jeremyr's picture

Flat feet

Observed: 16th September 2013 By: jeremyrjeremyr’s reputation in Invertebratesjeremyr’s reputation in Invertebratesjeremyr’s reputation in Invertebratesjeremyr’s reputation in Invertebratesjeremyr’s reputation in Invertebrates
female hind tarsus
Lindneromyia
Lindneromyia
female 5th Oct
Agaricus mushrooms
Platypezid on mushroom
Description:

Two females, one posing with both abdominal markings and hind tarsi visible. Lots of females found on these host mushrooms, Agaricus

Identifications
Species interactions

Species with which Flat-footed fly (Lindneromyia dorsalis) interacts

Comments

ophrys's picture

Platy

What a great couple of photos...perfectly displaying the genus name.

Ian
_________________

My Flickr photos...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/52163027@N02/

jeremyr's picture

genus?

does Lindneromyia mean something then, or did you mean the family?
I've no shortage of time for name meanings

.............................
latest pics and diptera videos

ophrys's picture

family

I thought I would not get away with that one with you, Jeremy! Soon as I pressed 'Save', I realised my mistaken terminology.

Lindneromyia?...presumably named from the German entomologist Erwin Lindner, but only an assumption.

Ian
_________________

My Flickr photos...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/52163027@N02/

jeremyr's picture

female forms

If you've seen the illustration of forms with the other female - I'd like to collect some darker ones but it seems we just get those at the lighter end here, so far, with just slight differences. So I checked this one and released it hoping for some poses and it wandered over my hand.

Does variation tend to be location-based, should I expect them all to be more or less like this here, I wonder

.............................
latest pics and diptera videos

dejayM's picture

Good effort

Yes, a nice series and some useful words (of description). I am impressed with the comment trail - SO important to iSpot (in my opinion).
Now, being a fair Naturalist, I wonder whether it's safe to agree? No-one has, not even Ian, though I note Colin (WLR) likes only one of your three posts.
But, you know, iSpot is stuffed with good naturalists and so I wonder why so few step away from their specialisms and find time to support 'obscure' posts - ones like MINE in Marines.
So, I have spent some time on the web (I make time!) and also in a poor book and now feel comfortable enough to agree. Will I be the only one? Hope not.
I wondered what you meant by "tearing about.." - watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9Plsk3_jT4
Goodness!!
ðerek
Later..Aha yes, you just added another photo - very nice. This brings up a Flag (Core Edit) to those of us who take an interest, so you ought to put up a note, in description, that you have amended the post, otherwise we may assume, well, anything.
ðj
even later - you've done yet another Core Edit - what have recently you changed?
ð

jeremyr's picture

Platypezids

Thanks for you comments Derek, for your enjoyment I've added a close-up through the microscope taken with a handheld compact camera.

These are tricky flies and you'd really need the book to be sure of a safe id. I've added as much illustrative material from it as I dare, but I'm still double-checking some of my earlier ids and finding differences that are subtler than I'd realised, though I'm sure now they're ok.

Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica V. 36
'The Flat-footed Flies (Diptera: Opetiidae and Platypezidae) of Europe' by Peter Chandler, Brill 2001

You'd probably have to like these flies though, and finding them helps.

Thanks a lot for the utube link.
Jeremy

.............................
latest pics and diptera videos

ophrys's picture

Agreement

It's good that you feel able to agree with the ID, Derek. I would not agree with a fly like this unless I had access to the key for the family or I knew the family well already. When I first started collecting flies and identifying them under a microscope, more than one person advised me not to submit any records for two years. That was excellent advice, as I am still realising my early mistakes and misidentifications on a regular basis! That advice should point to the fact that agreeing with flies new to you only from a few photos is full of possibility for error. I don't doubt that Jeremy has it right, but I can't agree, as I don't know what other species might be similar. A web search can help, but how do I know that there are not other similar species...ditto from a general insect guide.

Jeremy is gradually compiling a very useful resource, though, with his excellent sequences of field/scope pictures of poorly known species.

Ian
_________________

My Flickr photos...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/52163027@N02/

dejayM's picture

a punt

That's good and sound advice (from you both) and I agree, of course.
The issue for me and perhaps for iSpot in general, is that if we apply top level caution (and there is already quite a bit), many posts would go without agreements and that might even make the site falter.
We all HAVE to accept that making an absolutely certain ID from photos, even with good descriptions, is fraught. I have just, for the sake of it, trawled through a few very recent moths, fungi and, even, birds where caution ought to be fiercely applied and isn't! And also it is quite noticable that a HUGE number of posts pass without any agreement or comment, which is a bit of a shame and quite disillusioning for posters (I find).

You have both been posting for quite a while (you specially Ian) and will have come to realise that posts without agreement or comment are of little value, except perhaps as a vent for personal expertise or photoskill - those are not what iSpot is for..
I consider that if the author is five icon, "I'm as sure as I can be." (I wish the word was CERTAIN not sure) and that web-evidence is as dense as it is in this case, then it deserves an agreement.
I have agreed to many 'marginal' posts (take http://www.ispot.org.uk/node/336221 ) in my short time here, with the view to returning to them, hoping for more compelling evidence or a longer, informative, comment trail, or perhaps even a response; I have removed a few agreements in that short time. Being able to remove an agreement is incredibly comforting!

A key, you mention Ian, is here http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qYGeSP-q0FYC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=Lind... but the crucial Page 249 is not previewed (I won't be able to afford the book!) I did note that the subject is VERY rare in UK (or under-recorded - 14 UK records). Jeremy's compiled evidence (comprising three posts) is compelling and is backed by all the resourse I can locate. That the precise length of hairs on one femur, or perhaps a vein misplaced on a wing might be the case, is impossible for me to tell - that is for Jeremy, who is an expert (though he won't like the word).

That is long and all looks defensive, now I see it in print but it's NOT meant to be.
So there you have it, a punt, some encouragement (as if its needed!) and an even longer comment trail.

I REALLY appreciated your (Jeremy's) Agreement and Comment here http://www.ispot.org.uk/node/370684 - I wonder what made you agree, was it good pictures and evidence?
ðerek

jeremyr's picture

edits and expertise

I found a better focused image of the foot Derek, which I've added - I edit all the time and generally ignore that section of 'Changes'. (In fact I did about 7 or 8 edits before I was happy with it - there'll be more to come as I select any useful specimen photos)

I am very much a beginner, having identified my first ever fly in may last year, and that by copying someone else and guessing. I suppose I can see why you'd get an impression of expertise when someone identifies something a bit obscure with a degree of confidence, but the proper experts carry a big yellow badge for good reason. It's true that without expert verification iSpot can seem a bit vast and vulgar, and I don't think it's really perceived as an archive, but there are specialist sites available which are very good, and one can always add a comment/link that it's been identified elsewhere. Or my new personal favourite of just taking specimens to the Natural History Museum and meeting forum experts in person. Of course we all regard Ian as an expert which he'd deny, though you could probably corner him with 'having some expertise'. But let's not get into ispot's crude reputation system.

Regarding your seaside post, well, you've answered your question. I was never going to resist something with a name like that, and your exposition was much appreciated

(I got the Flat-footed book new for £42 on amazon, from 'other sellers' on the main page - double that elsewhere)

Jeremy

.............................
latest pics and diptera videos

jeremyr's picture

host

Look on Agaricus now for lots of females. About 20 or so on this small patch, running noticeably more slowly than usual over the mushroom's surface, just walking in fact

As I knelt among them a marvellous large Xanthandrus hoverfly drifted six inches above the mushrooms as I watched dumbfounded, net in hand

.............................
latest pics and diptera videos