Thread subject: Diptera.info :: fly for ID
Posted by Toby on 11-12-2009 12:06
#1
Burnham Beeches, Berks, Dec 6
Posted by pwalter on 11-12-2009 14:29
#2
Seems to be a Platypezid male, any moe views?
Posted by michal tkoc on 11-12-2009 17:27
#3
I think it's not a platypezid, but dont know what it could be :(
Posted by Stephane Lebrun on 11-12-2009 21:57
#4
I would have said
Opetia nigra, but I'm probably wrong then...
Posted by Kahis on 11-12-2009 22:40
#5
Hmm I would have said
Opetia too, but I've been wrong before (it's hard to believe isnt it ... me wrong?)
Posted by Paul Beuk on 11-12-2009 23:03
#6
I would have said
Opetia nigra, too, but if the person mentioned as specilist for Platypezidae and Opetiidae does not recognise it as such... And to be honest, the way the wing venation appears to be it does seem to be off for that species. I could not think of an alternative either...
Posted by Toby on 11-12-2009 23:26
#7
only other view is much the same
Posted by michal tkoc on 12-12-2009 00:34
#8
It could be O. nigra, but I am not really sure, the wing venation is not visible, legs and abdomen too. And I dont have any specimen with me this time to compare :(
Posted by Xespok on 13-12-2009 23:04
#9
Can it not be Microphor sp, Microphoridae?
Posted by Xespok on 13-12-2009 23:05
#10
I also made photos of this or a very similar species.
Posted by Xespok on 13-12-2009 23:06
#11
But I would be more happy if it turned out to be Opetia...
The fly is from early spring, Hunagry.
Posted by Paul Beuk on 13-12-2009 23:07
#12
This looks like a
Microphor and it has a discal cell. The first species doesn't have it. The antenae are different, too.
Posted by michal tkoc on 14-12-2009 02:39
#13
Now, it seems to me like Opetia nigra too, sorry to all for confusing you. I checked the book, key, other photos and it is identical, unfortunately, cant check the specimen. With all respect, Michal
Posted by Paul Beuk on 14-12-2009 07:11
#14
Hehe,
Errare humane est, and this forum has showed often enough I am human, too (even though people like Roger, André and Jorge may try to convince you otherwise; and even I have my doubts on occasional).
Posted by michal tkoc on 14-12-2009 13:20
#15
:-) One of my professor said: "To have doubts, it is a basic and most important ability of a scientist."
Edited by michal tkoc on 14-12-2009 13:20
Posted by Roger Thomason on 14-12-2009 13:32
#16
Paul Beuk wrote:
Hehe, Errare humane est, and this forum has showed often enough I am human, too (even though people like Roger, André and Jorge may try to convince you otherwise; and even I have my doubts on occasional).
Why am I getting dragged into this conversation....It is obvious you are human Paul, as the proper way to spell it is
Errare Humanum Est according to the WWW. So once again you have proved it. :P
Roger....wind up merchant and Non-Latin speaker. ;)
Posted by Paul Beuk on 14-12-2009 14:18
#17
Okay, since you insist: the full quote is
errare humanum est, sed perseverare diabolicum and I guess that's where you come in. :D
Posted by Stephen R on 14-12-2009 14:39
#18
:D:D:D
Bullseye!
Posted by Roger Thomason on 14-12-2009 14:41
#19
Hmm..
diabolicum me...
...I was thinking more like;
Errare humanum est, ignoscere divinum.
But I don't believe in either so...that's where I go out...:P
Roger
Posted by Roger Thomason on 14-12-2009 14:42
#20
Stephen R wrote:
:D:D:D
Bullseye!
Bullshit :P
Posted by Paul Beuk on 14-12-2009 14:49
#21
Roger Thomason wrote:
Stephen R wrote:
:D:D:D
Bullseye!
Bullshit :P
That's crap. B)
Posted by Roger Thomason on 14-12-2009 14:54
#22
Crappus Norvegicus...is this to become a slagging competition ? I am working nights from tonight and will have to go for a kip soon....I will be available throughout the evening and night till about 9 am-ish, and will be only too happy to oblige. Please form an orderly queue...:|.
Oh Shit....Roger.