Thread subject: Diptera.info :: Muscidae - Phaonia trimaculata

Posted by jorgemotalmeida on 15-02-2007 03:32
#1

Hi



* locality - Silgueiros - Viseu - PORTUGAL
* date - 11.01.2007
* size - medium size
* habitat - farmland
* substrate - surface of water - the fly was dead...


This fly has arista plumose in upper side... in other is not clearly visible, vbrissae are conspicous.

I thought in Anthomyiidae... but it is different, it has many bristles... tachinidae is improbable, not bend in M vein, and arista is plumose in upper side, at least. I'm very curious about this one.

Edited by jorgemotalmeida on 31-03-2010 14:48

Posted by jorgemotalmeida on 15-02-2007 03:33
#2

other view

Posted by jorgemotalmeida on 15-02-2007 03:35
#3

frontal view.

Posted by jorgemotalmeida on 15-02-2007 03:36
#4

full body...

Posted by Juergen Peters on 15-02-2007 14:19
#5

Hello, Jorge!

The Limophora tigrina in the gallery looks rather similar:
http://www.dipter...oto_id=490

But better wait for the experts.

Posted by Zeegers on 15-02-2007 20:52
#6

Can't see the wing venation,
but I have little doubt this is in Anthomyiidae

Theo Zeegers

Posted by Nikita Vikhrev on 15-02-2007 21:49
#7

I have an idea :D
No, unfortunely I havn't idea about fly's ID :(
But I have idea how to make this "fly mystery" a little bit less mysterious!
Jorge, what about photo with white background? Or lateral? ;)
Nikita

Posted by Nikita Vikhrev on 15-02-2007 22:07
#8

I have another idea without white background!
It is Muscidae, male of Polietes.
:D
Nikita

Posted by jorgemotalmeida on 15-02-2007 23:12
#9

sorry, I have just these photos. It begun raining. :( So no white background, no other background unless surface water, hence very dark (and bad to see) background.

I prefer more green background. :D ehe

Thanks Nikita! seems polietes fits well.




Posted by Nikita Vikhrev on 15-02-2007 23:25
#10

I'm sorry Jorge, I thought fly is collected. Only now I understand that it is water surface.
But still Polietes, most probably P. meridionalis (golden parafascialia).
;)

Posted by Stephane Lebrun on 27-01-2008 11:48
#11

With the benefit of hindsight, I think this fly is Phaonia trimaculata (it has the typical pattern on scutum and scutellum).


Posted by Michael Ackland on 14-03-2008 17:24
#12

Not an anthomyiid. hairy eyes and large projecting lower squamae. Surely lLimnophorina or similar, but it's 40 years since I looked at them

Posted by Nikita Vikhrev on 14-03-2008 23:42
#13

I do insist on Polietes.
What can we see for sure on this image -
1. Very hairy eyes
2. Strong postsutural ac (3)
3. M not curved
4. Fly is big
Michael, with such a hairy eyes it can't be Limnophora or similar. Nor 3 strong post ac.
Stephane, with 3 post ac it can't be Phaonia or Helina
So, Muscinae
It isn't Azeliini, ok?
So, Muscini
So, with not curved M - Polietes.
If you examin Polietes under this point with strong light, the thorastic and abdominal pattern will be similar.
Nikita

Posted by Xespok on 15-03-2008 07:42
#14

Nikita.

I think I have to side with Stephane this time. I think this is a male specimen. If so, should the eyes not be closer in Polietes? Should the discal crossvein (M-Cu) not be longer and running obliquely? Should Polietes not have 4 post ac? Should Polietes not be fatter? Also the thoracical an scutellar pattern does not seem to match any Polietes.

Hairy eyes is not a good marker to decide between Poleites and Phaonia.

So I think this is a Phaonia around perdita, trimaculata.

Posted by Stephane Lebrun on 15-03-2008 10:23
#15

I explain my point of view :
I don't think it's Polietes simply because they have 3+3 ac, here I see only 2+3 ac, and 3+4 dc, here I see 2+4 dc. I think the M-Cu is not enough oblique, the eyes not enough close, and the pattern well too symmetrical.
I think Phaonia trimaculata can have 3 post ac (2 rather strong, and a weaker between) like on this thread : http://www.dipter...ad_id=3353
The description with Phaonia trimaculata is well fitting (eyes densely long haired for the male are OK) and the pattern on the scutum / scutellum is quite typical.

Posted by Xespok on 15-03-2008 11:04
#16

Well, I have some doubts whether Nikitias Phaonia and this Phaonia are conspecific. I think Nikita's fly might be another Phaonia sp, not trimaculata. Compare the heads and thoracic pattern.

One thing that I miss here for trimaculata are the infuscated M-Cu veins, though this feature may be variable.

Posted by Stephane Lebrun on 15-03-2008 12:03
#17

Gabor, I think it is the same fly : it is somewhat variable. Orbital plates can be touching or narrowly separated, scutellum apex reddish or not. For the infuscation of cross veins , the flash has hidden it on Jorge's photos. Finally, the thorax pattern is similar (except that the postsutural bands are less coalescent on Nikita's fly).
Once again, it's my opinion, not necessary the truth...

Posted by Nikita Vikhrev on 15-03-2008 13:30
#18

I have to say, that you convinced me, Stephane ;)
Nikita

Posted by jorgemotalmeida on 17-03-2008 17:20
#19

:) what a fight :P eheh
I spotted this fly this weekend. :| Precisely with that pattern on scutum and very hairy eyes, and infuscated t veins. :| and clearly with vibrissae.

Thanks! :D