No interactions present.
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.
Chris Brooks - www.dragonfly-images.co.uk
My Flickr site - www.flickr.com/photos/ceb1298
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
Have added a partial headshot.
My relative inexperienced hoverfly eye thinks this is now more likely to be E. arbustorum (given the extra photograph). Opinions ?
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...
Lat/Lng: 50.72026, -1.84876
OS grid ref: SZ107911