Gallery Links
Users Online
· Guests Online: 14

· Members Online: 0

· Total Members: 4,960
· Newest Member: Urs-Peter
Forum Threads
Theme Switcher
Switch to:
Last Seen Users
· Andre Burgers< 5 mins
· Roger Thomason< 5 mins
· sbushes00:09:38
· Volker00:33:48
· ESant00:39:38
· daveb2100:39:54
· Jan Maca00:42:55
· thijsdegraaf01:06:32
· Zeegers01:16:57
· smol01:26:53
Latest Photo Additions
View Thread
Diptera.info :: Identification queries :: Diptera (adults)
Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
Which Gymnosoma species?
gardensafarinl
#1 Print Post
Posted on 05-02-2006 08:19
User Avatar

Member

Location: Arnhem, the Netherlands
Posts: 79
Joined: 09.01.06

Dear Members,

I have this fly on my site, named Gymnosoma nudifrons. Now it has been suggested this it is a Gymnosoma rotundatum instead. Is anyone able to tell me which species it is is from just these pictures? Thanks a lot in advance.

www.gardensafari.net/temp/gymnosoma1.jpg

www.gardensafari.net/temp/gymnosoma2.jpg

www.gardensafari.net/temp/gymnosoma3.jpg

Cheers,

Hans
 
http://www.gardensafari.nl
Zeegers
#2 Print Post
Posted on 05-02-2006 14:01
Member

Location: Soest, NL
Posts: 18535
Joined: 21.07.04

I cannot be sure.
I understand the critics on nudifrons, but still my guess is it is nudifrons. I think the black on the parafrontalia just seem not to reach the antennal base but that they actually do. An artifact of the point of view of the camera. To be sure, I need a headshot from front or above.
The dark wings suggest nudifrons

Another way to determine the identity might be this:
If the picture is taken in The Netherlands outside Limburg,
it must be G. nudifrons.
Since G. rotundatum is restricted to Limburg.
G. nudifrons is actually quite common.

Maybe that helps ?

Theo
 
gardensafarinl
#3 Print Post
Posted on 05-02-2006 15:09
User Avatar

Member

Location: Arnhem, the Netherlands
Posts: 79
Joined: 09.01.06

Thanks a lot Theo,

I was uncertain because I received some criticism on my site. I have worked for waarneming.nl for a while and there was G, rotundatum, but no G. nudifrons. Actually I parked the problem and didn't report this to waarneming.nl. But now I have and I used the name G. nudifrons. I am curious whether Mark van Veen reacts to all this...

 
http://www.gardensafari.nl
Zeegers
#4 Print Post
Posted on 05-02-2006 16:01
Member

Location: Soest, NL
Posts: 18535
Joined: 21.07.04

Gardensafari,


I think your site is great!
The people who criticize Gymnosoma nudifrons, might simple not be familiar with the species. It has been described as recently as 1966. Most old records of 'rotundatum' refer actually to nudifrons.
I had a good look at your site,
and I'm now confident that this is indeed, a female nudifrons.

So don't worry about the critics, just send them my critics.


Theo
 
Andre
#5 Print Post
Posted on 05-02-2006 16:08
User Avatar

Member

Location: Tilburg, the Netherlands
Posts: 2111
Joined: 18.07.04

Waarneming.nl is not that good site for dipterists... my opinion..
 
www.biomongol.org
gardensafarinl
#6 Print Post
Posted on 05-02-2006 17:08
User Avatar

Member

Location: Arnhem, the Netherlands
Posts: 79
Joined: 09.01.06

Zeegers wrote:
Gardensafari,


I think your site is great!
The people who criticize Gymnosoma nudifrons, might simple not be familiar with the species. It has been described as recently as 1966. Most old records of 'rotundatum' refer actually to nudifrons.
I had a good look at your site,
and I'm now confident that this is indeed, a female nudifrons.

So don't worry about the critics, just send them my critics.


Theo



Thanks a lot, Theo. I do my best and I am still happy I stick to what lives in my garden, otherwise I would certainly run out of time. Flies and wasps are still the most difficult groups. I know, there are some micro moth families which are terrible too. And of course aphids and such aren't very easy either. Problem seems to be there are only a limited number of people interested in these groups (except for syrphids, which for some reason or another are extremely popular). But I am glad that many of my question do get an answer here. Some pictures apparently don't mean a thing to anyone, so that's a good reason to put them back where they came from: the archives.

Well it is still winter, so maybe another fly will pop up from the archives. This is the time of year to work on the site and the pictures etc. Let's hope there will be a lot of life again in about one month... It is rather 'dead' outside nowadays. Except for a few very small mosquitoes of course. I'll save them for later, for many are so small my camera won't like them....

Cheers,

Hans
 
http://www.gardensafari.nl
gardensafarinl
#7 Print Post
Posted on 05-02-2006 17:25
User Avatar

Member

Location: Arnhem, the Netherlands
Posts: 79
Joined: 09.01.06

Andre wrote:
Waarneming.nl is not that good site for dipterists... my opinion..


I did some work for them, so just a very few short remarks. Their goal is to collect observations and actually that's all. They started off as a birding group, which one can still tell. But to check out the observations reported, they need experts. But the observations are numerous, the observers are very diverse what their knowledge is concerned, making corresponding with them not always as easy as can be. On the other hand all these observations are valuable and it is up to each and every scientist to interpret them.

But, yes they still lack some expertise. Mark van Veen is an excellent dipterist, but he's no specialist on all families. And except for syrphids he's on his own. The same goes for some other groups of animals (bees, wasps, aphids, spiders). Concerning some other groups though I think they are quite reliable: birds, butterflies, plants and moths for instance.

And by the way I find the information on flies on the internet to be mediocre at best most of the times (except for this site, of course Wink

Cheers,

Hans
 
http://www.gardensafari.nl
Jump to Forum:
Similar Threads
Thread Forum Replies Last Post
Iteaphila...which species ? Diptera (adults) 5 02-05-2024 19:12
two Coenosia in my garden - same or different species? Diptera (adults) 4 01-05-2024 19:26
identification Pepsis species Diptera (adults) 5 24-04-2024 20:27
Help to identify this Drosophilid species.. Diptera (adults) 5 23-03-2024 19:41
Help to identify this unknown species.. Diptera (adults) 3 23-03-2024 13:58
Date and time
04 May 2024 16:16
Login
Username

Password



Not a member yet?
Click here to register.

Forgotten your password?
Request a new one here.
Temporary email?
Due to fact this site has functionality making use of your email address, any registration using a temporary email address will be rejected.

Paul
Donate
Please, help to make
Diptera.info
possible and enable
further improvements!
Latest Articles
Syrph the Net
Those who want to have access to the Syrph the Net database need to sign the
License Agreement -
Click to Download


Public files of Syrph the Net can be downloaded HERE

Last updated: 25.08.2011
Shoutbox
You must login to post a message.

07.03.24 00:01
Some flies preserved in ethanol and then pinned often get the eyes sunken, how can this be avoided? Best answer: I usually keep alcohol-collected material in alcohol

17.08.23 15:23
Aneomochtherus

17.08.23 13:54
Tony, I HAD a blank in the file name. Sorry!

17.08.23 13:44
Tony, thanks! I tried it (see "Cylindromyia" Wink but don't see the image in the post.

17.08.23 11:37
pjt - just send the post and attached image. Do not preview thread, as this will lose the link to the image,

16.08.23 08:37
Tried to attach an image to a forum post. jpg, 32kB, 72dpi, no blanks, ... File name is correctly displayed, but when I click "Preview Thread" it just vanishes. Help!

23.02.23 21:29
Has anyone used the Leica DM500, any comments.

27.12.22 21:10
Thanks, Jan Willem! Much appreciated. Grin

19.12.22 11:33
Thanks Paul for your work on keeping this forum available! Just made a donation via PayPal.

09.10.22 17:07
Yes, dipterologists from far abroad, please buy your copy at veldshop. Stamps will be expensive, but he, the book is unreasonably cheap Smile

Render time: 1.03 seconds | 192,269,943 unique visits