Thread subject: Diptera.info :: Micropezidae ??
#1
Can anybody tel my more about this fly...
It was teaken last summer and it was about 4 mm.
Greatings Joke
Posted by
Kahis on 19-02-2008 23:49
#3
I'd say
#1
Calobata petronella
#2
Neria cibaria
Both Micropezidae.
Of course, if you are sure it's the same fly in both pictures, I may have to revise my opinion

Edited by
Kahis on 19-02-2008 23:52
#4
I realy thought they where the same
Thanks very much....I'm very happy now !!
Greatings Joke
Posted by
Andre on 20-02-2008 01:22
#5
Isn't
cibaria called
Compsobata? And only
ephippium called
Neria? How's the nomenclature nowadays?
By the way: the first I agree, since the yellow 'shoulders' are clear to see. But I think it's too risky to name the second one.
#6
I agree with Dr. Kahis. First is Calobata petronella (L.), second - Neria cibaria (L.)

Posted by
Kahis on 20-02-2008 09:46
#7
No 'Dr.' please

Posted by
Xespok on 20-02-2008 10:58
#8
You should change your name to Dr. Kahis

#9
Here in Portugal those who have a degree are treatened as Dr. like me.

As Kahis I don't like this Dr.
#10
Isn't cibaria called Compsobata? And only ephippium called Neria? How's the nomenclature nowadays?
In the Checklist of Diptera is standing:
Neria=Compsobata
cibaria=cothurnata and trivialis
commutata=nigricornis
ephippium
femoralis
(And that are the fly's of the Netherlands)
And the foto's where taken by my sister and she told me that it where differend fly's, taken on differend days on a field somewere in Amsterdam.
Anybody many thanks...Joke (also from my sister Alie)
Posted by
Kahis on 20-02-2008 17:58
#11
javanerkelens wrote:
In the Checklist of Diptera is standing:
commutata=nigricornis
This synonym is incorrect.
N. nigricornis is a valid north boreal species.
#12
Indeed, it was written after the name, but I did't see it at first.
commutata=nigricornis(Zetterstedt,1838):
misident.sencu auct.
Joke
Posted by
Kahis on 20-02-2008 18:43
#13
See Andersson H. (1989) Taxonomic notes on Fennoscandian Micropezidae (Diptera). Notulae Entomologicae, 69, 153-162.
As far as I know, the status of the species have not changed after this paper.
Shouldn't Paul be happy when possible mistakes are corrected
