Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Hybotidae
|
|
| lema |
Posted on 09-05-2007 20:50
|
 Member Location: Posts: 211 Joined: 01.06.06 |
Hybotidae, I suppose Slovenia, near forest, 5-7mm, lema |
 |
|
| lema |
Posted on 09-05-2007 20:51
|
|
Member Location: Posts: 211 Joined: 01.06.06 |
another photo |
|
|
|
| Nikita Vikhrev |
Posted on 09-05-2007 20:53
|
 Member Location: Posts: 9193 Joined: 24.05.05 |
I'd say Empididae, probably Empis itself.
Nikita Vikhrev - Zool Museum of Moscow University |
|
|
|
| igor |
Posted on 09-05-2007 20:59
|
|
Member Location: Posts: 288 Joined: 23.11.06 |
Hi Nikita! This is Brachystoma vesiculosum (Fabricius, 1794) and now it is a separate femaly Brachystomatidae. All the best, Igor  |
|
|
|
| lema |
Posted on 09-05-2007 21:16
|
|
Member Location: Posts: 211 Joined: 01.06.06 |
Thanks, Fauna Europaea say for Brachystoma vesiculosum -Slovenia - Absent ??  |
|
|
|
| Tony Irwin |
Posted on 09-05-2007 21:45
|
 Member Location: Posts: 7168 Joined: 19.11.04 |
I think the prey is Mycetophilidae.
Tony ---------- Tony Irwin |
|
|
|
| Nikita Vikhrev |
Posted on 09-05-2007 21:55
|
|
Member Location: Posts: 9193 Joined: 24.05.05 |
And I think, Lema can start new family in Gallery!
Nikita Vikhrev - Zool Museum of Moscow University |
|
|
|
| Kahis |
Posted on 09-05-2007 22:06
|
 Member Location: Posts: 1999 Joined: 02.09.04 |
AFAIK the status of Brachystomatidae is not yet widely accepted. Perhaps it is better to keep these flies under Empididae in the gallery at least for now. All currently existing keys will have them in Empididae in any case, so from a purely practical point of new Empididae would be best - at least for the next few years.
Kahis |
|
|
|
| Paul Beuk |
Posted on 09-05-2007 22:19
|
 Super Administrator Location: Posts: 19208 Joined: 11.05.04 |
Well, that would be they way to hamper propgress of knowledge. It is the same way the Americans still not really use Limoniidae and Hybotidae as a separate families.
Paul - - - - Paul Beuk on https://diptera.info |
|
|
|
| Kahis |
Posted on 09-05-2007 23:10
|
|
Member Location: Posts: 1999 Joined: 02.09.04 |
Well, I don't think that the comparison is completely valid, since (for example) the Hybotid split is 30 years old while the formal proposal for Brachystomatidae was made only a year ago. There seems to be very few papers on the family that are not written by Sinclair or Cumming. Unsurprisingly, some researchers disgree with the family on B. on the basis of DNA evidence (which Sinclair & Cumming didn't use). I do not know if the work I've heard about is already published. Personally I'll keep the Finnish check-list on the 'old order' until a bit of time has passed and critisism this way and that has been aired in full. I haven't really followed the minutiae of higher-level empidoid phylogeny. Perhaps there is total agreement on the topic and I'm just ignorent 
Kahis |
|
|
|
| Jump to Forum: |
but don't see the image in the post.