---

I found this Heleomyzidae yesterday In Lund, Sweden. My first though was Suillia, but it has two or. In Gorodkovs key I then arrived at Heteromyza. My fly is a female and the key mainly list male characters. In Sweden we are supposed to have two species, oculata (which can be excluded since it should lack the anterior dc) and rotundicornis. Looking at the images in the gallery it seems that my fly more resembles atricornis, mainly based on the dark antenna. Are there any other charaters to separate the species?

I can add more photos if needed. Length around 5 mm.

---

I have caught similar specimens and some i think is occulta so i am also interested in some answer. Is there someone that understand Hungarian her?

---

sure

---

you have Papp's key from the Fauna Hungariae?

---

I have the key but i don't understand a word of it

---

I do not have the time to translate the whole key. I use it very often though. I lived and worked for 6 yrs in Budapest.

---

The fly on the photo has a dc in front of the suture, so, following the key, it is not oculta!
I think the fly is a rotundicornis/commixta. The females cannot be separated.

---

Thank you for your replies! I have found two interesting threads

http://www.diptera.info/forum/viewthread.php?forum_id=5&thread_id=28241
Which says:
A line connecting front orbitals nearer to the front of the frons than to the front ocellus - rotundicornis Zett.

A line connecting front orbitals not nearer to the front of the frons than to the front ocellus - commixta Collin

http://www.diptera.info/forum/viewthread.php?forum_id=16&thread_id=35711
Which says
Czerny separates commixta from atricornis/rotundicornis on the width of the cheek relative to the frons: in commixta , cheeks as wide as frons, in the other two narrower.

My fly has cheeks much narrower than frons and front orbitals closer to front of frons than to ocellus. So then it should be rotundicornis? But how is rotundicornis separated from atricornis?

I will add some photos of the head tomorrow!

---

Papp mentions also the characteristic of the width of the cheek to separate females of atricornis from rotundicornis/commixta.

---

BTW, tomorrow I will be the whole day on the road and perhaps not able to check the new photos, Magnus. But I hope very much that Andzrej will appear and tell his opinion about it. If I am not mistaken he was lately working on Heteromyzinae, though perhaps only on Tephrochlamys.

---

Here are the new photos. Note that both photos are taken at the same magnification so that the cheek/frons ratio can be calculated (if the images are viewed at 100%). I also found this in one of the threads I referred to above:
Czerny says "Vibrissae well below lower level of eyes, eyes at level of antennal base not narrowed = atricornis. Vibrissae at lower level of eyes, eyes at level of antennal base narrowed = rotundicornis".

So now I am pretty sure that my fly is rotundicornis! Any other opinions?

---

profile

---

Just to complicate it further. This photo (not the same magnification as above) does not really show "eyes at level of antennal base narrowed ". Or am I not interpreting this correctly?

---

I sneak in a little in the thread again with pictures from a similar fly from Sweden Uppland bogesundslandet 2012-05-21. The flies from the northern part of Sweden lacks the front dorsocentrals and seems to be occulta.
Not as awesome photos as Magnus.

---

lateral view

---

Yes, your fly should be an oculta! :)I still believe mine is a rotundicornis.

The keys of Czerny and Collins seems to be useful, can anyone share a pdf?

---

sure, give me your email address

---

Great pictures!