---

Hi,

It looks like Campsicnemus, and it keys to Campsicnemus paradoxus but I might have got the genus wrong.

Campsicnemus paradoxus is not on the UK list either unless it's got another name which I can't find.

It was inside on my window on 11th September, near Lincoln UK. Size ~5mm

I've had to crop the photos down a lot as I can't get them within the max. kb size.

Janet

---

pic 2

---

pic 3

---

pic 4

---

It is not Campsicnemus paradoxus that has 1.5 mm body and short postpedicel. It looks like C. mammiculatus: See Parent 1938. Please compare leg setation of your strange fly.

---

Thank you Igor! Should I be excited? There's nothing at all about this species on this site, it's not listed in the UK unless it is under a different name but I still can't find one.

Fauna Europa gives the location as all over France, it must know where the borders are! :D

http://www.faunae...on1=135300

The list of Campsicnemus for the UK..

http://www.dipter...hp?id=9392

The references I found were to Parent 1929.

---

Check this pdf: http://www.fauned...odidae.pdf (33 MB).

---

I tried to check the pdf Paul, it got stuck halfway so I refreshed, it eventually came up but there was an error so I had to reload it. I got to page 27 with some difficulty, that was as far as it was going to give me! There goes my daily usage Mb. ;) :P:S

I guess there's a nice drawing showing that wonderful leg which I got the fly to pose for me? :D

---

Looks like C. scambus to me!

---

That's what I first thought Tony, but what about the leg colour?

---

C. scambus is an early spring species according to Nikita ..

http://www.dipter...post_24885

---

I have UK records of C. scambus in June, July, August and September, latest being 23 September.

---

Leg colour can be variable - structurally this looks like scambus, so that's what I suggest it is, unless its genitalia or DNA don't match! ;)

---

Igor usually knows his Dolichopods so I would like to know what key features would not fit C. scambus.

I have looked at keys and the leg colour doesn't say it's that variable for scambus. The size is also much smaller for scambus, 2.5 to 3.25mm and it certainly wasn't that small. I'm usually quite accurate at judging size.

Keys state:



http://www.dipter...Europe.pdf

I have found a few photos on here of C. scambus and they all have yellowish to partly brown legs. The key also states for mid tibia " row of long bristles on apical half" which mine has but it also has some longish bristles on the basal half. I have checked all the males I found on here and none of them look to have the same bristles on the basal half. The shape of the mid tibia also looks a little different to me.

http://dolicho.na...ambus3.jpg

---

It is Campsicnemus scambus Fall.

---

I have a large scambus from 11 October that has leg colour nearly as dark as yours. It measures 3.5mm. Remember that length excludes wings and antennae.

---

Melanistic form of Campsicnemus scambus was my first thought. However, scambus has quite distinct and rather long process on apex of mid basitarsus. In addition, next two segments are long setose in scambus. I do not see these armarments on your photos, Janet. Would you kindly show mid tarsus under different angle? Regards,

---

I can well envision the required parts of the mid leg being positioned in the wrong way to see the apical proces of the mid basitarsus en the setae on the second and third segment (too dorsal). However, according to Parent's (1938) illustration the terminal second to fourth segment of the fore tarsi of mammiculatus should be long setose ventrally and I think the position of the fore legs should have shown that if it were there.

---

I only kept the best 4 photos Igor! Imagine trying to take photos of a small fly running up and down a window, with me squatted on the kitchen sink trying to takes photos! :D

It may have been smaller Tony, I don't take into account wings etc. but when you can't see the abdomen well it can make the difference.

I have cropped the photo from behind which shows the mid basitarsus best, it looks to me if there was a "distinct and rather long process on apex of mid basitarsus" it would show in this shot.

I have also cropped one of the semi-side views which might show the front tarsus better, it looks like it could be "long setose ventrally" in the sections Paul mentions but I don't know how long they should be.

---

""

---

Both of the last photos show long ventral ciliation on the front metatarsus - this is not a character of mammiculatus, but is for scambus.|t

---

Yes, it is better to consider it melanistic scambus, than an undescribed species.

---

You seem to be a little unsure about that Igor. ;)

I don't think it's better to go with anything where there is doubt. I must say I am still in doubt, however the trend is to go with what is already a described species, my gut feeling still tells me not to. I have to accept that not all the necessary details are showing well enough, but maybe enough to give rise to doubt.

I managed to download the pdf which Paul linked to, and copied some drawings. I also found your keys, Igor, which include all the Campsicnemus species. The two species split at couplet 14, and it depends there on one critical feature. That is the conical protrusion or "ventral apophysis" near the apex of the mid femur. Although this is not very clear on my fly, it does appear to have something more substantial than hairs at that point as shown in the drawing.



http://www.biosoi.../N-198.pdf

One other thing which troubles me is the wing venation as shown on a drawing of C. scambus shows converging M1 and R4+5 veins which mine does not have.

---

Wings

---

C. scambus legs 1 & 2

---

C. mammiculatus legs 1 & 2

---

Does this show a "conical apophysis"? In my opinion it could have one, the angle is a little from below but there's definitely something there.

---

Dear Janet, your main prolem is the absence of collected material, therefore some doubt will remain forever. Regarding your photos, fore leg setation well differs from mammiculatus, being close to scambus. Mid leg is rather unclear. See mid leg of what I consider true scambus.

---

Igor, that leg does look quite different to my fly, to me at least but different angles can show it differently.

The fly was on glass so it may not be showing the tarsus correctly considering shadows or reflections. One photo does appear to show slightly longer setae on the fore basitarsus than on the drawing. Yes, the middle leg is dubious. When I took these I had no idea it would be so difficult to assess, if I knew my diptera better I would have kept other shots which might have shown more but it is a slow learning process, and I only take specimens if they are already dead as you know. Once I took one and got the wrong fly, I had a nightmare that night but the fly was smiling at me so it forgave me. ;):D

---

I had a bright idea to blow the photos up more than 100% then took some screen snips, it worked! It might show a little better the likelihood of shadows, and longer setae from the second front tarsus segment.

Also the mid leg tarsus 2nd and 3rd segments don't look to have as long setae as scambus.

---

Front tarsus from the semi frontal view.. I can see a few longer setae which appear to be coming from the dorsal side, again there appears to be longer setae from the ventral second segment.

---

Mid leg from above..

---

Dearest,

It's amazing how much is written over a simple Campscinemus scambus male as you photographed sufficiently accurate and how much excitement and confusion is created during the process (I wonder if this is the main aim or not?).

Fact is that I remain convinced that it is of very little use that people just guess and leave you with this sometimes useless information. I am a strong advocate that anybody that presents an identification should exactly mention on what basis this identification is based. It makes one think (the identifier in the first place) twice and forces him to check the literature. If all of this is too much effort, I gues it would be better not to react. And if not all decisive features are clearly visible, one should stick to a clear guess.

Cheers,
Marc

---

Thank you for your opinions Marc. I know I am dealing with people here who have studied Dolichopods a great deal, including yourself so as you so rightly state it is a good idea to state on what basis an identification is based, perhaps you could also do this?

I am aware however that some people's time is limited, so whatever little information can be given to me is greatfully received. The journey to the conclusion can often be advantageous to someone such as myself who has not studied diptera to the extent you have, but I'm not doing too bad due to my own efforts. I have learnt more due to this query because I needed to find out for myself the truth, in doing so I found Igor's keys to all the Campsicnemus species in the Palearctic region. Due to Paul's input, I found drawings of many Dolichopods on Faune de France which are very useful. I would imagine many people have also benefited from this discussion.

I keep an open mind on this. ;)

Cheers! :)