#2
Looks quite delicate for
Psila, so it might be one of the pale
Chamaepsila, but difficult to say without indication of size.
#3
I am now very confident that Paul is right in his opinion that this is a
Chamaepsila species. Eye shape, apparently two dc pairs exclude
Psila.
I have a species list of
Chamaepsila for Austria that comprises 16 species. It doesn't include
Ch. lutea (is that a valid species?) and I don't have information about the characters of
Ch. andreji, so I am left with 3 species having a yellow thorax and abdomen:
Ch. obscuritarsis, Ch. pallida & Ch. rufa.
I am almost certain I can see two dc pairs (which also excludes
Psila), which leaves me with
Ch. pallida. Also the third antennal segment is darkened, which is ok for
Ch. pallida (according to HENNIG; I don't have new literature).
Is anyone with me?
Cheers,
Lorin
#4
Hi Carnifex,
Besides the extra pair of dorso-centrals Psila lack post-vertical bristles.
For a definitive species ID I'd need to know scutellar bristles, how many verticals (vt) are present. The ID looks to be a female C. pallida indeed. To be sure I'd have to examine the specimen...
Greetings,
Ectemnius
#6
Hi! My apologies to all, I was completely wrong... It can't be Cha obscuritarsis either! Even if some parts of the images are blurred, there are not two pairs of sc but only one on this specimen. So we are back to the pallida group (the key of Shatalkin & Merz, 2010 applies for this group) : Mesonotum entirely yellow/Subscutellum yellow/Abdominal tergites yellow. Palpus yellow, or narrowly brownish apically/Postpedicel mainly yellow, with a darkened dorsal margin ((not yellow as pallida) + Setae on head and thorax brownish yellow (not yellow light as pallida) => Chamaepsila luteola (Collin, 1944)
