Diptera.info

Posted by Stephen R on 29-10-2010 00:40

5+mm, Clitheroe UK, 4 July 2010.

Hi Joke, hope the cold is better :). Here's a pretty girl for you to name. I've been guessing these as Botanophila fugax because they came with the B. fugax males, but after looking at the key I'm not convinced.

Edited by Stephen R on 04-11-2010 16:32

Posted by javanerkelens on 29-10-2010 19:17

My cold is still terrible :(, but thanks to aspirin, i make it through the day..
Botanophila fugax seems right to me.

but after looking at the key I'm not convinced.

Or are you thinking at another possible Botanophila species...?

Joke

Posted by Stephen R on 31-10-2010 23:21

Thank you. I didn't understand the bit in Michael's key about the ratio of the last two medial vein sections - it sounded as if the distal section should be shorter than the one before?

:| Cold any better yet?

Stephen.

Posted by javanerkelens on 01-11-2010 21:20

I didn't understand the bit in Michael's key about the ratio of the last two medial vein sections - it sounded as if the distal section should be shorter than the one before?

Indeed confusing.
Maybe he ment that the thickness of the vein M1+2 at the end is 0.8mm....???????
And at B.laterella it is 0.55mm....?????

And my cold.......gone!!!!!:D

Edited by javanerkelens on 01-11-2010 21:21

Posted by Stephen R on 01-11-2010 23:07

I think we are both in the dark about this one! I think it must be about the relative lengths of sections of M1+2 due to the different positions of the crossveins. Have you got enough different Botanophila species to be able to compare them? (Imagine a vein 0.8mm thick - more than 10% of the fly's length :o )

Posted by javanerkelens on 01-11-2010 23:22

(Imagine a vein 0.8mm thick - more than 10% of the fly's length:o )

LOL...ha ha ha ha ha ha.....!!!
The cold has definitive damage my brains:S.....terrible a vein of 0.8mm
Just forget it all...:D
Have to reset !!!

Joke

Posted by javanerkelens on 03-11-2010 20:39

Answer from Ackland:

You will see earlier in the key that I have compared the length of the penultimate section of M1+2 to the ultimate section, giving generally a ratio of usually more than 1. The comparison of fugax with lateralla females should be (for fugax) "penultimate section of M1+2 1.25 times length of ultimate section. What I must have done is to give the ration of the penultimate section compared with the penultimate which is 0.8 (penultimate section =4 ultimate section 5). I further compounded the problem by calling the character " last section of M1+2 ratio" ! It is anyway the length of the sections of M1+2 and not the thickness.
(You don't need this character to separate fugax from laterella females)

Problem solved!
Joke :)