No interactions present.
It is not flavipes, as that has clearly black-ringed femora, more so than in this specimen, and would show some yellow on the sides of the frons.
I don't think it is quadrifasciatus, either, as that has more orangey femora without a ring, usually, and has more black on the tergites.
I think it is a male Conops ceriaeformis, which shows very yellow tergites, which look swollen from above, as this one does. It also has slight ring on the hind femora.
My Flickr photos...
Got it - it is the ops that are con not the pus that is cono...
Thanks. I have added another pic. Can this be i/d to species?
Jamie from Briantspuddle
not quadrifasciatus. I think Ophrys is right (as usual...). Check out http://www.essexfieldclub.org.uk/portal/p/Picture/r/view/s/Conops%20ceri... http://www.ispot.org.uk/node/81166 and http://www.ispot.org.uk/node/144829
Nick Upton, naturalist and photographer.
The shimmer stripes are very important in running through the key, but they are not always visible in a picture...you need to get the angle of light right.
Thanks. Quite unusual here: only the second record from my 10km square. Seems to like heathland.
Some comments yesterday by David Clements (Conopid Recording Scheme) on viewing this observation,
"The shimmer stripes are not always visible in photographs and can be very weakly developed in some specimens. An entirely black scutellum usually indicates this species (yellowish at apex in others), and the shape of the femora, dark hind femoral band, all-black frons and adominal tergite outlines also look good."
All in all a very nice find.
latest pics and diptera videos
Thanks for that. I missed one today - will post a rather distant pic to see if it is i/dable. My records all go to Dorset ERC at the end of the year, but I could send this and others in direct if it would help. Is there a Conopid website?
There is no Conopid website, but there is a recording scheme, run by David Clements. If you send the records to your local reecording centre, they will get there in the end, anyway, I imagine.
Your new one is almost certainly Leopodius signatus, but can't really be confirmed as such. They are not as easy to ID as they might seem, so specimens or really good photos are needed to be certain.
I don't know about your Dorset scheme, but David has complained that many records are ending up on the NBN Gateway but are not finding their way to him, thus creating two parallel national databases, exactly what's not supposed to happen with the NBN GW apparently.
So you might wish to send your records direct, there's a link part-way down this page giving details - the feedback's invaluable of course
He's in Finland this week so I've been forced to think for myself on your most recent observation (great timing Jamie, thanks for that 'Fuzzy' Leopoldius while I've no back-up! Also well done)
Thanks. No, I don't know what happens to Dorset records, apart from being well looked after!
Lat/Lng: 50.7, -2.3
OS grid ref: SY8193