#4
Male
Pollenia are the most frustrating creatures. You can have whizzed half a dozen neatly through the key and be starting to get smug, thinking 'aha, I am getting the hang of these' then you will get two in a row that just will not come out the other end of the key with a name
I currently hate
Pollenia, but just for you, Juergen, I will say this:
Not
amentaria – dusting on abdomen clearly tessellated and shifting, not weak with lots of shining black.
Not
vagabunda – no dark median vitta between pre acr.
Pediculata? hmm...basicosta appears black, which would eliminate. Can't see key character which is bunch of pale curly hairs on node of humeral x-vein and Sc. This feature is on the underside, so never going to be visible in photos.
Not
griseotomentosa - large size of the above specimens eliminates this rather small species, as well as lack of dark median line and posterior margins of tergites.
Dark basicosta probably eliminates
rudis,
angustigena and
pallida.
Could be
labialis.
But it's a bit 'could' and I wouldn't like to swear to it.
#5
Hello, Susan!
Many thanks for explaining this! I previously thought, the
females of
Pollenia were so difficult (males, too, but not as impossible as the females). Must have confused that...
#7
The color of the basicosta is helpful with Lucilia but not Pollenia. The basicosta of the rudis group can be yellow, brown or dark brown/black. I have yellow and black from two different rudis specimens. According to Dr. Rognes, the features mentioned in his publications have "no taxonomical value." In other words, the features are unreliable.
The photos here depict a species of the rudis group in my opinion. I cannot see golden vestiture which can rule out angustigena. Notice that t2 has 2 ad setae.
I'm very comfortable suggesting a male
Pollenia rudis.
: