).
There is also a question about the distribution of E. pacificus. The identifier indicates "lower reaches of the Ob River, Prikolymye, Iturup Island". It makes sense to note that in the determinant, N. A. often does not give "distribution", but only indicates the places of collection, which, of course, is not the same thing.

That's the kind of doubt I have about the definition of this fly. Help, PLZ, to resolve me from the burden of doubt.

Eristalis (Eoseristalis) anthophorina (Fallen 1817) = E. pacificus Violovitsh 1977 syn. nov. Brought together here in this article:

Mutin V.A. & Barkalov A.V. A review of the hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae) of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, with descriptions of two new species // Species
Diversity. — 1997. — Vol. 2, № 2. — P. 179–230.

Did it help?

In general, the Violovich determinant should be treated with caution, although it is still the only sirfid determinant covering the whole of Siberia and the Far East.
In some cases, you can use a modern identifier.:

Mutin V. A., Barkalov A.V. Family Syrphidae-babblers // Determinant of insects of the Russian Far East (under general ed. Lera P. A.). — Vladivostok: Dalnauka, 1999. - Vol. VI (Diptera and Siphonaptera), issue 1. - pp. 342-500.

Likes: 2

Likes: 3

Likes: 1

Likes: 2

Likes: 1

Likes: 2

22.09.2009 5:20, vi-123

What's the size of a mosquito?
Of course, I'm not an expert on diptera, but this mosquito seems to be similar to Keroplates sp., possibly K. tipulioides, although I can easily lie, I don't know that they hang on their front legs like that. And their larvae develop on the lower surface of a number of species of tinder mushrooms.

Thank you for your answer, Andrey! You helped me a lot with the definition of megarissas! I didn't measure the mosquito specifically, because I only photographed it. But, according to my estimates, the body length is 10-12 mm. Here is another picture of the mosquito (another copy) this one is larger - the body length is about 15mm, maybe it will help in determining. September 5, same shooting location.

Pictures:
picture: 2.jpg