---

Hello, I am not sure if it is Phebellia. If yes, it fits well to the description of Phebellia pauciseta, but P. Tschorsnig gives too little characters here. Thank you for your help.

---

Head closer

---

From dorsal

---

Wing

---

Erikas, could you please give information on the number of ad-bristles on the middle tibia.
I don't need a picture, just the number 1, 2, 3, ... and if 2, whether 2 big ones or 1 big and 1 much smaller

I agree, it totally looks like Phebellia at the moment

Thanks


Theo

---

Unfortunately, both middle legs are absent in this specimen.
So, what about Phebellia pauciseta? Thanks for your help.

---

First need to really sure about the genus.


I'll come back Friday or Saturday

(Phebellia pauciseta I don't see every day, really need to check)


Theo

---

I have one pauciseta male from Bulgaria.

What bothers me, is the following

I see a strong IA before the suture, that should not be there in pauciseta.
We clearly have setulae ascending above vibrissa on face, in mine pauciseta there are only 3 such setulae.

Last feature suggests villica or vicina.
Those have a distinct ad-comb on tibia 3 in the male sex.

So 2 questions:
Is there a regular ad-comb on tibia 3 with 1 or 2 larger setae or is it very irregular (as in glauca, glirina...)
Are there 4 or 5 bristles on the shoulders (humerus) ?

Latter would indicate Myxexoristops rather than Phebellia


Theo

---

I do agree with too many ascending setulae on the facial ridges, though there are less of them on the other ridge. But I do not see any pre-IA, it is clearly reduced.
AD-comb consists of very rare setae, with three or four larger setae, one of them three times longer than the small. There are only four strong HU, the fifth cannot be distinguished from setulae.
Please, note the latro-clinate ocellar bristles, if this characters could help.

---

OK, so it really should be Phebellia.

I thought I saw a pore at the location of the left prae IA bristle. So I thought is was broken off. But it is difficult to see, so if you say it's not there, it's not there.

A picture of the abdominal tip from above and obliquely from behind might help, if I can make a request


Theo

---

By the way, just to be sure:

the hind coxa is bare from behind ?

Theo

---

The dusting of the tergites with iridenscent spots that, looking from different angles could arise in different places, and therefore it is difficult to find the edge of the dusting, but it seams, reaches 3/4 to the posterior edge on the dorsal surface and even more on the ventral.
The hind coxa is bare on posterodorsal surface.

---

I'm afraid I can't be of more help.

The mouth margin is only little projection, as it seems less that in ordinary glauca. I guess you have glauca or glaucoides for comparison, they are pretty common in Estonia (I know, still some distance from you).

So you might very well have a slightly aberrant Ph. pauciseta. If you have only one, it will be difficult to call for sure.

The female pauciseta isv ery obvious....

Theo

---

Dear Theo,
I am curious if ocellar bristles are latero-clinate in your specimen from Bulgaria? And is it avalable the figures of the genitalia of Phebellia pauciseta, if you dissected your specimen?

---

NO, my specimen is not dissected and it is from a malaisetrap, so not in optimal condition.

Ocellars: good point, I see what you mean.
I will have a look at the ocellars, but next days no time to do so.


Theo