No interactions present.
Forgot to add that this is a male.
Chris Brooks - www.dragonfly-images.co.uk
My Flickr site - www.flickr.com/photos/ceb1298
Can be done from a Male with good photo macro shots of the genital capsule looking at the second image ??? just noticed it - it looks like Panorpa germanica – hypovalves parallel or slightly diverging, expanded at tip
A useful link
Whats Happening with Nature ??? Visit the Nature Blog
Supporting FEET Conservation work & Biodiversity Recording
I just had a look at the website, I agree it looks also the hypervalves expand and curve in at the tip. Thanks for sharing the link.
If i was pushed, I would say it is P. communis. It is certainly not germanica, as the tips are not expanded.
However, I sometimes worry that we are starting to get to a situation where it seems like a specific ID has to be given to everything, which is just not a sensible approach from a a couple of photos. We should not be worried about leaving something at genus level, as that is often all that is possible, with any real certainty.
My Flickr photos...
Totally Agree -
However , in this instance we have a genital capsule albeit the tips of the hypovalves being fuzzy agreed the wings look like communis it would be surely the role of experts to correct ammend or confirm any observation , serving two purposes i the disemination of knowledge ii confirmation by agreement
In this instance its inherant in the observation category its likely to be but cant be certain , there you have the dilemma in a nutshell Ian , do you remove this i-spot category at the risk of not recording it or do you keep or attempt to make the record
It is possible of course to suggest the binomial as a might be and then close the observation at genus by adding a revision
I do agree about the general point that an genus ID is often good enough. But given that female scorpion flies cannot easily be identified to species level, it's a shame if such a clear picture of the male should not be correctly identified.
There's a wonderfully well illustrated demonstration of the differences available at this site http://thetopshamnaturalist.blogspot.co.uk/
After viewing the second close up and these diagrams, it's hard not to come to a definite ID.
Like you, I suspect that it is communis, as I said above. Having looked at a quite a few over the last summer, though, it does appear to me that not all fit the neat diagrams, even from directly above, so I don't think a slightly oblique photo should necessarily be taken to species with certainty. Even from a purely dorsal view, I find some cognata/communis to be quite similar. This one does look like communis, though, I think.
Lat/Lng: 52.2166, 0.1459
OS grid ref: TL466597