Thread subject: Diptera.info :: Geomyza species

Posted by Klaas on 09-08-2010 21:52
#1

17 july 2010 The Netherlands, Meppel

In wet rough vegetation along water
3,3 mm long

I found no family for this one
Id. on species level possible?

Klaas

Edited by Klaas on 09-08-2010 22:06

Posted by Klaas on 09-08-2010 21:53
#2

picture 2

Posted by paqui on 09-08-2010 21:56
#3

hi, I would try Opomyzidae / Geomyza sp., but letīs wait
regards

Posted by Klaas on 09-08-2010 22:08
#4

Yes, thank you!
I have changed the title

Klaas

Edited by Klaas on 10-08-2010 18:29

Posted by Jan Willem on 10-08-2010 06:31
#5

Hello Klaas,

To be sure about specimens like this, you need to collect them and study the genitalia. My best guess would be Geomyza hackmani of which we don't have many recordings. However I cannot entirely rule out Geomyza balachowskyi. Did you collect specimens?

Posted by Klaas on 10-08-2010 19:06
#6

Jan Willem wrote:
Hello Klaas,

To be sure about specimens like this, you need to collect them and study the genitalia. My best guess would be Geomyza hackmani of which we don't have many recordings. However I cannot entirely rule out Geomyza balachowskyi. Did you collect specimens?


No, the fly is not available ..

Are the two flies you mentioned exactly the same, except for there genitalia?
I can't find differences in the pictures in the gallery

Klaas

Posted by Jan Willem on 11-08-2010 08:41
#7

Hello Klaas,

In general, the females of G. balachowskyi have a more banded abdomen (but not always).
In G. hackmani the part below the scutellum is dark and in G. balachowskyi this is much lighter (in general, but not always).
I have seen several exeptions to these "rules".
Studying the genitalia can give you a reliable identification.

Posted by Mark-uk on 11-08-2010 12:21
#8

The folowing is worth having.

Drake, C.M. 1993. A review of the British Opomyzidae. British Journal of Entomology and Natural History 6: 159-176.

Posted by Klaas on 11-08-2010 19:51
#9

oke, thank you both

Klaas

Posted by Jan Willem on 11-08-2010 20:07
#10

@Mark-uk: Drake 1993 is certainly worth having, but be warned, on page 165 Fig. 5g: G. balachowskyi (?) must be G. hackmani.