Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Cheilosia rotundicornis?=C cf latifrons
|
|
| Vladimir Davydov |
Posted on 23-08-2009 18:31
|
 Member Location: Posts: 324 Joined: 01.08.07 |
23 august 2009 St-Petersburg.Olgino It is Cheilosia rotundicornis? Edited by Vladimir Davydov on 29-12-2011 21:43 Vladimir |
|
|
|
| Vladimir Davydov |
Posted on 23-08-2009 18:31
|
|
Member Location: Posts: 324 Joined: 01.08.07 |
Head
Vladimir |
|
|
|
| Andre |
Posted on 24-08-2009 21:42
|
 Member Location: Posts: 2111 Joined: 18.07.04 |
This is a difficult one. But one thing first: forget rotundicornis. Rotundicornis is a synonym of vernalis, as far as we know now. Then... I think this might be Ch. uviformis or latifrons. But I am not sure enough, it's difficult based on pictures. |
 |
|
| Vladimir Davydov |
Posted on 25-08-2009 04:57
|
|
Member Location: Posts: 324 Joined: 01.08.07 |
In previous thread you spoke C.rotundiventris=C.vernalis. Now C.rotundicornis=C.vernalis. It is true?
Vladimir |
|
|
|
| Andre |
Posted on 25-08-2009 08:39
|
|
Member Location: Posts: 2111 Joined: 18.07.04 |
Damn, you are right! My mistake! I didn't read well, sorry, was reading 'ventris'! Anyway.... I forgot that: Rotundicornis = uviformis  It's a synonym never used anymore (the other former synonym for uviformis = argentifrons,  ). But all in all, we can conclude that your ID seems correct, with the restriction mentioned in my earlier posting. Must say, that you made some perfect pictures, amazing! |
|
|
|
| Vladimir Davydov |
Posted on 25-08-2009 11:22
|
|
Member Location: Posts: 324 Joined: 01.08.07 |
Many thanks Andre!
Vladimir |
|
|
|
| blowave |
Posted on 28-12-2011 18:41
|
 Member Location: Posts: 3151 Joined: 27.06.07 |
Forgive me for bringing this thread back up, I have keyed a female which I had as C. uviformis. I know I have this species although it's relatively new to the UK, a male I had this year was identified as 99% certain by Martin Speight. The Mark van Veen keys do not point to this female as being C. uviformis. Firstly, it depends on whether the wings are infuscated along the mid cross veins. If they are, this leads to Cheilosia caerulescens. I'm not sure if the face protrudes forwards on this specimen. Secondly, if the wings are not infuscated on the mid cross veins, and the face does not protrude forwards (this I find confusing but it appears to be the 'cheek'  , the two options are whether or not the hind margin of the scutellum has bristles. I don't see bristles on this fly, this would lead to Cheilosia laticornis if the eye margin below the antennae has long white hairs. If perchance it did have bristles on the hind margin of the scutellum (I can't see any) then it still does not appear to fit C. uviformis as the front and middle tarsus first segments should be pale. Or am I missing something?  If it does have bristles, the alternative to C. uviformis leads to C. pagana and C. hercyniae.Janet Edited by blowave on 28-12-2011 18:46 http://cubits.org... |
|
|
|
| Vladimir Davydov |
Posted on 28-12-2011 19:05
|
|
Member Location: Posts: 324 Joined: 01.08.07 |
Thanks Janet
Vladimir |
|
|
|
| Dieter |
Posted on 29-12-2011 00:17
|
|
Member Location: Posts: 114 Joined: 15.04.07 |
This is Cheilosia latifrons (bare eyes, face with short hairs, very wide eye rim). Dieter |
|
|
|
| Vladimir Davydov |
Posted on 29-12-2011 21:45
|
|
Member Location: Posts: 324 Joined: 01.08.07 |
Very similar on C. latifrons. Thanks Dieter
Edited by Vladimir Davydov on 29-12-2011 21:46 Vladimir |
|
|
|
| Jump to Forum: |