Thread subject: Diptera.info :: Eristalis intricaria
Posted by crex on 10-12-2006 10:12
#1
From midwest Sweden 2001-JUL-19. At first glimpse I thought these were the same fly, but it wasn't. Perhaps it is female and male of the same species ... like
Eristalis intricaria?
Edited by crex on 10-12-2006 12:17
Posted by crex on 10-12-2006 10:13
#2
The other photo taken at the same occasion.
Posted by Lukasz Mielczarek on 10-12-2006 11:12
#3
It is Eristalis intricaria. Similar species is the Eristalis oestracea but he have white scutelum and diferent tars 3 (are red) .
Posted by Tony Irwin on 10-12-2006 11:14
#4
Correct. Female above male below.
Eristalis intricarius (note genus name is male gender)
Posted by Lukasz Mielczarek on 10-12-2006 11:23
#5
Actually Eristalis intricaria.;)
http://www.syrphidae.com/checklist.php?country=GB
Posted by crex on 10-12-2006 11:57
#6
Tony Irwin wrote:
Correct. Female above male below. Eristalis intricarius (note genus name is male gender)
Thank you Tony and Mielczarek. The choice of names seems to be very personal. I wish there where a standard all could agree on. In Fauna Europaea it says Eristalis intricaria. Until the diptera is added to the Swedish Report System for Invertebrates I can't say what it will be named here in the cold dark north ...
Posted by Tony Irwin on 10-12-2006 12:38
#7
Mmmm... I have to say that I tend to follow the British Check List as on the Diptera Forum website.
http://www.dipter..._intro.php
As a rule, Peter Chandler is very fussy about getting things right. It isn't a matter of personal taste. There are rules which should be followed so that we can all use the same names, and end up with a stable, agreed list.
Posted by crex on 10-12-2006 13:45
#8
Tony Irwin wrote:
Mmmm... I have to say that I tend to follow the British Check List as on the Diptera Forum website.
http://www.dipter..._intro.php
As a rule, Peter Chandler is very fussy about getting things right. It isn't a matter of personal taste. There are rules which should be followed so that we can all use the same names, and end up with a stable, agreed list.
I didn't mean that everyone could make their own names up, and certainly not that you made a mistake, but it's a fact that not all follow the same standard. I'm not getting into a debate about this. I think often there are a choice of preserving an old faulty name or choosing a new proper one that might add to the confusion, because when you change a name there are going to be two names for the same species in literature etc ... When I report my findings I have to use the name that is used in Sweden to be able to report it at all.