ranon.2011's picture

Hoverfly - for ID

Observed: 1st August 2012 By: ranon.2011ranon.2011’s reputation in Invertebratesranon.2011’s reputation in Invertebratesranon.2011’s reputation in Invertebratesranon.2011’s reputation in Invertebratesranon.2011’s reputation in Invertebrates
01.08.2012 Hoverfly - for ID
01.08.2012 Hoverfly -
Species interactions

No interactions present.


chrisbrooks's picture

ID comment

I thought that might be the case but I'm stepping into unchartered territory for me anyway, at least I was along the right lines, thanks.

Wildlife Ranger's picture


I would be inclined to agree that it MIGHT be E.arbustorum but I would equally agree with Ian that to be absolute more definite angles are needed.


Whats Happening with Nature ??? Visit the Nature Blog



Supporting FEET Conservation work & Biodiversity Recording


ranon.2011's picture

Have added a partial

Have added a partial headshot.

chrisbrooks's picture

ID Comment

My relative inexperienced hoverfly eye thinks this is now more likely to be E. arbustorum (given the extra photograph). Opinions ?

ophrys's picture


I don't think we should be trying to shoehorn every Eristalis into a specific ID. I just went and looked at my specimens of arbustorum against abusiva. The abdominal pattern is identical and the differences are very subtle (abusiva has paler mid tibiae, aristae are nearly bare and they are overall slightly hairier). If the face is not visible, or if it is a worn arbustorum, they are very similar indeed. In the one shown, the face cannot be seen and the tibiae and aristae are not clear, either.

arbustorum is more likely because it is the commoner inland species, but I find abusiva on my local sites, if I look at enough specimens.

I would leave it at Eristalis.


My Flickr photos...