---

This time on Betula. Sitting motionless when there's no sun and starting to move with typical short leaps when the sun was shining.

---

The question you asked me today is easy to answer - it isn't M.jacula.
Looks similar to Medetera in your previous post.

---

Thanks Nikita - so it seems I have some more non-jacula pix made in last year...

---

Why not Medetera borealis Thuneberg, 1955: Ann.ent.Fenn. 21(3): 135 ** Type locality: Finland: Joutseno, Turku. Palaearctic: Sweden, Finland, England, Norway, Czech, Russia, Japan *

Anyway, please check genitalia.

---

Yes!!

http://www.diptera.info/forum/viewthread.php?forum_id=5&thread_id=5723

---

I disagree

The haltere looks rather dark. The first Medetera I usually find in the spring are M. infumata, M. pseudoapicalis and M. tristis. Of there three, M. tristis is the best match with the photographed fly. So I'd say M. tristis, although not with 100% certainity.

---

I hope to get specimen next week and tell what I find...

---

Many thanks to all - 2 specimens for Nikita .

---

Today I've got two specimens - from 21apr (on photo) and another on from 22 apr. Halters dark, postocular black, everything else for
Medetera tristis including genitalia.
But in
http://www.diptera.info/forum/viewthread.php?forum_id=5&thread_id=5723
halter is yellow, doesn't it?
Nikita

---

Yeaasnnoooomaybe. The haltere colour isn't quite as nicely divided to pale/dark as one could hope in these flies. For the "tristis-apicalis"-group, I would only trust identifications based on male genitalia.