Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Small Heleomyzid: Tephrochlamys?
|
|
| Juergen Peters |
Posted on 23-02-2008 19:35
|
 Member Location: Posts: 13502 Joined: 11.09.04 |
Hello! This one (only photo) had only 4 mm. Today in our garden (northwest Germany). Is it Tephrochlamys? Thanks in advance! Best regards, Jürgen -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Juergen Peters Borgholzhausen, Germany WWW: http://insektenfo... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
 |
|
| Sundew |
Posted on 24-02-2008 23:08
|
 Member Location: Posts: 3890 Joined: 28.07.07 |
Dear Juergen, You have not got a reply yet, so I activate all my fresh Heleomyzid knowledge and tell you my guess: it could be Heteromyza. Tephrochlamys obviously does not have such dark antennae. Andrzej gave in thread http://www.dipter...d_id=10831 some hints how to discriminate between Tephrochlamys and Heteromyza. So this is my opinion, given without warranty! Cordially, Sundew Edited by Sundew on 24-02-2008 23:08 |
|
|
|
| Juergen Peters |
Posted on 24-02-2008 23:36
|
|
Member Location: Posts: 13502 Joined: 11.09.04 |
Hello, Sundew! Sundew wrote: Tephrochlamys[/i] obviously does not have such dark antennae. Andrzej gave in thread http://www.dipter...d_id=10831 some hints how to discriminate between Tephrochlamys and Heteromyza. Many thanks! But that thread leaves me a bit confused...  . First Andrzej says, it's Heteromyza. Then cebe tells, it should be Tephrochlamys, which Andrzej seems to confirm, because it has black antennae... (??).I also had Heteromyza in the last weeks (determined by Andrzej), and those flies were generally bigger than this very small Heleomyzid and hat no blue colour, it was more grey (whatever that means...). Best regards, Jürgen -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Juergen Peters Borgholzhausen, Germany WWW: http://insektenfo... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
|
|
|
| Sundew |
Posted on 24-02-2008 23:46
|
|
Member Location: Posts: 3890 Joined: 28.07.07 |
It seems to me that Andrzej is referring only to Ruth's question concerning the differences. Cebe's statement "it should be Tephrochlamys" did not address the fly on the photo but the spelling of the name (Ruth had forgotten one h). Cebe also posted an assumed Tephrochlamys (http://www.dipter...d_id=11346) that turned out to be Heteromyza as well. Sundew Edited by Sundew on 24-02-2008 23:52 |
|
|
|
| Juergen Peters |
Posted on 25-02-2008 01:05
|
|
Member Location: Posts: 13502 Joined: 11.09.04 |
Hello, Sundew! Sundew wrote: concerning the differences. Cebe's statement "it should be Tephrochlamys" did not address the fly on the photo but the spelling of the name Ah, thanks, now it is clear... 
Best regards, Jürgen -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Juergen Peters Borgholzhausen, Germany WWW: http://insektenfo... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
|
|
|
| Andrzej |
Posted on 25-02-2008 12:13
|
|
Member Location: Posts: 2323 Joined: 05.01.06 |
It was a species described on females by Strobl as T. rufiventris var. nigriventris from South Spain. This specimen is Tephrochlamys and very similar to this one  .I am sure that a male conspecific to the female should be examined and verified Andrzej |
|
|
|
| Jump to Forum: |
